Toronto Mayoral By Election

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/CityNewsTO/status/1673799620085026816?s=20

l o l

[adma]

What kind of result was Gong expecting, anyway?  I think he's on a sugar high from his joke of a sign campaign becoming a meme, so he doubled down and tripled down and, well, now he has to face the consequences.

And in the meantime, *this* happened--which is kinda like the equivalent of a kid visiting Spain w/the family who has no interest in any of that boring cultural tourism stuff but "I wanna see Monkey Christ!  Can we go see Monkey Christ?  Can we?  Can we?"

https://www.blogto.com/city/2023/06/toronto-mayoral-candidate-hit-young-people/

[DL]

Toronto Centre is also home to the LGBTQ community and Olivia is very popular among them and has championed gay rights since the 1980s. Meanwhile the councillor for Toronto Centre Chris Moise who is a New Democrat (or at least was) inexplicably endorsed Bailao and was totally out of step with his ward. He will likely be given only small crumbs of influence under mayor Chow

[toaster]

- Very obvious that Chow dominated the advance vote. Had Tory endorsed Bailao weeks ago, she may have won this. It made for a very nervous election night. I wish the media had been aware of what polls were coming in. Could've prevented a few heart attacks. And yes, it will be interesting to see the vote share in the advance vote to see if MSR truly was on to something with their early polling. The late polling was bang on, so kudos to them on that.
 

The other thing to consider is that if Tory had backed Bailao weeks earlier before the advance poll, it might have changed the whole tenor of the campaign. She would have been put in a position of having to defend his record in debates and if she had come within striking distance of Chow weeks earlier, she would have come under attack. No one ever went negative on Bailao because until the last day or two no one saw her as a threat.   

It was interesting, people still thought it was a 5-6 person race for second place up until even election day.  Had people actually believed the Mainstreet polls, I think a lot of that Saunders support would have went to Bailao, that is the pattern of Toronto, people on the far right will vote for centrists if they know it will stop a far-left progressive.  I don't think it was clear to anyone that Bailao was that close (even with the Star and Tory endorsements). I also think people felt less worried to vote for any of them because the left/right/centrists on council ratio isn't really going to be  shifted with this 1 vote. I like Olivia Chow, I think she will be a pleasant politician for the city, and will work on the affordability piece better than any of the other candidates would have. I do think Ana would have been good as well. I think most people liked both of these women personally, both came off as kind, and as though they cared.

[DL]

I'm not sure that the votes for Saunders and Furey would have gone much lower. There is a core of at least 15% of Torontonians who are rightwing conservatives and would see Bailao and only ever so slightly less bad than Chow. Similarly, if the election had turned into a close Bailao vs Saunders race, a lot of leftwing voters would have voted "strategically" for Bailao - but I'd say at least 15% would stick with the left no matter what. In 2014 we had that situation, it was clear that the race was between John Tory and Doug Ford - and yet 23% still voted for Olivia Chow even though it was clear she had no chance.

[adma]

I'm not sure that the votes for Saunders and Furey would have gone much lower. There is a core of at least 15% of Torontonians who are rightwing conservatives and would see Bailao and only ever so slightly less bad than Chow. Similarly, if the election had turned into a close Bailao vs Saunders race, a lot of leftwing voters would have voted "strategically" for Bailao - but I'd say at least 15% would stick with the left no matter what. In 2014 we had that situation, it was clear that the race was between John Tory and Doug Ford - and yet 23% still voted for Olivia Chow even though it was clear she had no chance.

Yeah, let's not forget that early on in the election, there was concern over a Saunders prevailing over a "divided left" *inclusive of* Bailao et al--to the point where some feared that Chow entering the race would further divide said Bailao-inclusive "left".  (And I suspect that there were *still*, in the end, well-meaning "Bailao progressives" who felt her to be a stable and acceptable alternative to Saunders--"centre-left" rather than "centre-right" like John Tory.  Which might mean that Chow's long-term pool of potential voters might actually be bigger than it seems, a little like David Miller in '06.)

