Does Surrey's new mayor automatically assume the ex-mayor's role with TransLink? Can anyone enlighten me on that?

Hate to refer back to the Ron Erwinesque Working Man but he did refer yesterday to censorship.

Given the monumental budget item that the RAV line is, and my mentioning of it early in the Predictions thread, with no response following, could there be self-censorship ot work? As a Deltan, my interest is more than casual.

Delta is not directly served by Sky Train, yet I can expect a doubled TransLink tax to $163 on the average Delta home.

My take on the election night.

Holding power for the progressives in Vancouver was so important, it was much more important than party politics, for a party like the NPA to go from 2 seats to council control allot of mistakes had to happen
I blame it on 3 main mistakes.

1) Larry Campbell - COPE is a party of progressive voices that took years to build with allot of hard work involved, they went out and found Larry to run for them in 2002, Larry was not bigger than the party, but considered himself above the party. He was basically an actor more concerned with public image than party policy, his arrogance and vanity helped divide a strong party that took years to build. He lacks integrity and throws fits every time someone disagrees with him, for example when The Bus Riders Unions were protesting a fare increase he got angry and called them a bunch of losers. (excuse me Larry but this is a grass roots group from the east side that supports you) You would never hear Sam calling his core supporters losers, If you look at the demographics its almost 70% of young voters that support COPE. Larry basically did anything that made himself look good in the media and abandoned the party's core values, I think this is because he considered the success of the party only rode
on him, if he had integrity he would have stood behind the party values or he should not have run.

2) Unity, the NPA ran a complete unified slate , I am sure they disagreed on issues but did not let it show, they all stayed together and ran a strong team. What the hell is this Vision and COPE deal, don't say your together because your not You cannot pull funding from COPE like the labour movement did and run a separate party calling yourselves more pragmatic etc and have this behavior and still expect folks to vote COPE, this kind of behavior disenfranchises voters, just look at the numbers, 18% decrease in voter turnout, the entire party if you look at the map of support came out of the east side and young voters and the blue collar masses who were hoping for some change, not COPE light or vision, what a joke. Jim Green owes his life to COPE for lifting him of his knees(literally) Now Jimmy thought he would ride into city hall on Larry's shirt tails, sorry Jimmy but when you update your resume ask yourself why your core supporters did not come out and vote , think about the slots, The Rav line, Olympics, fare increases etc,

3) Maturity - There were bigger things to worry about more than ego, this was to important to lose, they should have kept
the party together and ran a full COPE slate, if COPE had funding they could have elected at least one more councilor keeping power, their should have been compromise on both sides, lack of maturity , why vote for a party that cannot even keep itself together for 3 yrs. You cannot offend your supporters on so many issues and expect them to come out and support you. Sorry this whole process has created massive voter apathy,

A good lesion for next time, don't Forget where you came from and why you owe support. The right was unified and even found a nice guy named James Green to run first on the ballot, ( I would love to see his finances and where his money came from) LOL, James Green taking 4200 votes is unheard off,

Good point skeptikool,

A notitable result was that any mayor voting for RAV has been turfed, Surry, North Van, Maple Ridge Coquitlam, It seems votes have punished anyone voting for RAV. I hope this will reshape translink
and get RAV redone.

The shift to the right overall in the municipal elections I care about is indeed refreshing.
The wacko Islitt in Victoria didn't get in.
The wacko Green in Vancouver didn't get in.
Jack Mar got in in Central Saanich did get in, thank God.
Perhaps the most enviromentally project ever planned in Canada, the Wal*Mart store in Vancouver will now be approved.
I am very happy with these results. I am sure everone agrees.

As David Beers states in his commentary on Phillip Owen " he was as boring as brown loafers until he caught the religion if European style harm reduction" and that got him a lot of attention. He past the harm reduction torch on to Larry Campbell and that is what primarily got him elected in the last election.
In this election both Sam Sullivan and Jim Green chanted the harm reduction mantra all the way to the polls and that is why Sam won, he got a majority of the eastside vote that Larry won last time, he won over the Chinese community as well.
It would have been a different outcome if Sam wouldn't have publicly stated he condones harm reduction and wants to legalize all drugs and regulate them, like it or not, harm reduction and legalization play a huge part in who gets elected in our city. The DTES has a way of getting out a lot of voters for the candiadate that makes the boldest statement about providing free drugs. Sam won the heart of the DTES when he said he will advocate for leaglization and free drugs for all.
Whether or not one agrees or disagrees the harm reduction mantra, it still has a big effect on who gets in at city hall.

actually Sullivan targeted the Asian community and got overwhelming support from them, voter apathy on the East side(voter turnout down 18%) gave the victory to Sam, If you see the 2002 #'s and where the support for COPE came from you will come to the conclusion that COPE core supporters feel abandoned and did not show up. Maybe Jim can be like an executive secretary for the new senator Larry. An immature arrogant divided party can never win, this election was to important for silly games that vision played, you don't like Larry we'll start a new party. Give me a break.

Peraps COPE can look inward and see that lunatic antics that came from their ranks over the last three years caused their defeat.

I doubt it, though.

COPE lost because the party was divided, you cannot cut up a party and expect to win. They won in 2002 on the values they had and the east end support . They lost because folks like Larry Campbell and Jim Green
tried to be more like you working man, folks that would never vote for them. In the process they pissed off everyone and broke up the party. The east end vote did not show up this time and the turnout dropped 18% giving the NPA a slim victory, COPE also lost because they lacked the maturity to mend bridges
and see the bigger picture. Why do you think the turnout dropped 18%, no wonder the media loves Larry , he did a masterful job of destroying a party that took years to build. Who are the big losers
now Larry, this is a good lesson for leaders who think they can walk away from their supporters
and still win.

Actually Larry won last time in a large part because of the east end harm reduction vote.
Although voting was down 18 percent this time from the east end it went mostly to Sam.
My point is that that vote could have been Jim Greens but Sam managed to get it for whatever reason.

Stuart, I am certainly not a big fan of Larry Campbell, but to be offering lessons on leadership to him at this date is a bit pathetic.

Larry's heading off to collect and enjoy Canada's top prize so I suspect most will see he did "walk away from his supporters and still win."

You would be much better pointing your ire at your COPE colleagues, some of whom have yet to learn that politics is a bit more than having to win every point, every time no matter how mundane.

Some one should explain to your friends that when you play party politics there are some things you try to battle over inside among friends rather than attempting to score a cheap point in a headline.

COPE got its headlines and the NPA got power.
Any chance those headlines will give COPE any clout in city hall? Will it get them a free coffee or even a bus ticket?

But then, I would imagine at least a couple of COPErs will no doubt offer, 'but it sure felt good at the time.'

Larry was a member of COPE, they all were. I was pointing out the shortfalls of the party and how they got to this point. I was pointing out the shortfalls of supporting a leader that abandons his supporters to protect his public
image , if you read my post carefully you will see I am very critical of COPE and vision, they lacked the maturity to hold the party together and sort out their issues, hence the term divided we fall. I am going out on a limb here but I would say the 18 % lost voter turnout is in protest of the betrayal of COPE's values, in 2002 they had a real
opportunity to make things happen but ended up spending their time infighting. Jim who owes his entire political career to COPE figured he could get away with betrayal and took his East end support for granted,

It is disappointing how little media coverage there has been, even in The Tyee, of school board races. This at a time when the future of public education is at stake. There was great coverage of education issues during the teacher job action - but very little before and since.

The provincial Liberals have some sort of plan in the works that will likely radically change the governance of public education. Yet there has been little investigation of this.

