The core problem with the caucusing rule is that politics is political. It’s rooted in contrast and conflict. Our partisan system in Vancouver accommodates this, but the code of conduct doesn’t.
The core problem with the caucusing rule is that politics is political. It’s rooted in contrast and conflict. Our partisan system in Vancouver accommodates this, but the code of conduct doesn’t.
I think there are policy upsides to the party system too. With independent-only systems (like back home in ON) you get the worst of both worlds - councillors are quietly partisan but can’t run on platforms and claim democratic legitimacy for their ideas and agendas
I think there’s a certain community scale issue at work as well. Like the party system works better in Vancouver than it would in less promenent municipalities because Vancouver generates so much more attention
i think that's a fair point. when you can get across the line with 5,000 votes you don't need a political machine to back you to win. if you need 50,000 votes, different story
with all of that said... i think there might be advantages to parties in smaller communities. unified fundraising means you can absolutely dominate the air war in a cheap media market.
It just seems to me (though I have never investigated this thoroughly) that smaller communities with partisan elections seem to have more hegemonic political coalitions.
They can be pretty hegemonic even in larger munis (see Surrey until recently, Burnaby). I think Vancouver is spared that by making it harder to use all your votes
It’s not a perfect 1:1 but Toronto’s left-mushy middle-right roughly corresponds to NDP-LPC-CPC. I think Toronto’s politics would be healthier if those factions were literally on the ballot
Parliamentary government did not originally include political parties as an institution and was hostile to them. Alberta only just recently amended its Municipal Act to allow political parties at that level.
Municipal govt, a creature of statute, is very different from the federal and provincial levels of govt, including the conduct of public hearings *before* making certain decisions.
yeah, and what i'm saying is that i don't think it should be that way. municipalities may have provincial acts as their 'constitutions' but that doesn't change the reality of politics or electioneering.
there's not really an excuse for ABC openly flouting the law now that they've been called out by the IC but that shouldn't stop us from observing that the system is not set up to succeed.
(I'll also point out that one of the outputs of this ideology of public participation is the heckler's veto, which is a big reason for our housing crisis...)
A big problem in modern governance is provincial governments downloading responsibilities to municipalities. There might not be a political way to pave a street (I don't necessarily agree) but there's absolutely a political way to run a shelter system or plan out land use.
In ON the Mayor gets his caucus anyways.