[Hatman 🍁]

Oh, I think there was still quite a bit of room to fall for both Saunders and Furey, but on the same token, room to fall for Matlow and Hunter, which would've helped Chow. In Chow vs. Bailao hypothetical runoff, it would be quite close.

[DL]

Oh, I think there was still quite a bit of room to fall for both Saunders and Furey, but on the same token, room to fall for Matlow and Hunter, which would've helped Chow. In Chow vs. Bailao hypothetical runoff, it would be quite close.

Saunders more than Furey. I think the people who voted for Furey were genuine rightwing protest votes who were pretty committed. Furey kept saying that Bailao was "just as bad as Chow" and that he was the only real alternative to the "status quo" candidates. There was no way a bunch of Jordan Peterson groupies were ever going to vote for "blah Bailao". It would be like expecting a bunch of "MAGA Republicans" to vote for Hillary Clinton to stop Bernie Sanders.

Saunders on the other hand ran this silly campaign of "only I can stop Chow" and never offered any affirmative reason for anyone to vote for him. Once it became clear that he was clearly NOT the one who could defeat Chow the entire rationale for his candidacy collapsed and people had zero reason to vote for him. It was reminiscent of the Ignatieff Liberals running a "stop Harper" campaign in 2011 which then collapsed the moment the NDP under Layton surpassed them in the polls.    

[Oryxslayer]

More can be found here


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

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

I completely forgot about this election. I'm surprised that this election turned out to be closer than many polls predicted.

Anyway, one of the things I don't like about Canadian elections is that a candidate can win with significantly less than 50% of the vote (and this is fairly common). I'm sorry, but "winning" an election with only 30–40% of the vote is ridiculous to me. There should be a runoff between Chow and Bailao, or at the very least, RCV (ranked choice voting) should be implemented for future elections.

[Hatman 🍁]

I completely forgot about this election. I'm surprised that this election turned out to be closer than many polls predicted.

Anyway, one of the things I don't like about Canadian elections is that a candidate can win with significantly less than 50% of the vote (and this is fairly common). I'm sorry, but "winning" an election with only 30–40% of the vote is ridiculous to me. There should be a runoff between Chow and Bailao, or at the very least, RCV (ranked choice voting) should be implemented for future elections.

The ironic thing is, we were as a province moving forward with RCV being allowed in different municipalities. London was the first in 2018, and both Cambridge and Kingston voted to implement RCV in referendums, but the Ford government repealed the legislation allowing for it, so London reverted to FPTP in 2022. The ironic thing is that with RCV, Olivia Chow may not have won!

[DL]

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 Bailao earlier it would not have taken any votes away from Olivia Chow, all it would have done is maybe taken some of the 12% vote for Saunders in the early/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 still have won but by 29,000 rather than by 34,000. Saunders only took about 12% of the vote in advance/mail compared to just over 7% on election day. But Matlow also did a lot better in the advance/mail vote than he did on e-day as well - so more of that might have collapsed earlier too.

But the fact is most people who vote in an advance poll two weeks before election day do so because they 100% certain who they want to vote for - so they are much less likely to be influenced by things last minute endorsements

[adma]

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".)

[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%.

[adma]

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

And that *seems* low for the latter, by recent pandemic-skewed standards.

Of course, aside from late endorsements and aside from everything pandemic (or even mildly reinforced by the same, on "civic responsibility" grounds), there's been a more general recent trend t/w advance balloting skewing leftward--it's something I noticed a few years ago, a *lot* of "fashionably left" people on social media making it a civic point of duty to express their super-commitment to the franchise by selfie-ing themselves at the advance polling station.  (And it's why somebody like Davenport's Marit Stiles won w/60% of the provincial vote in 2018, but more like 3/4 of the vote in the advance.)

The real indicator of that more generic "advance skewing left" phenomenon is how Chow polled a *lot* higher than pollsters tended to place her (i.e. upper-40s-going-into-50, rather than upper-30s-going-into-40).

[Hatman 🍁]

I guess the reason why so many people voted on election day compared to advance, is a lot of the centre-right vote were holding on to the bitter end to see who they should back. I would bet a lot of them wouldn't have even come out to vote had the Bailaomentum never been a thing.

