Application filed today in superior court requesting a new election for the city of Cambridge
Dec 22nd, 2010 | By Debbie Duff Vitez | Section: 2010 Municipal Candidates
Early this afternoon an application(s) under section 83(1) of the Municipal Elections Act was filed with the Superior Court of Justice challenging the the 2010 Cambridge election process and its results.
The Applicants, Thomas Vann and Deborah Vitez, list the irregularities of the process as:
A. inaccurate/incomplete information;
B. inconsistent/inappropriate planning;
C. mal-functioning equipment;
D. lack of accommodation for aged, infirm, and disabled persons; and
E. A lack of adequate communication between the Returning Officer for the Cambridge 2010 Municipal Election (Mr. Alex Mitchell) and the candidates, as well as the public
The Applicants state that:
The rights of the electorate were so encumbered prior to and during the Cambridge 2010 Municipal Election (October 25, 2010) as to warrant a new Municipal Election in Cambridge, Ontario. It is in the spirit of ensuring that these issues are reviewed, addressed, and redressed that we respectfully submit to the Superior Court, a request for a nullification of the results of said election. We further request that the people of the City of Cambridge be permitted to fully exercise their franchise with amply accessible (in number and in amenities) Voting Stations, Polls, and an old-fashioned, more reliable, human counted ballot method of determining who will represent them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think we need an election system similar to others around the world and one recently tried (successfully) in California. It is a ranking voting system whereby the candidate with the highest ranking (not votes) is elected.
Currently, we have inequity in a 'winner takes all' system. Example of one electoral community:
- 100 eligible voters
- 3 candidates
- 35 people actually voted
- Candidate #1 got 15 votes
- Candidate #2 got 12 votes
- Candidate #3 got 8 votes
In the above example and within our current system, Candidate #1 would win but here are the inequities with this system:
1. Up to 65% of the electorate didn't vote because none of the candidates were electable (we don't currently have a 'none of the above' ballot box).
2. Only 43% of the eligible voters (35) voted for the "winner" in our electoral system but more importantly 57% (majority) didn't want Candidate #1 elected!
In other fairer electoral systems, candidates are ranked. This gives the candidate with the highest average ranking the election.
It's not perfect, but far better than what we have now.
See: www.fairvote.ca
Post a Comment