“I voted” sticker – Photo by Cave Canem

Next week promises to be a busy one at Council – between the regular session of Council on Tuesday and the various Council Committee meetings taking place on Thursday there is a full suite of public space related activities. These include:

• A motion (see below) on the possibility of on-line voting (Tues)
• A motion on calculating available density in the city (Tues)
• A report on expanding street food options (Thurs)
• A report on noise in the city and the efficacy of the noise bylaw (Thurs)
• Discussion on the VAG move (which we mentioned in our previous post) (Thurs)
• Two presentations – likely quite contentious – on building heights and view-related issues (Thurs)
• The draft Greenest City Implementation Plan (Thurs)

The first is particularly timely. Earlier this week a suite of contenders for the leadership of the BC liberals endorsed (some cautiously) the idea of on-line voting. And here’s a chance to consider it at the local level.

For those that have difficulty scheduling a trip to the neighbourhood voting box once every three or four years, this might make life easier. There’s a larger discussion to be had about civic engagement here – and, as much as we like technology, we can’t help wonder if this will do much to get at the core issues behind current voting levels. Then again, if it does a better job of getting residents engaged with the civic contest, that’s a positive outcome.

Either way, it’s an interesting motion and we’re be watching to see the sort of exchange that ensues.

Here’s the text of the motion, which was introduced by Councillor Andrea Reimer:

WHEREAS

1. Less than 35% of eligible voters in Vancouver cast ballots in the last two
civic elections;

2. Voter turnout is considered an important indicator of social cohesion
and vital to a healthy democracy;

3. Research conducted by Elections Canada on voter turn out in the last
federal election found that 57% of non-voters cited time pressures that
prevented them from getting to a voting place in person;

4. Elections Canada will be conducting an online voting pilot in the 2013
federal election;

5. Online voting can greatly improve accessibility by increasing the time
and place options available to voters to cast a ballot;

6. Online voting is used in more than three dozen Canadian municipalities ranging from 44 municipalities in Ontario, such as Markham, ON which piloted online voting in 2003, to Halifax, Nova Scotia which conducted successful pilots in a 2008 general election and 2009 by-election;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Clerk report to Council on the feasibility of conducting an online voting pilot in the 2011 municipal elections or, if 2011 is not feasible, what the earliest date for a pilot would be.

1. Our submission to the Task Force argued against the re-introduction of the corporate vote and we are very pleased that the Task Force agreed with our argument.
2. Our submission urged the Task Force to, in turn, urge the Province to address the matters of the declining rate of municipal voter turnout, stating that we believe that voter apathy is overcome only when citizens believe their vote matters. We deeply regret that the Task Force did not address this matter. We will need to find new ways to remind government of the need to address this.

On another note, we wonder how the Task Force recommendation to change the length of ‘term of office’ to four years might impact the issue of voter turnout. The Task Force didn’t indicate why four years is better than three; rather, the rationale seems to be to have municipal elections conform to provincial and federal practice, and the practice in other provinces.

The idea raises some interesting questions. Will this longer period prompt voters to feel even less engaged if they are called on to vote less frequently? Will elected officials assume that voters will forget promises made four years prior? In other words, how will four-year terms better serve citizens?

In October of last year, the Taskforce was charged with the reviewing issues relating to local government elections and has been gathering input with a view to recommending legislative changes “to improve the electoral process for local government elections across B.C.”

Although there are likely a number of issues that such a review could have focussed on (voter apathy and declining participation in elections being chief among these), the Taskforce was given the task of focusing on a more restricted set of issues first and foremost. These are:

• Campaign finance, including contribution/spending disclosure and limits, and tax credits
• Enforcement processes and outcomes
• Role of the chief electoral officer (B.C.) in local government elections
• Election cycle (term of office)
• Corporate vote
• Other agreed upon matters, (e.g. matters raised in UBCM resolutions such as eligibility of local government volunteers to be candidates)

It was the fifth of these items that promted our letter to the Taskforce. In particular, because there has been a concerted effort on the part of certain business associations to push for an extension of voting rights to for-profit corporations. Under such a change, someone who owned a business in the City of Vancouver would get to vote twice… something that we feel us fundamentally counter to the spirit of democracy and the notion of “one person, one vote.”

Beyond the broader principles of the issue, there are also substantial practical limitations to any rationale in support of the corporate vote.

The text of our letter is excerpted here:

…Our commitment to such community engagement, and our recognition that the per capita rate of municipal voter turnout in Vancouver has declined since 1990 (source: City of Vancouver letter to Task Force, January 27, 2010) prompts us to respond negatively to the proposed reinstatement of the corporate vote in municipal elections in B.C.