[Bismarck]

I just went to Toronto for the first time today. I’m surprised there were no major Indian candidates. I thought toronto was diverse but it basically might as well be New Delhi. Based on seeing people on the street you would think the city was 75% Indian, 10% East Asian, 10% black and a few homeless white people. I mean no disrespect at all I was just very shocked by the demographics of this city.

[adma]

FWIW, Chow swept the wards in the advance balloting.  On e-day, she won the inner-city cluster save St Paul's, and Scarboroughs Agincourt & North.

The non-Bailao 2nds in advance/mail were Etobicoke North & Centre (both Saunders), Humber River-Black Creek (Saunders--Bailao was even behind Perruzza!), Toronto-St Paul's (Matlow), Don Valley North (Saunders), Willowdale (Saunders), and all the Scarboroughs (all Saunders except for Guildwood where it was Hunter, and Bailao was 4th)

[adma]

I just went to Toronto for the first time today. I’m surprised there were no major Indian candidates. I thought toronto was diverse but it basically might as well be New Delhi. Based on seeing people on the street you would think the city was 75% Indian, 10% East Asian, 10% black and a few homeless white people. I mean no disrespect at all I was just very shocked by the demographics of this city.

What part of Toronto?

[Bismarck]

I just went to Toronto for the first time today. I’m surprised there were no major Indian candidates. I thought toronto was diverse but it basically might as well be New Delhi. Based on seeing people on the street you would think the city was 75% Indian, 10% East Asian, 10% black and a few homeless white people. I mean no disrespect at all I was just very shocked by the demographics of this city.

What part of Toronto?

We walked around Yonge Street in the downtown area.

[adma]

I just went to Toronto for the first time today. I’m surprised there were no major Indian candidates. I thought toronto was diverse but it basically might as well be New Delhi. Based on seeing people on the street you would think the city was 75% Indian, 10% East Asian, 10% black and a few homeless white people. I mean no disrespect at all I was just very shocked by the demographics of this city.

What part of Toronto?

We walked around Yonge Street in the downtown area.

A circumstance like that would only really make sense if there were some Canada Day "event" geared at S Asians in the downtown core; or if you were in someplace like North York City Centre (which *can be* heavily Asian in its "street demographics") under the misassumption that it was "downtown".  Or, perhaps, if the downtown core on a holiday is more of a draw for commuters from places like Scarborough.  But whatever the case, Torontonians encountering that circumstance think "nothing of it" (other than the homeless being of concern, of course)--after all, it is presently the kind of town where the most popular adult contemporary station in town has a morning show hosted by "Pooja & Gurdeep", and it's *not* some kind of Letterman-show gimmick (maybe you saw one of *their* ads?).

[DL]

Keep in mind that the biggest concentration of South Asians in the greater Toronto area is in Brampton which is outside of the city of Toronto so you may see lots of South Asians walking the streets on a weekend but they don’t vote in Toronto

[DL]

Has anyone analyzed the turnout by ward? Seems to me that it varied a lot and that wards in the inner city had var higher turnouts than did wards in the suburbs

[adma]

Dunno about turnout (particularly compared to past elections); however, one thing I noticed (as per Hatman's holding-out-to-the-bitter-end point above) is that the wards where over 20% of the vote was carried out in advance were all of the Chow wards, plus Etobicoke Centre, Don Valley North and Scarborough-Rouge Park--and of those latter 3, only Etobicoke Centre wasn't a knife-edge for Bailao.

Another thing I'm being reminded of through witnessing some Twitter discussion is that there's nothing like the "dispassionate" nature of the psephologically-conditioned perspective--I've seen some people getting *really* antsy when somebody matter-of-factly posts of e-day going Bailao and the advance going Chow, as if the person doing the posting had some kind of political agenda.  ("Chow won, period" seems to be the tenor of a lot of these responses--almost like numbers and stats throw their brains in a tizzy, all that matters to them is whomever crosses the finish line.)

[adma]

Mapping the byelection

https://seanmarshall.ca/2023/07/03/mapping-the-2023-mayoral-byelection/