The cynics said it wouldn't happen. It was one campaign promise that the Coalition of Progressive Electors would break. After all, COPE did quite well out of the at-large system in Vancouver's civic election last November, why would they want to get rid of that system?
But they're doing it. Today, Vancouver City Council passed a motion to establish an electoral reform commision to "change the method of local elections from at large to neighbourhood constituencies under section 138 of the Vancouver Charter, in time for the next general civic election" (emphasis added). The motion also establishes a Commission on Neighbourhood Constituencies and Local Democracy to investigate other measures to improve civic democracy and receive input from the public about how best to improve local democracy. One highlight: "The boundaries of the Neighbourhood Constituencies should be designed to ensure as much as possible that each of the diverse components of our City sees itself represented on City Council and the Parks Board" (emphasis added).
It'll be interesting to see how "diverse components" is interpreted. Does that mean strictly communities (it would be great if the Downtown East Side got its own councillor and parks board representative. Or does it also mean ethnic, gender, age, income diversity? If so, there's a potential for some really radical innovations here. Vancouver politics could get quite exciting over the next few years.
Vancouver has had an at-large system for years. And until recently that system benefitted the affluent neighbourhoods of the west side. They were the ones who had the financial and other resources to mount city-wide campaigns. They were the ones who would turn out in disproportionate numbers to vote, knowing that their voices would be heard at City Hall. In contrast, the East Side, and especially the Downtown East Side, tended not to vote. The result was years of domination by the ironically named "Non-Partisan Association", which tended to favour development, automobile traffic, and minimal social services. Through a combination of various circumstances (a popular mayoralty candidate and a cohesive platform for COPE; complacency, fatigue and nasty infighting on the part of the NPA, and a sense among the citizenry that it was time for a change), COPE swept the board last time around, electing every candidate that they ran. One of their promises was to introduce electoral reform, including, perhaps, a ward system to make local government more responsive to the people.
One of the reasons party politics have thrived in Vancouver is because of the at-large system. You need a strong, well-funded organization to run a city-wide campaign. Independents don't stand much of a chance, so people interested in civic politics would naturally gravitate towards one of the major parties - in recent years, COPE and the NPA. With a ward system, independents have a better chance - someone with popular support in a particular community has a chance of winning an election, without having to accommodate her or his views to that of one of the major parties.
Ward systems do have their problems - they can strengthen the role of parochial politics, pitting neighbourhoods against each other, but on balance, I believe they're better for local democracy. At least it'll ensure that less affluent neighbourhoods, such as the Downtown East Side, Fairview Slopes, Marpole, etc., will have a voice. It'll be interesting to see how the boundaries are drawn.
Note that the two remaining NPA councillors, Sam Sullivan and Peter Ladner, voted against the motion.
It's going to be interesting.
Posted by wetcoast at July 29, 2003 02:34 PM