There was never a better time to shine the spot-light on the competing views of the roles of school boards, never a better time to shine the spot-light on the records of boards who articulated and defended public education.

It is about time Greens started to make moves at the city council level. Already there are hundreds of Greens elected at city level in the USA, now we are starting to see it here also.

The Green wave is coming....

"The Green wave is coming"

I think you have this article mixed up with the one on Victoria's sewage.

No, Jered, Surrey did not get nudged to the left; it got kicked to the right. And while voters in Surrey were craving change, they won't get it.

Certainly Dianne Watts is to be congratulated for her victory and commended for running a clean campaign. But I fear she'll be a lot like the federal Liberals who talk NDP during the campaign then run the country like Tories after the election.

Throughout the election Dianne Watts may as well have been reading from the Surrey Civic Coalition (SCC) message box: Moderate growth to allow services to keep up; address crime by getting to its sources; more consultation and openness on council. But, alas, she'll now govern the way the Surrey Electors Team (SET) always has: Develop at whatever cost and ignore the dissenting voices. Watts will have no choice.

While she is less of a bully, less arrogant, and a better listener than Doug McCallum, her leadership or what she wants for this city won’t matter. SET has an even stronger majority on council than it did, having elected six of the eight councilor positions.

We can expect more catastrophic land use decisions like Campbell Heights and Grandview Heights. We will still have traffic gridlock because growth will not slow and public transportation will not be adequately addressed. We will continue to ignore the intertwined issues of poverty and drug use and its resulting violence and property crime until the fall of 2008, when, once again, politicians of every stripe will call for more police officers.

Several independent candidates had good showings, most notably Rosemary Zelinka, who gathered more than 21,000 votes and finished fewer than 3,500 votes from election. In addition, Ted Allen, Jim King, Jim McMurtry, Bill Stillwell and Rick Hart all campaigned hard and finished in the 11,000 to 15,000 range. This is a bit of a mixed blessing for the electorate.

In the cases of Zelinka, Allen, McMurtry and Hart, their messages were not far removed from what SCC was saying. But for the second time in three years the SCC failed to get its message to enough voters to overcome voter apathy, despite running a larger campaign and a partial slate, leaving room on the ballot for voters to choose independents. The effect was SCC and the independents diluted each others’ votes for change and spread them among more candidates.

It’s a bit of a conundrum. On one hand, voters want candidates who think independently; on the other, it’s all but impossible for an independent to get elected. A ward system would help independents’ chances of being elected as well as ensuring representation from various parts of the city. But, again, electoral change won’t happen with a SET council. They’re happy with things just the way they are.

The only voters who should be happy are the ones who liked the way Surrey was growing into uncontrollable mega-sprawl but thought Doug McCallum needed to be punished. Those who voted for change will have to hold their breath for another three years.

Quit whining about "James Green" and the turnout. If one actually looks at the results of the last few elections it is clear that the 2002 results were due to dissatisfaction with the NPA and the popularity of Larry Campbell. COPE happened to be the beneficiary of this, but in typical fashion believed that the vote was in support of their ideology. When faced with a unified NPA and a split between practical and fantasy leftists the support for COPE evaporated.

The number of ballots cast was down from 2002, but only by slightly over 7000 ballots. Keeping in mind the fewer ballots cast in 05 vs 02, compare the numbers from those elections for Tim Louis and Fred Bass, two unrepentant ideologues: Mr. Bass lost 22000 votes while Mr. Louis lost 23000! Leaving aside the 7000 fewer ballots, the top vote getter on council from last election still lost 15000 votes! That looks like a pretty clear message from the voters that they aren't interested in what COPE was offering.

COPE is a party of middle class white people who believe that government knows best how to spend money. The split with Vision merely highlighted the fact that the more ideological COPE councilors are less interested in running a city than changing the world. Resolutions opposing war in Iraq and myriad other pet causes do nothing except waste council time.

Vision had my support until they decided that I should care about a City Councilor's personal views on abortion and gay marriage. If this was a Provincial or Federal election I would care about a candidate's position on those issues, but at the local level that is completely irrelevant to me: it has no bearing on council business. I would even vote for an idiot who believed the war in Iraq was a good idea if she supported the four pillars approach, better transit and lower property taxes. I still supported some Vision councilors, but I did not vote for Jim Green.

The BS about James Green makes the so called victims of confusion look like idiots: if you are confused by the name and didn't check the party affiliation you probably shouldn't be voting. In the 1988 Federal Election the Rhino Party ran a candidate in Vancouver Quadra named John Turner, against former PM John N. Turner of the Federal Liberal Party. The effect was negligible as it was not a close race, but the fact remains that it is as simple as checking the party affiliation of the candidate before you make your mark. Claims that this was an NPA funded attempt to nullify support for Jim Green are the rantings of paranoid socialists who just don't understand that the public at large does not believe having money is inherently evil.

What happened in Vancouver?
The simple answer is that left/centre coalition split, the right/centre coalition held, and the right won. The split in the left/centre coalition was exacerbated by the fact that it had a lot of emotional baggage going into the election.
There were obvious impacts from the split, and some not so obvious impacts, which will take time and work to analyze. While there was some joint fundraising, joint campaigning and coordination of e-day activities, it is apparent to those with lots of campaign and coalition experience that COPE and Vision didn’t run a joint campaign. At best there was some level of coordination and communication between the campaigns. So there was different messaging, different signs, and a departure from usual e-day activities. There was also a joint slate that certainly appears to have suffered from some not surprising slippage. Looking at the numbers for this and previous elections in Vancouver, the slippage appears to have been just enough to have cost the left the election. Ian has made some interesting comments based on the numbers, which are available at http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/election2005/finalresults.htm ). From my reading of the numbers, those who say that COPE Policies/decisions, like those dealing with Wal-Mart or the cities ethical purchasing polices, were soundly rejected by the voters, are wrong. Every single COPE candidate for council got significantly more votes and higher percentage of the vote than Sam Sullivan got in the 2002, 1999, or 1996 elections. And COPE school board and parks board candidates who didn’t get elected, also polled numbers that while just short of electing them this time would have easily elected them in other years. COPE supporters, are feeling rightfully bad about the seats lost, but should take some comfort from the total votes and the percentage of the popular vote that the COPE candidates received. For those who hoped to write COPE off, better check the numbers. Sure looks like a lot of support to me.

"if you are confused by the name and didn't check the party affiliation you probably shouldn't be voting...."

And yet, people use the civic elections to try and press for STV? You want confusion, imagine someone who makes a simple mistake like that try and figure out how votes are transferred under STV. It's laughable.

That's why some want STV. It's easier to cheat, and harder to get caught.

At the same time it doesn't address what is wrong with our system such as corrupted politicians and lobby groups with too much influence because of campaign donations etc.

Read the news posting on this site and find out how the errors broke down by riding. (a sun article)

Bingo!

I'm very pleased with the results: we have the best moderates from the left-leaning party and a slim majority of moderates from the centre-right party.

The COPE folks demonstrated over the last few years that they weren't willing and able to work with people who weren't "true believers." They even managed to alienate the most popular mayor any party has produced in many years (duh!).

I hope that we have three years of good local government ahead -- one that is relatively progressive and understands how to foster a good business climate. Unless, of course, we get the worst of both worlds -- the overly-conservative social vision of the biz community with the fiscal fantasy of the progressives ... =^)

The next TransLink meeting may prove interesting, as the new members, may vote against it. There is much wrong and already the DoRavRight people have found some disturbing financial information on RAV, through freedom of information, that puts much doubt on the finances!

