Fixing city’s election mess

Let’s face it, Toronto’s mayoral election has become an international joke and a disgrace to the lofty ideals of the democratic process. The reasons are clear:

First, a dog — yes, a rescue dog named Molly — is one of the 102 candidates running to be Toronto’s next mayor. It’s the most crowded field in history because in the name of “fairness” the city allows anyone — and I mean anyone — with a few dollars and a few friends to enter the race.

Second, the next mayor may win the backing of less than 30 per cent of voters. If that happens it would raise serious doubts about the mayor’s credibility when it comes to being seen as governing on behalf of all residents.

Combined, these two issues create an election nightmare and make a mockery of the mayoral race.

But there are easy fixes for both problems.

Under current rules, it takes just $200 and 25 signatures on an entry form to become an official candidate. The policy was well-meaning, adopted to encourage residents with little money and no ties to political groups to enter. But it also opened the door to nuisance candidates who see their entry as a lark, spending more time disrupting the process than enhancing it.

Toronto can fix this problem simply by raising the entry fee, maybe to $1,000, and requiring 500 or 1,000 signatures. Those aren’t onerous requirements and would weed out most frivolous candidates.

Fixing the second issue is also doable — hold a runoff election between the leading two candidates if no contestant gets at least 50 per cent in the first round of voting.

Two-round systems operate effectively around the world. Runoff mayoral elections were held this spring without hitches in Chicago, Denver and elsewhere in the U.S. As well, runoff elections are staged in presidential elections in France, Finland and other countries.

In Toronto, it’s quite conceivable the eventual winner will get barely 1-in-4 votes. That’s not much of a mandate to govern!

Currently, Olivia Chow is the front-runner, averaging around 30 per cent of decided voters in polls taken since she entered the race. Five other candidates have hit 10 per cent or more in at least one poll, including former police chief Mark Saunders, former Liberal MPP Mitzie Hunter and councillors Ana Bailão, Brad Bradford and Josh Matlow.

There are many advantages to a runoff election, according to John Courtney, political science professor emeritus at the University of Saskatchewan and an expert on electoral systems.

In an in-depth report he prepared for Elections Canada, Courtney said a runoff election between two candidates “produces majority winners,” which “increases the perceived legitimacy of the eventual winner.”

He also said runoff elections create coalitions that encourage intercandidate bargaining and tradeoffs “that can be healthy in socially and ethnically diverse communities.” In addition, such elections tend to discriminate against extremist candidates, he added.

Critics argue a runoff election held, say two weeks after the first round, would cost extra money.

True, but a runoff election would not be required in most mayoral contests. In the eight mayoral races since Toronto amalgamation in 1997, five produced a majority winner. The lowest support for a winner was in 2014 when John Tory got 40.3 per cent of the vote, Doug Ford 33.7 per cent and Chow 23 per cent.

Opponents also claim runoff elections lead to voter fatigue and lower turnout in the second round. However, that didn’t happen in Chicago where 52,000 more voters cast ballots in the runoff election than did in the first round.

Importantly, runoff elections are a better alternative for electing a mayor than a ranked-ballot system. That system, which requires voters to rank their top few choices, sometimes eliminates the candidate who was the top choice on the first round.

It’s time, Toronto, to make up your mind — not just on who will be mayor, but on how to clear up this election mess.