Category: Municipal Politics

Now they have done it. The lame brains on Toronto city council are actually discussing changing street names because of real or imagined transgressions in the past. All I know is that Peter Street in Toronto is a fine name for a street. I have no idea who it was named after and I don’t care. It’s a keeper.

But John Street is another matter. There have been some disreputable John’s over the years. I had a brother named John. It would probably be nice to honour him, though his first wife might disagree. She is a nice lady, check with her.

Some of my other brothers could be appropriate street names. George Street in Toronto was a fashionable address some hundred or so years ago. Since then, the downtown street has fallen into disrepute. Maybe the city fathers and mothers could find a nice street in Rosedale or Lawrence Park more befitting my late brother George. He was a great and much-loved guy but he would be embarrassed having St. George Street named for him.

Two more brothers, who live in the United States, already have nice Toronto streets bearing their names. I noticed in checking one of the streets, that a house there was for sale for two-and-a-half million. That is not much considering today’s prices but much more than in the Wellesley and Sherbourne area where we lived as kids.

Maybe Toronto should solve the whole stupid naming business by numbering the streets. That way, north-south streets could have the even numbers, east-west streets would have the odd numbers and roads that curved or ran diagonally could be named crescents or avenues and could be named after former mayors and councillors. That way everyone would be happy except for some people on avenues.

I remember when the city confiscated homes and ran Dundas Street East through, for the people out at the Beach. The new Dundas replaced some of the old street names in Toronto’s east end and a few vocal locals were mad about the change. They thought most people considered Dundas a sleazy street in the downtown area of the city. I thought they were bigoted. Dundas Street, at that time, had the best Chinese restaurants in the city, where the street ran through Chinatown.

-30-

Copyright 2021 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to:

[email protected]

It is always good to hear from loyal readers. And from some readers who enjoy arguing. One of the frequent arguments is over different types of voting. In more than 4,000 commentaries posted in Babel-on-the-Bay over the past ten years, I get the most comments about this aspect of our Canadian politics. The archived Democracy Papers on voting systems, from 2007, still draw daily interest from countries around the world.

One of my regular readers is true to his home town of London, Ontario. He wrote the other day to tell me, once again, how well preferential voting works for that city.

As much as I like and admire Ontario’s London and have visited the city many times on business, political activities and to see friends, I hardly think the city has had enough experience with preferential voting.

Let me explain a situation where preferential voting at the municipal level would have been a disaster. This is real: We had a situation in the mayoralty race in a city of similar size to London. The candidates included the incumbent mayor, a recently defeated member of the legislature, a previous, likeable mayor, two councillors hoping for a crack at the mayoralty and three other candidates in the ‘also ran’ category. The reality in that race was that nobody had much chance of getting 50 per cent of the vote.

The danger under preferential voting was that the candidate with the most second choice votes would be the winner.

The candidate I was helping was one of the councillors. He lacked the experience of the other four serious contenders. His campaign chair asked me to run the ground game for him. This involved analyzing areas of high turn-out to send the candidate to canvas, selecting polls for canvassers and for literature drops and then recording results for election day action, as well as analyzing the reports.

After a hot summer of canvassing, I knew my candidate would win handily under first-past-the-post rules. He did with 39 per cent of the vote.

But under preferential voting, my candidate might have lost. The former, likeable, mayor would have gathered most of the second-choice votes. If he had run a stronger campaign, under preferential voting, he would have been more of a threat to my candidate.

-30-

Copyright 2021 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]

You never know which one is your last campaign. You always look forward to your next until reality says your last was your last. I can no longer climb the front steps of homes they build today. Without a safety railing, steps spell danger.

But without the ability to test what people are saying at their doors, you have no feeling for the campaign. Without listening to the why of peoples’ votes, you can never really forecast the outcome.

I remember in my last campaign, about a week before voting day and the only people in the office were the candidate, the campaign manager and myself. I was finishing entering some ground game results and the candidate and the campaign manager were discussing the opponents’ possible strategies on election day.

It was no surprise when the campaign chair asked me to run the ground game instead of asking me to be campaign manager. I was new to the city at the time and directing the ground game and teaching volunteers taught me a great deal about the city.

I realized that despite what the campaign manager was spending on polling, neither of them admitted that we were assured of a substantial win.

The mayoralty race had eight candidates. The incumbent was running but not putting up any effort. Two were conservative, one a previous mayor and another a previous member of the provincial legislature. Two candidates were nominal liberals, our guy and another sitting councilor. There were another three candidates in the category of ‘also-rans.’

Our guy was coming in first with about 40 per cent of the mayoralty vote. Second place was the former MPP because of his name recognition. I told them how the other candidates would do and even included the three ‘also-rans’ who might collectively get three per cent of the votes.