CERCO, the TOC has bailed out and Campbell is now financing RAV with public sector pension plans. RAv'S COST NOW IS $2.2 BILLION and rising. GVRD taxpayer's are hit twice paying for this thing, out TransLink taxes on property and provincial taxes.

It is all but assumed, except for Sullivan, that RAV will not come anywhere close to attracting the magic 100,000 a day. Bet case senario is 10% above current ridership numbers on the 98-B South Delta and Surrey buses. Worst case senario, less than current ridership numbers.

Kudo's to The Tyee for the work they have put in, providing excellent stories for all of us political junkies to debate.

Well done.

" Resolutions opposing war in Iraq and myriad other pet causes do nothing except waste council time. "

Yea what a waste of time, we'll let our reliable media handle such important issues. By the way who's job is it to have a conscience, who's position is it to put forward motions of change.

What a waste of time,

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/iraq

you Larry Campbell worshipers are pathetic, COPE was around a long time before Larry sell out Campbell.
If you study the map you will see the east side support is major to any COPE victory. Larry supported
1) The Olympics at a time of massive cut backs to social programs that benefited the east side.
2) Fare increases on transit ( very unpopular on the east side)
3) Slots at Hastings park
4) The Rav , Gordo's favorite P3 project, very unpopular among lefties
He basically showed contempt and arrogance to anyone who disagreed with him, he blew of his main supporters due to the fact he figured he was so important he didn't need them anymore, Jim would just ride into city hall
on his shirt tails, the vote was way down due to voter apathy, he divided his party and shi** on his main supporters.

COPE and vision and Larry were very immature and are now going to reap the benefits of their arrogance, remember a left wing split almost won control of city hall( even with Dirty tricks like James Green) , the right is small and weak . Very sad some folks couldn't get their act together.

Right on Grumpy

Sweet was the day that every Rav mayor supporter was turfed from the GVRD, Lets lobby and get this thing killed.

commentor: skeptikoolposted: 9 Hours AgoDoes Surrey's new mayor automatically assume the ex-mayor's

Each Council votes on who is going to serve on the GVRD. The GVRD members then decide who will serve on all committees and the GVTA (TransLink).

Does anyone care that BC now seems to have gone whole-hog into computerized vote counting? Did the scrutineered counting system get scapped entirely? [where people representing various platforms watch officials count the vote so they can attest to the validity of the count]

How do we know that the computerized vote count is correct if there's no human observation? Computers malfunction -- frequently. That presents lots of room for error. More worrying, computer software can easily be written to accommodate difficult-to-detect algorithms that can alter the results. That presents much more room for "error." Have any safeguards been put in place to ensure such errors or fraud will not happen? Why were these machines introduced so quietly?

The United States found both computer malfunction, and the use of "untested" machines in their last election. Anyone who's interested can research the whole smelly mess of the Diebold company's machines, including the sworn testimony of their employees, I won't go into the considerable details here. We don't need to worry what form of government (FPTP, STV or whatever) we have if we can't be sure our ballot choices will be counted properly (i.e. someone else is pulling the strings behind the scenes).

Lastly, I'll ask the question Why? Why do we need to change from the vote counting system that we've had as a basic pillar of our democratic process since its inception? I've been involved in election mechanics at polling stations -- it's quick, cheap and very accurate. Why would we want to spend money to computerize vote counting, and introduce both computer malfunction and the opportunity for fraud to be perpetrated by "dirty" software when our old system has always worked so well?

Is anyone else out there concerned? Can anyone shed any light on this subject for me? Does anyone care??? Our system of democracy is under severe attack if we allow those who write computer software to control vote counting.

Gerhardius, I'm afraid you simply have a bit too much faith in good faith, ethics or anything that might smack of fair play when it comes to BC politics.

It may take some time, but I will go on record as stating I will eat my shorts if within this new term the truth about James King's candidacy does not emerge.

I predict it will show clearly that Mr. James Green did not go into this campaign with any intent to win, but rather to act the spoiler.

Sorry to disappoint you Gerhardius, but yes there are a lot of idiots voting, some even run for office.

Let me explain it simply. The elderly person goes into the polls knowing Jim Greens' name. This person isn't interested enough in the day-to-day thrusting at city hall to bother the the subtleties of party politics.

Life is much simpler if you simply focus on those you see as being helpful or at least not harmful.

But then you get to the polls and there it is, good old James Green. "Well that was easy, right on top too."

Electors are neither all political scientists nor political wiseguys. Many don't even bother with media.

Time to do a little door knocking Gerhardius.
Talk to raw voters and ask a few salient questions.

It's why an awful lot of people are insisting that money should not be allowed to determine an election.

Working Man assesses:

Bang on! Working Man. Any other analysis is superfluous.

Gerhardius points out:

'Nuff said!

Speaking as a dispassionate observer, isn't "James" Green where the protest vote went? The disgruntled Classic COPE types who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Vision's Jim Green (because they blame him for COPE's implosion) or NPA's Sam Sullivan for mayor, for example?

I wouldn't put much stock in the anti-RAV theory either. Most voters support transportation improvements - before the province put TransLink in the GVRD board members' hands, building the Expo or Millenium lines didn't hurt the governing parties, Socred and NDP. Same in London UK, where the feds put transport in the newly created London mayor's hands. Mayor Ken Livingstone invested billions in new buses (to the horror of government beancounters), implemented a controversial but popular congestion charge (8 pounds a day, close to $20 Canadian) on motorists, and on handily winning his second term, promised to spend billions on new Tube rail expansion.

Conversely, isn't it possible that COPE councillors were hurt more than they were helped by their anti-RAV campaign? In his Tyee interview David Cadman said no one would use the RAV from Vancouver Airport, and said "they would use taxis." Perhaps Cadman would take a cab, out of misplaced principles, but most of us don't have that kind of cash - we'd take the train or bus. Here in Vancouver I'm obliged to have family members in a car drop me off at the airport, but in London, no matter which airport of 3 I have the option of taking the Tube, train or bus to Victoria Station and my second home. I could only laugh silently when my dentist complained that the taxi from Heathrow airport to the West End cost him close to $200 each way - for a fraction of that cost he could have taken the transit and been just as comfortable, plus arrived before the taxi did.

My take on the Vancouver election (if it's worth anything):

1. Did you see the front page of the Vancouver Sun on Saturday? The Sun had about a one inch by one inch blurb on the municipal elections. And that was in the lower half of the front page. You'd think they would have put something like "Election Day Today" on the front cover. How many potential Jim Green supporters would have made it to the polls otherwise?

2. James Green: A guy who just happened to be donated an office in the SAME BUILDING where Sam Sullivan's office was. Anyone who thinks that the NPA weren't behind his campaign to some extent must be crazy.

3. COPE/Vision split: Like many others, I was angry when Jim Green and the others took their toys to find another sandbox to play in. The wounds didn't sufficiently heal in time for the two sides to mend their differences this close to an election. They should have bitten the bullet and kept a closer eye on the kids (i.e. NPA) who were looking to take over their sandbox.

4. Stuart: You make many good points and I agree with most of what you say in here. But having uncompromising positions will always leave one as an outsider - with no power.
(i.e. Why not close only one lane for bicycles on Burrard bridge, instead of two?)

-Crass

Sunny, yes, and this is my biggest reason why I am so against STV.

As far as I know, our provincial elections will still be as usual next election. I can tell you I am a law abiding citizen who is quiet gentle. But, that would be enough for me to take to the street. Our system is fine and it better stay that that way. Although, I don't trust that Elections BC hasn't had some interference judging by the way they had only yes STV literature etc last election. Election fraud is illegal would be something illegal and the RCMP would want to know about something like that.

