With the municipal election only nine days away, and the advance polls already open, it's as good a time as any to reflect on the peculiarities of our city's electoral system, a system that is considerably different from those used in provincial and federal elections. In fact, Vancouver stands out as the biggest among only a handful of Canadian municipalities that employ the at-large voting system in civic elections.
This explainer will focus on Vancouver’s electoral system and the role it plays in choosing the city’s ‘legislative branch’, which is composed of 10 city councillors and one mayor, all of whom are elected to three-year terms. The at-large system is also used to elect nine school trustees and seven park board commissioners, but in the interest of simplicity, we’ll focus primarily on the legislative branch.
How it works
In the at-large system, each person votes for all 10 city council positions. Conversely, in a ward system, the municipality is broken up into geographical areas and voters cast ballots for only one council candidate who represents the riding in which they live.
Vancouver’s at-large system necessitates block voting, which might also be described as first 10 past the post. Each voter casts 10 votes for council candidates from a list of dozens. The 10 candidates with the highest number of votes are declared the winners.
From 1886 to 1936 Vancouver was riding the ward bandwagon. Since then, however, the city has used the at-large system, although not without opposition. The last referendum on the city’s electoral system was held in 2004 where 54 per cent of voters elected to continue using the at-large voting formula. To better understand the current system we’ll take a look at salient arguments, both in support of, and against, the at-large electoral system.
The pros
City councillors are better suited to address city-wide issues. Supporters argue that since each council position is voted on by the entire city, the elected politicians are more likely to have the good of the entire city in mind. The theory is that in order to get elected, candidates would have to have views—and appeal—broader than one particular neighbourhood.
Voters have the right to approach (and complain) to any and all city councillors. Since each candidate is voted in by the entire city, they are responsible to the entire city. Friends of the at-large system say this gives each citizen 10 different politicians to whom they can direct their grievances to.
People can vote for multiple parties. With 10 council positions to fill, voters can mark their ballots with any number of political party combinations. People like choice.
Voters cannot be confined to one constituency or ward. Since many people live in one area but work in another, champions of the at-large system say that a ward system doesn’t represent the average person’s lifestyle. People are invested in areas and issues throughout the city, so non-geographic constituencies better represent citizen’s priorities.
It’s worked for 75 years, why change now? At-large supporters: “Enough said.”
The cons
At-large invites “slate voting”. Ward advocates argue that a person who supports a particular party is likely to fill the entire ballot with representatives from that party. A party could win the popular vote by the slimmest of margins (or not at all) and still control all 10 council seats; something that has happened in past Vancouver civic elections.
Independents are left out. The argument is often made that an at-large system leaves independent candidates, no matter how qualified, at a disadvantage because it is more costly to run city-wide campaigns. An independent that is well known in a particular neighbourhood would have a better shot at winning a council seat if they didn’t have to pay for expensive TV and newspaper ads, and instead could focus on running campaigns built on handing out brochures and door knocking.
The size of the ballot. There are 10 city council seats to fill and this year’s city council ballot includes 41 names. Vancouver also votes at large for nine school trustees and seven park board commissioners, each of which has 20 and 21 candidates to choose from respectively. Add those numbers to the 12 mayoral options and you’re looking at a one-day election ballot that has a whopping 94 names attached to it. With those numbers, a reoccurring knock against an at-large system is that no citizen could possibly know enough about each candidate to make a completely informed decision (and not all candidates have the same name recognition as Amy “Evil Genius” Fox and Dubgee). A ward system ballot would have closer to five names to choose from.
A lack of neighbourhood representation. Supporters of ward systems say each councillor should be elected by a community to represent the concerns and priorities of that particular neighbourhood. The argument is that this makes councillors more accountable, as they would be forced to build a relationship with their constituents and would be unable to hide behind a crowd of nine other representatives.
East vs. West. A major issue brought up during the 2004 voting system referendum was the division between the East Side of Vancouver and the West Side. Statistics indicate that there is a marked difference between income, immigrant population numbers, education levels and employment rates on the separate sides of the city. People argue a ward system would provide a more balanced vote to varying areas of the city. The info graphic below indicates voter division from the 2008 municipal election. The red represents neighbourhoods in which the NPA’s Peter Ladner won the popular vote, while the green indicates neighbourhoods where Gregor Robertson won the popular vote.
Vancouver’s at-large voting method is not the simplest of electoral systems, and it certainly comes with its share of imperfections. Some have suggested that those foibles have played a part in the low voter turnout the city has seen in the past. However, 50 percent of eligible voters cast ballots in 2002, so perhaps the blame should remain at the feet of the candidates. And who knows, the issues in this election cycle may be enough to increase voter participation to numbers that are more indicative of the degree that better reflects the stake we all have in city politics.
