Toronto Mayoral By Election

[MaxQue]

The issue is that unamalgamated cities allow for segregation of wealth and resources from the common good. You see this in the U.S., where you get clusters of wealth and poverty and immense racial segregation. If you care about social inequality, amalgamation is a necessary tool to combat that.

Toronto would be MUCH better off with Newmarket and Oshawa brought in.

It would not be. Central city revenue would be spend in the new suburbs, as the suburbs would outvote the core areas.

[MaxQue]

I don't think we'll ever agree, unfortunately, and it honestly flummoxes me that people could not want the wonders of amalgamation. Regardless, we should probably stop derailing the thread.

Just wondering, why is a discussion regarding the merits and drawbacks of amalgamation considered to be derailing the thread? A thread about a Toronto mayoral election is inevitably going to have some degree of discussion about issues that affect Toronto and amalgamation is one of them.

Well it's not an issue in this particular campaign, which is what the thread is about. Amalgamation of Toronto in its current form is a done deal, and further expansion of the City of Toronto isn't being proposed by anyone. There are ongoing discussions about municipal re-organization in Peel Region, but that's a whole another topic.

Anyway, if amalgamation was meant to stop left-wing candidates from winning Toronto's mayoralty, the seemingly inevitable election of Chow will disprove that (wouldn't even be the first time, David Miller won under current boundaries too). Amalgamation was part of a neoliberal efficiency craze that took place in the 1990s, and while I'm sympathetic to a lot of the moves made as part of that era, the amalgamation of Toronto and the sale of the 407 are examples of how some of the Harris-era measures went too far (on the 407 I would argue the problem wasn't privatization, the problem was that only the 407 was privatized and ETR doesn't have any competition...but Ontario's not ready for that discussion lol).

Can't blame the derailing though. This election has been a total snooze-fest.

Seems that one got solved today and Peel Region will be dissolved (for our UK friends, the Berkshire solution has been chosen there)

[MaxQue]

I had remote family in Brampton in the past and it's a really wierd place. Doesn't feel suburban at all.

[MaxQue]

I had remote family in Brampton in the past and it's a really wierd place. Doesn't feel suburban at all.

I don't know how far back in the past you're going, but as of 2021 census, Brampton has a population of 656k. If it weren't right next to Toronto, that would be considered a big city in its own right.

Problem is, it was planned and designed as a suburb. So you have single-detached homes, leafy car-oriented neighbourhoods, strip malls, etc that would be perfect for a sleepy bedroom community, but an absolute nightmare for a city of the size Brampton has grown to become.

That's more my point. It felt more like a city than a suburb.

[MaxQue]

I had remote family in Brampton in the past and it's a really wierd place. Doesn't feel suburban at all.

I don't know how far back in the past you're going, but as of 2021 census, Brampton has a population of 656k. If it weren't right next to Toronto, that would be considered a big city in its own right.

Problem is, it was planned and designed as a suburb. So you have single-detached homes, leafy car-oriented neighbourhoods, strip malls, etc that would be perfect for a sleepy bedroom community, but an absolute nightmare for a city of the size Brampton has grown to become.

That's more my point. It felt more like a city than a suburb.

Of course, it also depends on *where* in Brampton we're speaking of; because there *is* a significant older "downtown part", and prior to amalgamation in '74 the former town of Brampton was already closing in on 50,000 people, *much* larger than any older centres in Mississauga.  So any "more city than suburb" impression might be drawn from *that*...

It was Bramalea.

[MaxQue]

The gap between early and election day really does suggest that Chow could have lost if Tory moved earlier.

Actually I don't think so. If Tory had endorsed Bailoa earlier it would not have taken any votes away from Chow, all it would have done is maybe taken some of the 11% vote for Saunders in the early and mail - vote and given it to Bailao - which could have netted her at most an extra 5,000 votes - not enough to change the outcome. Chow would have won by 29,000 rather than by 34,000

In raw terms, yes, perhaps.  However, the net effect of an earlier endorsement might have played out in polling earlier (and not just that of Mainstreet), and drawn even more voters to Bailao in the name of "backing a winner"--and that includes many of those who did, in the end, opt for Chow at the ballot box.

But it does intrigue me that contrary to what I was anticipating, the advance/mail vote *didn't* really play out to Bailao's clear opposition favour, even though she still finished second in those ballots--and perhaps related to that, the advance/mail vote might even have constituted a smaller share of the overall vote than I anticipated, contradicting all that talk about how voters would flock to the ease of no longer being bound to e-day.  (And in *that* light, I think the "pandemic elections" skewed the picture re the present and future of advance voting; when in fact a lot of those inflated advance/mail-in vote totals were a "momentary condition".)

According to the numbers posted above, election day votes were 78% of the total, early vote 18%, mail 4%.