Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
I've said this before already. No ward system removes the need for localized lobbying (in primitive terms: you vote for something in my ward and I will support a motion for something in yours). It also eliminates getting elected based on a single item platform. We are electing municipal government that will run the whole city. Ward system allows amoeba-like politicians like Linda Fox-Mellway, Craig Burrows, Barry Erskine and Patti Grier to get elected and re-elected many times despite their complete luck of issue comprehension. I can go on and on.
The argument of difficulties for candidates from "not too trendy areas" expressed by someone earlier is invalid. In reality, any large group - local or ethnic - can rally behind a candidate, trendy or not, if they really want him or her elected just like they would under the ward system.
|
No ward means that a candidate forum has to hear from EVERY candidate, that makes for a very long candidates forum when 45 people are running for 15 seats on council.
Through my day job, I experience the no ward setups in Cochrane, Chestermere and Airdrie. Especially in Airdrie, I have seen people slip through the cracks because the aldermen don't step forward readily to get involved in some issues.
I think the ward system is better for representing the resident.
With a ward system, someone is ultimately expected to make a call regarding my concern. The issue may not be dealt at the municipal level but I get to say <insert name> helped us/ wouldn't help us and go to the next step if necessary. In a no ward system, no one from Council has to step forward to respond to an issue.