In Ca. Deibold apparently can not figure out how to have a paper trail on their machines. Any ATM can provide one however. The owner is a contributer to Bush though. And, as well google Accenture and you'll find they are taking over the running of some elections in the US. They caused quite a bit of trouble as people who had been in their own districts for years were shoved aside and not allowed to supervise etc. As if Accenture could be trusted with an election with candidates wanting to fight privatization for instance. Ca is going into battle right now over it. Ohio was stolen it appears. So, help me, once again, I would take to the street before I allowed that in my own country!

Sorry for all the errors. to clarify, CA is battling over deibold, not Accenture taking over elections.

The neocons hate democracy. It gets in their way of making a buck. That is why you have things like Martin touching the scepter and Hatch calling the floor 'ugly' (or something like that) before quickly reversing himself.

Kurt - Vancouver loves RAV because everyone else is paying for it and the taxpayers in the North Shore, Surrey, and Coquitlam knows it.

50 quid for a taxi ride to Heathrow from the West end is about right, your densist friend could have booked a mini cab for much less.

Heathrow Express (Paddington to Heathrow) is about $50, and the tube about $10. Sadly the tube is full of footpads, pickpockets and proffessional thieves, You get what you pay for. Incedently ridership to Heathrow by tube has dropped.

The expansion in London is not the tube rather it's Crossrail ( mainline railways). As for the new buses in operation, ridership has not met expectations.

WWe will soon learn from RAV, what bad transit planning is all about!

Hey Crass,

I agree that one lane would make sense if any is needed. Southbound traffic functioned fine when they close it, as there is plenty of run off space at the south section of the bridge. Going North, though, needs 3 lanes, as Burrard always gets backed up by the light, and turning right on Pacific faces anouther light and a lot of cars merging with east bound west end traffic, and people trying to turn turn onto Hornby.

However, as some one who has both commuted via bike, walking, and driving (on a scooter now), I think the Bridge is fine. The only people who seem to have any real difficulty, are the super bikers who basically treat every trip like it was an olympic race. Most of them are pricks anyways to both fellow cyclers and pedestrians. And they deserved to look at my ass for a few minutes going up the hill.

However if we really need to Cater to them, move to a 5 lane bridge, with slightly wider bike sidewalks on the climb.

yeeeeah, we just need wider bridges, where there's five lanes instead of four;
a middle lane to wash away the run-off
more lanes=more sexyness
e-very bicycle not associated
w ith da bul
bitch about consumers

Last night on the news, Sullivan, who denied having anything to do with James Green, admitted he placed a phone call to Green's landlord when Green was facing eviction. I have a feeling there is more to this story.

James had a (who knows how much) hand in Jim's defeat. Green had the most votes of an Independent in 10 years.

Look , we all know James Green is a slimy guy put up just to confuse voters, Sam's headquarters had people cheering
James on, I say we follow James closely and review his finances closely when disclosed and find any connection to the NPA and make it public.

But that is not the issue, the NPA won because they were united and Jim Green and others refused to stick together, to many ego's (Larry Campbell's being the biggest) in the room, it was very immature to pull funding and support from COPE, no one on either side was willing to compromise and considered themselves purist, this kind of immaturity and
division is what made them fail. I don't feel sorry for Jim Green at all, I feel sorry for the citizens of Van and the east side for being so disenfranchised by their leaders.

Oh and Kurt, I guess just a coincidence that every RAV supporter got turfed. as JFK puts it, their is no such thing as a political coincidence or mistake.

I got a kick out of Beers on Sullivan. I've been wondering the same things about the new mayor. Exactly who is this guy, anyway? I mean, really! And how painful must it be for a person to have split up his personality like this? He seems suddenly to be left of Che Guevara, then to the right of Attila the Hun. It's always amazing to find out what a person will do for a little fleeting power and recognition. Of course, our system, while obviously the best in the world, doesn't appreciate, candid, honest people with stable and consistent personalities, but rather, rewards those who can pander to the greatest number of voters--which by way of a little intellectuaal syllogizing leads inevitably to the conclusion that the fault lies not with the politician, but with the electorate.

Here's an update on how the Greens did around BC

Here is a more detailed look at what I brought up yesterday, looks like the Greens have arrived in more of a force than I realised....

ELECTED Greens Under Municipal Green Party Ticket on Ballot (1)

Victoria Council Sonya Chandler

ELECTED Independents who were 2005 BC Green Party Candidates (3)

Esquimalt Council Jane Sterk
Central Kootenay RD Andy Shadrack
Thompson-Nicola RD Grant Fraser

Elected Indpendents who were 2004 GPC Candidates (1)

Golden Council Garmen Gustafson

ELECTED Independents who are GPBC or GPC members (10)

Whistler Mayor Ken Melamud
Whistler Council Eckhard Zielder
Gibsons Council Lee Ann Johnson
Sunshine Coast RD Lee Turnbull
Sechelt Council Keith Thirkell
Sunshine Coast School Bd Lori Dixon
North Vancouver Council Janice Harris
Rocky Mountain School Bd Rhonda Smith
Summerland Council Peter Waterman
Bowen Island Lisa Barret

The naivety and ignorance that masquerades as political awareness in this city is depressing. The NDP have hated COPE for years, because they want control of the civic arena. Jim Green is the NDP bag man just like Libby Davies was the NDP bagman in her time. Oooh, have I offended one of our sacred Icons by saying this? Well its true, and I saw it with my own eyes, before and after the humiliating defeat of Harry Rankin. I resigned from the COPE executive 12 years ago because I couldn't fight the NDP agents who were destroying the COPE coalition. It was a waste of time and energy and they only wanted people like me because it gave them street credibility. It was the Glen Clark gang running things at that point and Libby knew what side her power bread was buttered on. Politics is a dirty aggressive business. What's funny is that they call Connie Fogal crazy because she talks about the "boys in the back room" who run everything. Well they do, and they are mostly "the boys", who suppress people that really want to make a difference because it would upset the balance of power.

redrivergirl:

Our system is NOT fine! Our system gave us Glen Clark when it ought to have been Gordo (not that I would have wished that, but that's what would have been fairer) and it gave us Gordo with only 2 NDP opposition when there ought to have been many more in opposition. It is a system that denies parties like the Greens a place at the table in spite of the fact that a very significant number of British Columbians share and vote for Green values.

How is that a system that is "fine"?!

If you were able to devise a system from scratch, redrivergirl, are you going to tell me that our system is the one you'd create? If you answer "yes", then we know one thing for sure: you're not interested in a system that is in the least representative.

Our system is unfair. It is unrepresentave. It is antiquated. It is adversarial. It is NOT fine!

Yea what a waste of time, we'll let our reliable media handle such important issues. By the way who's job is it to have a conscience, who's position is it to put forward motions of change.

Stuart: the powers of local government are carefully defined in the Vancouver Charter and the Community Charter. Powers which are not explicitly delegated by the province to the local government remain with the province.

Foreign affairs and security are federal issues, not provincial or local issues. Local governments do not have the mandate or authority to legislate or regulate anything to do with foreign affairs and security. This is why it was a waste of time for COPE council to debate it in the council chambers.

Should people have a conscience? Yes, certainly. But perhaps our local governments would be more effective doing real things for needy people -- real things that are within their mandate to influence. Say, like social housing, public transit, and community planning.

So, since you asked, it is the federal government's job "to have a conscience, who's position [it is] to put forward motions of change" regarding the Iraq war & weapons in space.

