Ford's attack on Toronto is good news

[shappy]

I think quite a few people are missing the point.

Originally Posted by acottawa

To me it reads like the judgement for a civil case where a candidate sought damages for money spent on signs or brochures (which to me would be the appropriate venue for these complaints). The judge I think does a poor job of linking this inconvenience caused to candidates (which I think is clearly the case) and his belief that changing the council size is unnecessary (which is certainly a valid opinion to have) and the infringement of section 2 of the charter.

The process of forming a new Municipal government was already underway. It boggles my mind how people can brush this off as just an inconvenience rather than a blatant infringement of a fundamental democratic right.

Originally Posted by lio45

I'm not kidding - that's me genuinely trying to apply those new standards more broadly. Are you saying you disagree...? I mean, do you side with the people who stole my municipal ward from me in 2017? If so, go ahead and say it!

Ugh... was it stolen from you while an election was underway? No? Then that's not the same thing at all.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by shappy

I think quite a few people are missing the point.


The process of forming a new Municipal government was already underway. It boggles my mind how people can brush this off as just an inconvenience rather than a blatant infringement of a fundamental democratic right.

That isn't how the constitution works. The charter lists a very specific set of rights. The section of the charter the judge used to justify overturning the law does not link logically to his (or your) concerns about the law. Something can be bad public policy, or unfair, or mean-spirited and still be constitutional.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/legal-...sion-1.4087964

[vid]

Originally Posted by shappy

I think quite a few people are missing the point.


The process of forming a new Municipal government was already underway. It boggles my mind how people can brush this off as just an inconvenience rather than a blatant infringement of a fundamental democratic right.

Ugh... was it stolen from you while an election was underway? No? Then that's not the same thing at all.

In Canada it is legal to interfere with an election in-progress.

So our argument doesn't count. I've long argued that we're not as democratic as we like to boast we are, and this is just more evidence of that. As acottawa points out above, we don't have those fundamental democratic rights.

I hope they sit back and shut up when Trudeau starts using s. 33 to ram carbon taxes, immigrants and preferential balloting down their throats in 2020. Not that he'd do that (too much integrity! ) but obviously, he would be allowed to.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by vid

In Canada it is legal to interfere with an election in-progress.

It has to be, otherwise we'd be creating the Supreme Municipal Loophole - all that municipalities have to do is extend their precampaign periods to a few years and bam, provincial governments can't interfere with their creatures anymore.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by shappy

Ugh... was it stolen from you while an election was underway? No? Then that's not the same thing at all.

The election isn't underway, it will only be taking place late October.

[vid]

Originally Posted by lio45

It has to be, otherwise we'd be creating the Supreme Municipal Loophole - all that municipalities have to do is extend their precampaign periods to a few years and bam, provincial governments can't interfere with their creatures anymore.

First off, respond to this.

Second, the provincial government, not municipalities, set the election period as May 1 to October 22. Municipalities didn't do that—they literally can't, nor am I arguing that they should.

Election laws should not be changed during a nomination or campaign period of an election cycle, and if they are, they should not come into effect until the following election cycle, whether it is months or years away.

[vid]

Originally Posted by lio45

The election isn't underway, it will only be taking place late October.

Then what the fuck are our city clerks doing, if not holding an election?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by shappy

The process of forming a new Municipal government was already underway. It boggles my mind how people can brush this off as just an inconvenience rather than a blatant infringement of a fundamental democratic right.

In our systems, as soon as one election is over people start to prepare for the next one. We're always in a permanent state of "the process of forming the next government is ongoing". The original DoFo decision timeframe left a few months of buffer to make sure the 25-ward version was ready in time for the Oct 22 election, it's reasonably democratic.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by vid

Second, the provincial government, not municipalities, set the election period as May 1 to October 22.

Sure, but there was a change in the aforementioned provincial government in the meantime. The government that set such an abnormally long election period is gone now, and the new government is making it shorter. (If a provincial government can set a period, which you admit, then obviously another provincial government can set a different period.)

[vid]

Originally Posted by lio45

In our systems, as soon as one election is over people start to prepare for the next one. We're always in a permanent state of "the process of forming the next government is ongoing". The original DoFo decision timeframe left a few months of buffer to make sure the 25-ward version was ready in time for the Oct 22 election, it's reasonably democratic.

There is a clearly defined, by law, period of time during which an election is considered underway in Ontario municipalities. It is, according to law, May 1st (opening of nominations) to October 22nd (voting day).

That's it. I don't know where you're getting "permanent state of election" from but put it the fuck back!

And respond to this.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by vid

Then why didn't he do it on July 11th, the first day of the sitting of the legislature? Legislators sat ten times before he announced the policy. He could have announced the policy during the election, which started before nominations opened (the municipal election had yet to begin at that point) and Toronto could have prepared for the eventuality of what he would do—it isn't like they wouldn't know what the ward boundaries would be; they already existed at two levels of government. He could have mentioned them during one of the three debates. He didn't. He could have mentioned this idea when someone directly asked him if he was considering it in mid-May, just days after nominations opened, and he instead said he wouldn't do it.