The campaign manager had his polls to support his view but in challenging my figures he made the mistake of ridiculing my figures for the three ‘also-rans.’ Since the three of us would never bet on our own race, it was safe to bet on those candidates. I made a ten-dollar bet with the campaign manager that these candidates would not get three per cent of the mayoralty vote.

It was mean of me to point it out to our team at the victory party, but the campaign manager had to pay on his foolish bet.

-30-

Copyright 2020 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]

Toronto City Council needs to take a very hard look at ranked ballot voting. It is no panacea. It is a solution for a problem that does not exist. It is a way to choose the least controversial of multiple candidates. And why would you want to do that?

Or maybe people are just tired of the same-old first-past-the-post voting.

To be positive, this system of voting seems to encourage the least likely candidates. It has been used in political parties recently and judging by results there, it has disappointed more people than it has pleased. And why you would want to disappoint the voters is a good question?

We might also consider that ranked balloting is preferred by more candidates because it encourages more of them to run for office. Judging by experience with this system of voting, we know that it tends to sort through the voting process to produce the least controversial result.

The one thing you can count on is that the more candidates in the race for the position, the less likely that you will get the most preferred candidate. The simple reason is that if nobody gets a majority of votes, the choice falls to the second, third, fourth or fifth most favourite—as chosen by the candidates dropped from the race. It becomes a numbers game and you might as well just toss a coin.

The city was authorized to allow ranked balloting back in 2013. In typical Toronto council fashion, the idea was dropped for 2015. It was revived again for 2022 (since the city is on a four-year voting cycle now, instead of two-year).

Mind you, if the city cannot find a supplier that can count ranked ballots for 2026—and carry out all the other requirements for ranked voting that the province requires—then we can wait for 2030. And whether people come to their senses by then, is the responsibility of an entirely new generation.

-30-

Copyright 2020 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]

As an undeniable Torontonian, I have always had a special place for the Toronto Star. Sure, I have worked for the Globe and Mail, written for the long-dead Toronto Telegram but my oracle was the Star. As Canada’s Numero Uno daily newspaper, it has been my lynch pin with my country and my principles. The Star ran a eulogy for the Atkinson Principles at the beginning of August in the form of a full-page advertisement for the paper.

With the headline: Different times. It also went on to try to embrace “Enduring truths.” These are truths that the owners of the Toronto Star for the past 50 years have now abandoned. They are also my truths:

1. A strong, united and independent Canada. (We need to keep working on that one.)
2. Social Justice. (An ongoing battle.)
3. Individual and civil liberties. (For all.)
4. Community and civic engagement. (And always check both sides of arguments.)
5. The rights of working people. (Make that all people.)
6. The necessary role of government. (Not too big and not too small, it has to be just right.)

But will the new owners respect these more than a century-old truths? Why would they? These people are in the money game. They are players, not journalists. They are gambling on the potential for profit from a precious commodity, information. And information is only as good as its source.

I feel the five families who rescued Joe Atkinson’s legacy over 50 years ago have let us down. They have ended their struggle to keep the legacy alive. Their intent was honourable but, in the end, they have failed us.

We can look at what Paul Godfrey and his American friends have done to PostMedia for their own ends and wonder how long the new owners of the Star will try to work within the Atkinson legacy.

-30-

Copyright 2020 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]

Why have so many people from the sub-continent immigrated to Canada? What attracted them to this country? These people are welcome. This question is raised because of a really confused op-ed in the Toronto Star last week. It was identified as being written by a gentleman who emigrated from India and became a Canadian citizen. He was lauding lawlessness.

What the hell was the Star editor thinking who allowed this garbage in Canada’s largest newspaper? Why would the headline writer not balk at saying: “Protesters are indeed justified in tarnishing colonial statues.”? There is no realistic justification for lawlessness in Canada.

And murder and lawlessness were never in the code of India’s Mahatma, whom the entire world honours. And yet, to this day, India is beset by religious intolerance and mistreatment of minorities. And the writer thinks murder and mayhem are the answer?

Not in Canada, thank you.

When a rabble such as the Toronto people calling themselves Black Lives Matter break the law, their leaders should be arrested. They were defacing public property. They were dishonouring Canada by splashing paint on a statue of John A. Macdonald. They were being destructive by trying to paint statues from the past of Edward VII and Egerton Ryerson.

They should remember the words of William Shakespeare: “The evil men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.”

The writer in the Star lauds the decision of the Indian government to change the name of a square in the ancient city of Calcutta to honour some murderers. We are told that this gentleman writer is also a student and an educator. He seems to have a lot left to learn. He advocates renaming Dundas Square in Toronto to honour the three Black Lives Matter activists with their silly paint. That will be a damn frosty Friday in July!

-30-

Copyright 2020 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]