Vancouver residents have been subsidizing transit in the 'burbs for years, Grumpy. Revenue generating lines in Vancouver help to pay for revenue-losing lines in the suburbs.

Vancouver taxpayers will also help pay for the future LRT in the North-east sector, and other road, bridge and transit improvements throughout the region.

Grub, it's a heck of a lot better and more accountable than STV. It requires 'good faith' which has been obliterated, but so does every system thus far.

What?!

I heard him talking about changing the False Creek development. There will be nothing livable about our city, nothing people will look back on and say, how wise the planners were to make and preserve these public spaces if he is allowed a free hand. I also heard him on 'talking point' about the 'protest vote'. And, he appointed Gary Collin's right hand guy as his own. This guy is a 'radical right' pro Big-business puppet and I don't think he has a lot of wisdom from what I can see. He got in because of James Green and people who voted for him assuming at first blush that he is more progressive than not. Here's hoping vision will remind him of his election statements. This is a guy who wanted the taxpayer to pay for a failed bid a company made to the city. Good grief.

redrivergirl:

Would STV have given us a Campbell government with only two NDP MLAs? Would STV deny Greens and others a place at the table or even a reasonable chance of being elected?

I rest my case. Our system is NOT fine!

I'd prefer PR, but failing that, STV looks pretty good compared to our current system.

redrivergirl's assessment:

As stated earlier, "Mr. Bass lost 22000 votes while Mr. Louis lost 23000!"

redrivergirl, does that tell you nothing? How is that related to a "James" Green running? So Jim Green didn't win the mayoral position; but how do you explain the failure of COPE in general? Surely the losses of Bass and Louis cannot be blamed on "James" Green!

Can't we just except that the citizens of Vancouver found the antics of some of COPE's elected representatives to be somewhat "over the top" and completely unrepresentative of their value systems.

Grumpy, your assertion that the Tube is peopled by Fagins and assorted lowlifes is way over the top, ridiculous. You're also out of date regarding taxi fares. And I have news clippings in which Mayor Ken Livingstone promised to upgrade the Tube if re-elected - he has no jurisdiction over Crossrail. Red Ken has made a career out of transportation issues, it's his raison d'etre, and it keeps getting him elected, damn the cost.

And Stuart, exactly which pro-RAV mayors/councillors were turfed by the electorate? Pro-RAV's Raymond Louis and the Vision slate were re-elected, while the anti-RAV COPE was decimated, save for Cadman. Both Green and Sulllivan were pro-RAV. Doug McCallum was replaced by a former slate-mate who didn't campaign against RAV per se, and 8 of the 10 Surrey councillors are from McCallum's SET slate.

Re: James Green vs Jim Green

If the NPA encouraged or supported James Green's campaign, it would certainly be a dirty trick. (I personally know one person who accidentally voted for James Green) But was it illegal?

When Jim Green decides to run, does he automatically disqualify everybody else whose name resembles his own? Is this more fair than allowing James Green to run, too?

It may have been a dirty trick, but I think it is better for democracy to allow those who wish to campaign to do so, whatever their name is. It is incumbent (pardon the pun) upon those who campaign to distinguish themselves from their opponents.

Last time I checked Green was a vision candidate, not cope.

Personally, I am surprised Dr Bass received so few votes. While Tim may have lost some because of his recent less than flattering press. I am really amazed that NPA candidates got in at the school board level. But, it was an election without an over-riding issue. A big mistake when there are so many real ones.

Grub:

"Would STV have given us a Campbell government with only two NDP MLAs?"

No one knows. There is no mechanism in STV that ensures proportional representation.

"Would STV deny Greens and others a place at the table or even a reasonable chance of being elected?"

That Greens would be elected under STV is no sure thing. With less than 10% of the vote, spread out around the province, they are likely to win no seats under STV.

It seems to me that more independents and parties (Greens included) get elected in civic elections. Maybe we should consider voting that way in provincial elections. It is certainly more understandable and easier to figure out then STV.

Good riddance to the Cope Classic morons!

Vancouver is a moderately left wing city and a group of hard left nut bars are never going to win a majority on council. If it was not for Vision it would have been a NPA sweep. The large majority of Vancouver voters SUPPORT rav, the olympics and regulated government controlled gambling to provide needed services. They also own cars.

A moderate left wing agenda by COPE and Cambell could have controlled council for a decade. Too bad Bass the Ass had to ruin it.

Some people may have mistaken James for Jim. However, my guess is that James would've got more votes than Ben West. Even Scott Yee got 688. So, even if a bunch of people wanted Jim instead of James, there were still more votes for Sullivan.

BUT, who really won is no longer the issue.

The issue now is whether or not Sullivan tried to confuse people of Jim vs James in the first place. I voted for Sullivan. If it is true that he's tied to James, then I want a revote and will change my vote to Jim. It may have been technically legal, but it's a dirty trick and definitely says something about Sullivan's character and he will lose a lot of swing voters like me.

Sullivan should grant Vision the independant inquiry. If he's innocent, then why pass up on this chance to clear his name? As it stands, his objection to it says more than enough for me.

Professor Kennedy Stewart of SFU did an advance poll in Vancouver on Election night and observed one surprising fact: while the Chinese community comprises 30% of the Electorate, only 14% voted in the Elections. Of those who voted, 70% went for the NPA and 30% for Vision Vancouver. (ie: less than 50% of Chinese voters voted) This says that the Chinese community is politically still not pushing close to its actual electoral weight. Sullivan still needed his West Vancouver base and to steal support from anti-Green voters near Hastings Park to seal his win.

The James Green factor certainly helped Sam win the Mayoral race but really the only person to blame for this debacle is Jim Green's campaign team itself. They practically ignored James Green's presence until the last day before the election when they suddenly released a bulletin urging voters to back Jim Green of Vision Vancouver, rather than the independent James Green. But, by then, it was too late for his message to sink in with a small percentage of his supporters--some of whom merely voted for the first Green they saw on the ballot. Personally, I think James Green could certainly have gained 600-1,000 voters in a large city like Vancouver--and still NOT change the final election outcome--since James did launch a visible campaign in Vancouver and attended each all candidates meeting. All the rumours about James Green being a near bankrupt spoiler who was financed by the right seems more like science fiction than real life. I saw a TV interview done with James Green where the candidate admitted he was once bankrupt but that was 30 years ago when he was sick. His family helped him over that rough patch and he has experienced financial security since than. Heck! he was the first independent candidate to win an Elected position on Delta School Board in 1989/1990. Was that a conspiracy too? I don't really think so. Who wants to run for a minor school board trustee position compared to City Council, unles he/she has a healthy respect for public service. All this tells me that Jim Green's team miscalculated the effect of James Green's candidacy--they should have constantly reminded voters early on to vote for Jim, rather than James, Green of Vision Vancouver. Regards.

I don't want to say I told you so, but in a previous James Green article on the Tyee leading up to the election I went after this question of political relevance and journalistic investigation of the same, over business history.

As I recall I was confronted by some rather frustrating blogs (I cannot remember who).

It would appear that my comments were relevant at the time. I find it troubling however when these types of things are engaged after the fact.

If there is a link now, there was one before, why didn't we know about it.

If this is the first thing a country hick like myself asks, than why wouldn't some of Vancouver's finest have dug this up.

I am sorry but having this discussion now, after the election, is more disconcerting than the possibility that something untoward took place.

Chris H: "It seems to me that more independents and parties (Greens included) get elected in civic elections. Maybe we should consider voting that way in provincial elections. It is certainly more understandable and easier to figure out then STV."