If you're going to do this, then you want to do this as soon as possible to make sure everyone affected has as much time to prepare as possible. Why didn't he do this as soon as possible? If reducing the size of Toronto's city council is so important, why did he wait until the last possible minute to propose it? We could have avoided all of this if Ford had simply used due diligence and campaigned on and properly prioritized this policy.

Seems straightforward enough... you'd have expected them to do everything on the first sitting day of the legislature?!? What world do you live in? There's lots of things for new governments to address. This was pretty damn quick, in the grand scheme of things. From the timing, it seems obvious (to me, at least) that as soon as they did make up their mind on what to do, they immediately started to do it, which is of course the correct way to do that, because it gives Toronto more time to organize and adapt.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by vid

And respond to this.

Yeah yeah, I can't do everything at the same time

[vid]

Originally Posted by lio45

Sure, but there was a change in the aforementioned provincial government in the meantime.

So? That shouldn't have an impact to the integrity of an election.

Originally Posted by lio45

The government that set such an abnormally long election period is gone now

The election period used to be January 1 to early November with new councils sworn in-in December. The government that left shortened the election period to May 1 to late October with new councils sworn-in in November. This government has not impacted the length of the election or the length of terms, it has impacted the composition of an ongoing election in one city, where the premier previously served as councillor.

Originally Posted by lio45

and the new government is making it shorter.

No it isn't. They're making it longer. They're extending the nomination period to late September and eliminating all but one of the voting days.

Originally Posted by lio45

(If a provincial government can set a period, which you admit, then obviously another provincial government can set a different period.)

But it shouldn't change the composition of an election process that is already underway.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by vid

There is a clearly defined, by law, period of time during which an election is considered underway in Ontario municipalities. It is, according to law, May 1st (opening of nominations) to October 22nd (voting day).

"by law"... and who makes those laws? Oh, that's right, the MPs in Queen's Park. There's no reason an election should be deemed "underway" for nearly six consecutive months. This just means a superlong pre-campaign period... which can be truncated without too much damage to democracy, obviously.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

You've missed the point of the decision.

How could you tell?

[vid]

Originally Posted by lio45

Seems straightforward enough... you'd have expected them to do everything on the first sitting day of the legislature?!? What world do you live in? There's lots of things for new governments to address. This was pretty damn quick, in the grand scheme of things. From the timing, it seems obvious (to me, at least) that as soon as they did make up their mind on what to do, they immediately started to do it, which is of course the correct way to do that, because it gives Toronto more time to organize and adapt.

Toronto would have had an entire election cycle to organize and adapt if the PCs had campaigned on this policy during their election, which started before the municipal election did.

They didn't do that. They forfeited their chance to legitimately change the composition of the 2018 Toronto election by waiting until it was nearly half way through to even announce they wanted to change it.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by vid

So? That shouldn't have an impact to the integrity of an election.

Depends. If for example we elect a government who wants to abolish school boards (an idea that's been discussed quite a bit lately), they may well proceed to do that even if the next school election is in "only" a few months, if the alternative is to spend their entire mandate without doing what they feel is the right thing to do.

[vid]

Originally Posted by lio45

"by law"... and who makes those laws? Oh, that's right, the MPs in Queen's Park. There's no reason an election should be deemed "underway" for nearly six consecutive months. This just means a superlong pre-campaign period... which can be truncated without too much damage to democracy, obviously.

THIS BILL DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO CHANGE THE LENGTH OF THE ELECTION. Even with the passage of this bill the election is still considered to have begun on May 1.

If the length of the election is a problem, why didn't he include a change in the length of elections in the bill?

https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-b...sion-1/bill-31

New nomination day

(3) Despite section 31, nomination day is the day that is two days after the day the Efficient Local Government Act, 2018 receives Royal Assent and the following rules apply:

1. Nomination day as set out in section 31 is deemed not to have occurred.

2. The period for filing a nomination is deemed to have run continuously from May 1, 2018 until the day that is two days after the day the Efficient Local Government Act, 2018 receives Royal Assent.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by vid

They forfeited their chance to legitimately change the composition of the 2018 Toronto election by waiting until it was nearly half way through to even announce they wanted to change it.

Sure, if you add "... according to vid's standards" to that statement.

If we instead go by the constitution, then they can perfectly well do what they just did, even if one guy in Thunder Bay (as well as a bunch of others, no doubt) finds it not legitimate enough for his taste.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by vid

THIS BILL DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO CHANGE THE LENGTH OF THE ELECTION. Even with the passage of this bill the election is still considered to have begun on May 1.

If the length of the election is a problem, why didn't he include a change in the length of elections in the bill?

You might want to re-read what I'm saying. The length of the election is not a problem; the length of the election is reeeaaallly long, which means that even changes made "right in the middle of it" are reasonably democratic in the sense that there are still months left before e-day.