Our response is based on several factors:

1. 1. In their argument in favour of the corporate vote, organizations such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the BC Chamber of Commerce suggest that the corporations’ property tax load warrants the right to vote, what they describe as “fairness in representation”. It is our experience, however, that the right to vote has an impact on who is elected but has no obvious influence on how those elected will govern. In other words, reinstating the corporate vote does not appear to be a solution to the problem that business and advocacy organizations have identified.
2. Further, the conclusions stated in the Corporate Vote Discussion Paper on the impact of the corporate vote prior to 1996 indicate that “the effectiveness of the vote on addressing business concerns were arguably minimal.” and “The corporate vote as it formerly existed did not appear to directly impact tax rates on business.” (source: Government Voting Task Force Corporate Vote Discussion Paper, p. 7)
3. There are many municipal services that are of benefit to both residents and businesses (e.g., roads and sidewalks, sewage systems, waterworks, recycling, fire and rescue services, etc.). There are other municipal services that are of compelling need to residents and of little or no interest to corporations (e.g., libraries and parks, animal control, etc.). It is easy to foresee the possibility of residents’ perceiving their needs being set aside because of a perceived greater impact of corporate voters.
4. The right to vote is no longer based on paying taxes but rather, on ones status as an individual citizen. This principle needs to remain intact and unaltered.
5. We believe that it is undemocratic for a voter to have more than one vote. The right to vote should remain an individual right. The (re-)creation of a corporate voting mechanism would negatively compromise this.
6. It is widely recognized that the per capita rate of municipal voter turnout has declined since 1990, and that voter apathy is overcome only when citizens believe their vote matters. Reintroduction of the corporate vote could have the opposite effect, with voters feeling further disenfranchised. This may, in turn, create a greater reduction of public confidence in the electoral system. Rather than focus on the corporate vote, we respectfully suggest that the taskforce recommend to the Province that the important issue at hand is the need to reverse the trend of voter apathy.
7. Finally, it is apparent in Vancouver that the size of Council hasn’t changed even though the population continues to grow. This suggests two areas that we hope you will recommend that the Province explore: a) the size of Councils, and b) expanding the number of voters by instituting non-citizen resident voting rights.

In light of these seven points, we strongly urge you to recommend against the re-introduction of the corporate vote.

:: For more information on the VPSN’s position on this issue, please contact Lyndsay Poaps, Coordinator of our Democratic Spaces Working Group – lyndsay [at] vancouverpublicspace.ca.

It may be that there was a big press announcement last fall about Premier Gordon Campbell’s having appointed a joint Task Force to make recommendations for legislative changes to “improve the electoral process for local government elections across B.C.”; if so, we missed it. Thankfully, a recent CBC radio interview of Bill Bennett, Minister of Community and Rural Development, brought it to my attention. We believe this should be of interest to anyone concerned about who is involved in local decision-making.

Bill Bennett co-chairs the six-member Task Force with Harry Nyce, president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) and includes two other UBCM executive members and two provincial MLAs.

Topics under review by the Task Force are:

• Campaign finance, including contribution/spending disclosure and limits, and tax credits
• Enforcement processes and outcomes
• Role of the chief electoral officer (B.C.) in local government elections
• Election cycle (term of office)
• Corporate vote
• Other agreed upon matters, (e.g. matters raised in UBCM resolutions such as eligibility of local government volunteers to be candidates)

The issue that particularly concerns us is the “corporate vote”. This refers to the proposal that companies located in a B.C. municipality have the right to vote in that municipality’s local election. 

Prior to 1973, participation in local democracy in BC was generally more closely linked with property ownership and the payment of property taxes. E.g., people who owned homes had the vote; those who merely rented suites did not. And in many B.C. municipalities—although never in the City of Vancouver—corporations (including foreign-owned corporations) could vote in local elections. And there were an unrestricted number of votes – an individual could vote in relation to his or her residence and (via an agent) in relation to as many corporations as he or she owned, thus garnering more than one vote within a single municipality.

Various changes were made in 1973, 1976 and again, in 1993, when the corporate vote was discontinued.

Since the removal of the corporate vote, some business advocacy organizations have called for its restoration. For example, the BC Chamber of Commerce regularly recommends reinstatement of the corporate vote in its annual resolutions book.

The argument given is that, since companies pay significant amounts of property taxes to the municipality, they should have the right to vote, that local elected officials should be accountable to business taxpayers through the electoral system. We would argue that paying these taxes is simply one of the costs of doing business—and that the costs are passed along to the consumer, in any case.

More details, both for and against a corporate vote can be found in a discussion paper on this and the other topics under review, on the Task Force website.

The Task Force will accept written comments submitted by April15, 2010.

The Task Force website is at http://www.localelectionstaskforce.gov.bc.ca/