I wish you guys would just watch some of the explanations on STV or try out the demochoice polls and see that its simple as a voter to use, and while more complex to count votes, it is intuitive in how it distributes them.

STV is similar to a munipal election, in that we have multiple reps representing the same jurisdiction. However, the problem with our municipal at large system, is it allows sweeps or one segment of voters to dominate an election. Some times, we luck out and get mixed slates, because people will actually choose people from different parties, but in other elections we see sweeps when one slate is chosen by voters from one region or class. We see the same thing with Wards or SMPs, in that we'll see whole geographical regions only vote in members of one party. And while STV isn't true pro rep, it will be within a margin or error, due to the quotas and transfers that it uses. Accountability: Yes. In that you as a voter can choose which candidates within a slate to choose. The electorate can keep a party in while dumping unpopular members.

A brief analogy as to how the systems work. Under all systems, we have a vote, lets count this as having one dollar.

Wards, SMP: Each voter gives there candidate a dollar, the candidate who raises the most gets power. The balance or power is which ever party gets the most reps, regardless of how much votes the party gets. Some people give their money to a candidate each election, and never have a chance of actually helping someone who represents them get elected.

At large: Each voter has 10 dollars, they can give candidates a buck each, or can give the whole $10 to a team. The voter or team with the most money wins. (Sometimes the team gets all the spots) Most voters get lazy, and give their whole $10 to the team. Sometimes they'll give $5 to each team,or feel bad and give a buck to the fella running by themselves. In smaller towns they may know all the people running, and give their friends each a buck. Sometimes no teams run, and most of the voters may give their buck to the same 10 people. While people from the other side of town can all support a candidate, but can only give them a buck each, so one side of town buys all the election seats.

STV: Each voter has a dollar to spend. It is not a matter of who raises the most money, but any candidate who can get $500 (or the quota) gets elected. If 1000 people choose that candidate as their first choice, each voter has 50 cents to help out another candidate. The people from the one side of town who never get elected, now have a chance to pool their $ together to help get one, maybe two of their friends on. You can even give your best friend a buck, knowing that if he doesn't raise enough money, he will give you back your buck to help your next favourite candidate. Now under this system, people in a neighbourhood may say, lets all give our buck to someone from the neighbourhood, because its important to have someone who lives near to get elected. Maybe young voters may say, hmm, all the old farts always choose the same guys, lets all pool our bucks, and get us a young representative. And if a team runs, voters may say, hey I like that team, but you know what, Joe Blow, never stood up for us last time we gave him our buck, I'm not going to give him my buck unless none of his other team get elected.

Jim Green worked hard to lose this election, dividing his party and not having the maturity to communicate and keep things together, to many ego's in the room on both COPE and Vision, the NPA was united and got the win, this would have been a cake walk for Jim is they ran a full slate and kept the dirt inside their party ranks.

Now putting that aside, 48 hrs ago Sullivan said he had nothing to do with James Green, yesterday we find out James had his office in the same building as Sam and was getting evicted, Sam made a call for him to secure office space. Sam's story keeps shifting, am I right to say that trying to curry favor for
another candidate while your running is in violation of the rules. This was dirty to the core, and if Sam has nothing to hide let an inquiry more forward, if their was further connections than lets have another mayor race.

Stuart-I agree with you in principle. Yet, the same Tyee story I refer to brought up the issue of the office space quite clearly, perhaps (and its only perhaps-Mr. Beers et al could provide us with the relevant passage).

Although I am not challenging your sentiment on Mr. Sullivan's alleged 'shifting', I am once again saying if we had this connection than why not the investigation?

Mr. Sullivan is saying that he believed there was pressure to oust James Green from his office, and he thought there might be political points to score by challenging Jim Green, if the latter were found to be 'bullying' James Green (the former). Mr. Sulivan says he found no such evidence, but I presume he is saying that accounts for his telephone call.

For my part, I would like the proprietor or his legal counsel to provide a sworn affidavit of the events over the time involved in this dispute. Certainly the press who missed this vital 'discovery process' during the election campaign, could pony up the dough for the laywer to draft the affidavit, rather than run amok back and forth from one political person to another.

If the affidavit is damning to Sam Sullivan than we can proceed from there. But until there is more solid evidence it remains conjecture.

I say we clear the air and have a bi election, I was going to run and went over the papers and papers of rules etc and what is proper and not proper conduct etc. I am sure that Sam has broken the rules , it would clear the air because right now things stink, I am not a big fan of Jim Greens behavior but feel their is allot under the surface here. Simply bringing James and Sam in to make legal submissions and answer a few questions would be a start, I say James would crack under a few hard questions especially under oath.

CKNW states today that the restaurant owner who said Sam asked him to secure office space in now saying Sam only inquired as to what happened to James, I wonder who called him overnight and told his to shut his yap,

Another story, If James could not afford to keep his office, what's with the big campaign bus. The NPA had big money and public relations firms behind them, if would be nice to have a full audit of both Sam's and James books. An another note it took less than a day for the Wal Mart crew to show up, time for big box heaven.

Wal Mart says their just want to reopen a fair public process and re apply for the zoning. Its a done deal folks, the public hearings will be a pony show. Start organizing now against this , we hold all the cards etc and want to keep Van Wal Mart free,

Wal Mart is an evil entity with nothing to offer the people of the GVRD except the demise of most of the the small family biz!
Minimum wages, no benifits, slave labour, a bunch of dummy bullies.
Sam is the man who will open the gates for this disgraceful Corporations open house, But the people have spoken once & will pull the Plug on this dispicable (wal mart) problem again!!
September 26th is "Buy Nothing Day" world wide!
iwt.com

oops iwtnews.com

Sorry Robbins R guy, but your protestations again amount to a row of infertile beans.

Please tell me why the controversy was not investigated by the mainstream media rather than blathering on about how Tyee didn't follow up.

The fact is, election finances in Vancouver are covered by the city charter, which places no restrictions on one political candidate helping another and like the reality in the rest of the province, it isn't until next year that a financial breakdown of expenses and conributions have to be disclosed.

And even if you are the country bumpkin you now claim you are, you ought to also know that hiding a campaign contribution in a municipal election is easier than saying I'm sorry.

Besides, not all contributions come in the form of hard cash. In my eyes, if another candidate goes to bat to help you get a campaign office, even if the effort is fruitless, a campaign contribution has been made.

Where I come from when one candidate helps another, the voter ends up being the loser.

Now Sam Sullivan and you can continue playing this as "Jim Green eats sour grapes" mantra as long as you want. The reality and the perception is that Sam Sullivan has already admitted to interfering.

I do not for one second believe that Sam Sullivan wasn't aware of James Green's potential impact on Jim Green's campaign.

Even country bumpkins have the ability to sense when someone's spreading a load of fresh stuff out on the fields.

Sam admitted to tying to help James Green , if he was able to help him or not this is unethical and in violation of the
Vancouver Charter, even if they can not uncover more evidence it is enough of a violation. Every penny or perceived benefit has to be claimed over $ 50 bucks, if a local paper donated an ad to me I would have to claim it as a benefit, Sam tried to aid a candidate by using his position to secure him office space. Jim Green has 30 days to appeal this and make the mayor race void. I say he goes for it. This whole thing looks dirty, if James could not afford an office space where did he get the $ 1000 dollars a day rent for the huge campaign bus.

Have fun with this Stuart. Perhaps you should try reading the Vancouver Charter, sections 56-62, regarding financing 115, 123, 124, 125.

Frankly, as long as James Green declares who donated money, there is nothing illegal. Even if Sam Sullivan himself had paid for the bus, as long as he makes a declaration it is legal. Also a campaign can be run both to support a candidate or oppose another candidate. Not that I believe any of this happens.

The only criteria for disqualification is basically if you prevent someone from voting, and attempting to confuse them would be in a grey area anyways. Does this mean its right, or ethical, no, but its not grounds for declaring an election invalid. But that being said, I don't believe that's what happened.

James Green actually came down to Jamie Lee Hamilton's campaign party on election night. And his campaign, like Jamie's was encouraged, but not supported, I believe (we could have used some of their $$$). I think the NPA PR guys, were always interested in keeping top of every development, so they could prepare for the results. In this case, its very believable that Sam would want to find out if Jim was bullying James, as that was the NPA was spinning Vision's leader. Especially interesting is the connection between slots in edgewater as supported by Vision and The Plaza of Nation evictng James. Most candidates spend more time digging up dirt on their competitors than promoting themselves. Heck, maybe Sam's campaign found dirt, but didn't think it would have enough spin, or would help their cause. NPA's strategy seemed to be to keep the election as low key as possible, and they for the most part kept the high road.

Dangrice:

Tell the truth about STV. In your $10 analogy, it is true that you can put your dollars where you want on the ballot, but there is little chance that all your money will be spent like you wish. How your $10 is used is wholely dependent on how other people vote. In a five person riding, if I put my first dollar (actually my whole $10 with a preference to share it among others if the situation arises) on the sixth place finisher, only that first dollar (really that first preference with my whole $10 - the analogy doesn't really work) was ever looked at. So, I might as well have not used my other $9. No one looked at that $9. It was like it didn't exist.

Take FPTP. Everyone has a dollar. That dollar is counted. The candidate with the most money wins. Every ballot has exactly the same amount of power. How that dollar (vote) is used is not dependent on how others used their dollar. I can easily see how my dollar was used. I am not pissed off even though my candidate lost because everyone's vote was equal and counted fairly. The same cannot be said for everyone under STV.

and ...

"...but any candidate who can get $500 (or the quota) gets elected."

And, there will be atleast one candidate in each riding who gets much less than $500 (or the quota) and gets elected.

The Results in Surrey

Some of you--like Cantorice--have noted that Surrey seems to have jolted to the right by electing 6 of 8 SET (MacCallum's Party) cITY Councillors even though they decisively rejected Mayor Doug MacCallum for Dianne Watts. The best explanation for this contradictory result is a column by Surrey Leader editor Andrew Holotia in Wednesday's, November 23 issue. Holota observed here that there was a whopping total of 26 Independents running for Council--almost all of whom had no hope of winning. The result was that only one independent--incumbent Judy Villeneuve--was re-elected. Basically, the large numbers of independents bewildered voters who simply "scattered votes among them like seeds in the wind." Holota notes that in one case, an independent--Ed Rogers--"put forth his name as 'a joke', [and] was given 5,237 votes(Sad, not funny)." That is the main reason why the SET actually gained more seats on Council--the Independents scattered the anti-MacCallum vote while the Right Wing SET forces concentrated their votes on their Party's candidates. If there were less independents running, the left wing Surrey Civic Electors(SCE) could have won 1 or 2 additional seats on council. In contrast, in the Mayor's Race, there were only 6 candidates but everyone knew the race would come down to Watts vs. MacCallum.

The Surrey School Board race also confirms Holota's observations. There, there were only 18 candidates running which led to a close race for the 6th and Final seat with the SET's Wayne Jefferson capturing it by only 2 votes over the Left Wing SEC's Laurie Larsen--subject to a judicial recount which could go either way. The moral of the story: too many independent candidates frustrated the public's desire for change. The fact that the SCE party was formed only a few months before the election also meant that most of their candidates were relatively low profile. In contrast, the SET held the incumbency advantage and had loads of funds from developers. The truth is Surrey is part of the more conservative Fraser Valley region with the exception of a few left leaning neighourhoods like Whalley. So, for a Left wing Party to dominate Council, the SCE needed to run well known candidates and solidify their base as well as appeal to moderate voters in other Neighbourhoods like Fleetwood, Guildford, Cloverdale and South Surrey--something which Watts did so well. Watts reportedly received nearly 3 times more votes in traditionally conservative Cloverdale than MacCallum which speaks to her success in selling her message for change and for a more balanced approach to development. Unfortunately, the sheer number of independents on the ballot and the SCE's late cdampaign start frustrated its efforts for winning over Surrey Council--to the SET's benefit.

thank you fabian, the analysis, especially regarding the volume of independants (also read rookies), is played out across the province.

The machine or the incumbants are always a mile ahead before the first vote is plunked in the ballot box.

Little wonder two out of three voters stay home.

Democracy, my ass.

ELECTORAL RECOUNTS

Well Allan there is still a small chance that Laurie Larsen could win that final school seat in Surrey from the SET's Wayne Jefferson. According to the preliminary tally figures, Laurie Larsen won 26,585 votes versus 26,587 for Jefferson. I know that Larsen is applying for a judicial recount but if she was really smart, she should 1)demand a HAND COUNT to see if any ballots were not counted or accidentally rejected by the election machines--and 2)make sure that the voter's signatures for each ballot is validated. Mnay of you in the rest of the Lower Mainland know the ferocity and viciousness of the election campaign here in Surrey. We had allegations that Radio India--which is conveniently based in Washington State(ie: out of the CRTC's control)--called Dianne Watts a racist on the air. Coincidentally, the station's owner is Manjit Gill, who endorsed MacCallum's re-election and is an uncle of the SET's Tom Gill, who got elected to Surrey council. When the Left Wing slate's Indo-Indian candidate, Barinder Rasode, was granted an interview with Radio India, she was called a 'traitor' in the Indo-Canadian community by the interviewer for running with the Left Wing Surrey SCE/SCC party against MacCallum's Right Wing SET Party. I mean this is really nasty stuff and you don't know if anyone illegally voted twice or three times by using someone else's voting cards when the stakes are so high. The only way to prevent this is ensure that the voter's signatures match since the margin of 2 votes is so small.

Coincidentally, a Hand Count is the best way to discover new uncounted ballots: I remember in the 2004 Washington State Governor's Race between Christine Gregoire and Dino Rossi, the election officials found many missed votes by physically inspecting each and every paper ballot; these were ballots that the election machines somehow missed for unknown reasons. Perhaps the voters mark was too small, etc. The result was Gregoire came from behind to win the state for the Democrats against Rossi. When you have a gap of 2 votes with a total of 26,580+ ballots cast for each candidate, the results can definitely change. Larsen can still lose but she should get a judicial hand count to ensure that the ballots were legitimately cast and counted before the results are finally certified. Personally, I think the chances of a change in the outcome is 50-50; often recount go against the loser and no recount in Canada has changed an election result but a victory margin of 2 votes is far too small to be secure here. Regards.

Yes, there has to be a hand recount, other wise it's only half-baked and can repeat the same errors.

redrivergirl:

I am ever so glad that some one else realizes this.

Speaking of "elections", less than 20% of Saanich voters bothered...........
http://www.saanichnews.com/

Democracy, my ass.

I disagree. Allowing independents to run is good for democracy. Why give all the power to organized parties? As you point out, parties & incumbents already have an advantage. I don't think we should discourage independents on the basis that someone believes it drew votes from their preferred party. The people who want to choose, choose -- that's the point.

And if people don't bother to vote it is their choice. If they don't vote it isn't necessarily a problem with our democratic local government system -- it is their problem for not taking their civic responsibility seriously.

Back to the Sullivan saga. As I indicated in my previous 'blog', an affidavit would make sense. It appears that BC's Attorney General is thinking in that direction by negating any possibility of involvement in this complaint.

The BC Attorney General has also indicated that Mr. Green's recourse is to the BC Supreme Court by way of application to have the Vancouver Mayoral election overturned.

My perspective was probably influenced to a large degree by how I perceived the law would view this circumstance.

So now, the legal/political has in a sense collaborated my suggestion (Alan) and moved the conjecture to the legal legitimizing stage.

Mr. Green now has the opportunity to advance his evidence to the courts. If his position is bona fide, than he should do so, if not and he doesn't than no matter the 'reality of the circumstances' Sam Sullivan is both politically and legally sanctified.

Steve P:

Except that the fewer people who vote usually favours incumbents. The federal Libs forced a winter election because it will mean a record low turnout, and will favour their re-election chances. people will be miffed at both NDP & Cons, and will either stay home or vote Lib. Greens will win nothing this time around, because they need a "happy" electorate to vote environment.

No. He will not be santified in any way. The stink will endure. Sullivan is now a shameless lier. The sleeze will not faid from his support of "James" Green. We will soon see that Sam was lying about being a moderate.

Chris H. In regards to STV. Your second point about one candidate getting elected without meeting quota is a very rare occurence. It is possible for a candidate to get elected without reaching the $500, but only if among nearly thousand voters, they had no common choices. With STV, you require the minimum number of votes, so that the next person cannot also reach the quota. The complex part about STV is having to prove people's misconceptions wrong. Did you know that according to the law of statistics, you could bounce a ball off the wall a couple gazillion times, and statistically it may go through it.

And under our current system, yes, each vote is equal. But it is a stupid system! Winner takes all is the equivalent of pro wrestling, it makes for good entertainment, but if your looking for a legitimate contest, your tough out of luck. Votes do not match seats! You get stupid results!

Try being progressive and living in the eastern Fraser Valley. Why even bother voting, the races are all but predetermined. Sure your vote is worth the same as your neighbours. But what good is a dollar if it doesn't buy anything. First past the post is the equivalent of an auction site, where the best bid wins. Great for the seller, but horrible for the buyer. I like the idea, that if I can find 5000 people who agree with me, we can pick someone to represent us. I find sometimes people get so caught up on the details of the system and they don't even bother learning how it works. ITs the idea that we can choose someone who can represent us. That we don't have to choose between option a and option b, but we can give our preferences and have a system that parses it. Are there changes that can be made to STV, tweaks, perhaps? maybe. Do you set the quota at votes divided by seats (which I think you are getting mixed up with) rather than whats known as the droop quotation. Where you get votes divided by (seats + 1) + 1 vote, which is the lowest possible threshold. There are variations of it. But they all use a ranked ballot, so you can vote for an independent or an unknown.

All STV is, is an instant runoff ballot applied in a riding with more than one member.

Steve P, sorry, but I think we are on the same page. It's not the long list of independant candidates that bother me as much as the reality tht incumbants and machines have the upper hand.

Robbins etc., pat yourself on the back for finding such wisdom in your own words once again.

But please next time you try to justify something use words that actually state something rather than implying what you think someone else thinks.

As is the case virtually 100 percent of the time, when a politician (AG), in one arena is asked his or her opinion on matters from another political arena, verbal handwashing is the clearest response, at least initially. Some call it buckpassing.

The questions only grow. Who financed James Green's campaign?

What other involvement did Sam Sullivan and or NPA backroomers have in James Green's campaign?

Why is it James Green's greatest support came from polls where Jim Green was the most popular if there was no confusion in the minds of voters over who James Green is?

Seems to me there is still a lot of smoke coming out of those and other issues surrounding the Vancouver mayoral vote.

James Green could resolve much of this simply by being the good Vancouverite he claims to be and submitting his election expences and contributions early.

It is my understanding the controversial candidate has claimed he ran a very simple and inexpensive campaign, which would suggest filling early shouldn't be big a problem.

For starters, I'd like to know who paid for that campaign bus, which runs about $1,600 a day, a seemingly huge expense for a guy who had to borrow an office.

Dear Steve P, Rick W and Allan,
I agree that the incumbent definitely has the advantage under the current at large system but a long list of independents CAN frustrate the Voter's desire for change because many Voters will be uncertain who to vote for! I met a middle class home owner in the Guildford area of Surrey who told me that they knew they wouldn't vote for the incumbent SET party but were uncertain about their choices for Council--only for the Mayor--which was Watts. I did vote for 4 of the 8 SET council candidates even though I supported Watts over MacCallum for Mayor in Surrey because I respected the SET's success in managing Surrey's economy even though I am disturbed at its side-effects: like uncontrolled loss of trees, Transit Gridlock and Overcrowded Hospitals. Also, I liked the fact that some SET candidates like Mary Martin have done good social work for the disadvantaged and for our Youth.

Steve P said "I don't think we should discourage independents on the basis that someone believes it drew votes from their preferred party." I agree that diversity is a good thing. Ideally, one would prefer a mix of established party candidates and maybe 2 independents but in demographically or geographically large Municipalities like Surrey, Vancouver, Burnaby, Langley Township or Delta, there is NO WAY that the first time independent can even contact each voter. In contrast, the established parties usually have volunteers or paid personnel going door to door to get their Vote out. Don't let the list of elected "independent" candidates in Langley Township fool you! Mayor Kurt Alberts there publicly endorsed 6 of the 8 candidates in several controversial local Newspaper Ads just before Election day. So, these 6 councillors are actually part of the Mayor's "slate" there. In Surrey, we have more than 400,000 people spread out in various neighbourhoods like Newton, Fraser Heights, Port Kells, Fleetwood, Whalley, Cloverdale, South Surrey. I ask you--how can an independent expect to win without a party affiliation in this situation? The short answer is you can't: all the top losing candidates on City Council and the School Board here were members of the Governing SET or Left Wing SCC Party. The same results apply in Vancouver which has 580,000+ voters. Sure, Vancouver is geographically smaller than Surrey or Langley Township but an independent must have high name recognition to even have a chance of winning a seat. And there are no guarantees either! So, too much diversity in politics--ie: too many independent candidates--can be a bad thing in large Municipalities because many voters people will then simply vote on the basis of Party Affiliation--ie: because they know about COPE, the NPA, SET, SCC, Delta First, TriDelta, etc--rather than for Independents whom they don't personally know. In contrast, independents have more success in geographically or demographically small Cities or Villages like Anmore, Belcarra, Port Coquitlam, Langley City or New Westminster. In New West, independent Jonathan X. Cote unexpectedly won a seat on Council beacuse he could physically knock on every home door in his small City. But you can't do this in the larger Municipalities.

Sam Sullivan lied on a radio program when he stated that he voted for the Woodwards project in Vancouver. Later, when it was pointed out to him that it was on record that he actually voted against it, he said he erred because he was tired and confused. If this guy is willing to lie about something that can so easily be proved is a lie, imagine what lies he telling regarding his involvment with James Green's campaign.

Restoring honesty and integrity to municipal politics?
How can anyone believe that?

Get over it Crass, politicians never lie.

Hi Fabian,

You have convinced me that it is difficult for independents (especially rookies) to win local elections, and that large candidate lists can be confusing.

But what should we do about it? Tell interested candidates they cannot run because a quota of candidates have already been met? I think this is a worse evil than having too many candidates.