Connect with us

Opinion

5,240 voters supported the Ward System. That is more than some elected politicians received. Not to be ignored.

Published

7 years ago

8 minute read

5,240 voters in 2013 supported the ward system of municipal governance but it wasn’t enough. Some will say that settles the issue in perpetuity or forever.
The plebiscite was a vote on the ward system to help find one of many solutions to end the disparity between the north and south in such issues like absence of a high school north of the river or the unequal distribution of recreational facilities.
The city council favored the at-large system, and allocated $30,000 to present a side to the issue. They held a townhall information meeting hosted by popular ex-councillor Larry Pimm who extolled the virtues of the current at-large system. Reminding everyone; “To dance with the one that brought you”. No ward system advocate was invited.
Compare city hall, with $30,000 against a few volunteers with no budget, and you have an epic “David and Goliath” situation.
5,240 voters supported it, considering that the majority of school board trustees garnered fewer votes and they believe they represent the citizens.
The vote was held four years ago during an election, and some will argue that settles the matter forever. No matter that about 10% of the population moves every year, and that someone who is 18,19, 20, or 21 now could vote now that could not have voted then.
One suggested that it would be disrespectful of the voters in 2013 if we were to have another plebiscite in the future. Why do we have elections every 4 years? Possibly to bring in new ideas, people and ways to deal with new issues and events, to change course when a current course is not working?
The major is issue was the disparity between north of the river and south of the river. The last school built north of the river was in 1985, the lack of a high school north of the river and the fact that there is only one recreational centre north of the river with 11 south of the river. The ward system was brought up as a possible way to ensure their voice was heard.
Wards versus at large: Niagara Falls (population of 88,071),candidates discuss. If you want to get in the game, some say a ward system is helpful. … Now, more than a decade into an at-large system where eight councillors are elected to represent the entire city, some candidates are calling for a return to the ward system.
It may better represent the city, but some people find it confusing. One political scientist says we should consider bringing back the ward system with the civic election one week away.
A ward system, essentially, has an elected representative from varying neighbourhoods around the city.
Langara College political scientist Peter Prontzos says it’s a little more democratic and things won’t be rushed through council because there are more voices to be heard and more issues brought to the table.
But he warns there are cons.
“It may be a little more confusing in some ways and there may be occasional gridlock on city council, but I think that’s relatively minor.”
He says right now those who run for office are people with money who only represent wealthy neighbourhoods where something like public transit may not be issue.
Issues like no high school or biased distribution of recreational centres, may get on council’s agenda and be heard through a ward system.
Issues like; On the north side we have (1) the Dawe Centre while on the south side we have; (10), the Downtown Recreation Centre, Michener Aquatic Centre, Downtown Arena, Centrium complex, Collicutt Recreation Centre, Pidherney Curling Centre, Kinex Arena, Kinsmen Community Arenas, Red Deer Curling Centre, and the under-construction Gary W. Harris Centre. The city is also talking about replacing the downtown recreation centre with an expanded 50m pool.

The volunteers proposed 4 wards with 2 councillors per ward, and 5,240 voters supported the idea. Others thought not yet and some were totally against it, period. Should the politicians write off 5,240 voters as a non issue? City should be inclusive of everyone, including those not crowding the stage during the discussions on the latest issue of the day.

Jordy Smith was quite eloquent in his defence of the ward system;
“Wards provide direct representation within the city council. They allow anyone who sees an issue in the city to go to their particular councillor and voice their concern. In this situation, the councillor ensures the person’s, and their district’s, voice is heard. If they don’t represent their community well, their constituents can vote for a new councillor in the next election.
In our current system, a person can reach out to some or all of Red Deer’s councillors, but if the issue isn’t prevalent across the entire city, it is unlikely to enter the council meeting. Important neighbourhood issues may take a backseat to other matters in distant parts of the city. This scenario isn’t always a problem in at-large systems, but it often favours certain parts of a city more than others. This issue is especially true when a majority of councillors all live in a similar part of the city.
In Red Deer, seven of our eight councillors live on the South-East side of the river; in fact, many of our past councils have had disproportionate representation from the South-East side. A ward system gives each part of Red Deer direct representation and a voice in council decisions.”
The point is that the “Ward System” is not a panacea to the disparity issue and no one thinks it is but it could be a step in addressing the issue. Many candidates talk about the “Riverlands” as the panacea to downtown issues, but it is not, it is but a step to addressing the issues.
I ask the candidates who have said that the vote should stand and not be voted on again out of respect for the 2013 voters, should we let the federal vote of 2015, where we elected a Liberal government and the provincial vote of 2015, where we elected a NDP government stand in perpetuity? I didn’t think so. That is why we have votes, because we may change our mind. Thank you.

Read more about the Red Deer Municipal Election on Todayville.

Related Topics:

Follow Author

More from this author
COVID-19 / 2 hours ago

Red Deer Freedom Convoy protestor Pat King given 3 months of house arrest

Media / 5 hours ago

Matt Walsh: CBS pushes dangerous free speech narrative, suggests it led to the Holocaust

illegal immigration / 5 hours ago

Trump signs executive order cutting off taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal aliens

Media

Matt Walsh: CBS pushes dangerous free speech narrative, suggests it led to the Holocaust

Published on February 20, 2025

By

MXM logo  MxM News

Quick Hit:

CBS News is facing backlash after host Margaret Brennan suggested on-air that free speech played a role in enabling the Holocaust. The comments came amid a broader discussion on censorship in Germany and Vice President JD Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference. Daily Wire commentator Matt Walsh dismantled the claim, calling it an example of the media’s ongoing push for authoritarian control under the guise of democracy.

Key Details:

  • Margaret Brennan’s Remark: CBS’s Brennan questioned whether “weaponized free speech” allowed the Nazis to carry out the Holocaust.

  • Historical Context: Walsh noted that pre-Nazi Germany had strict hate speech laws, contradicting Brennan’s assertion.

  • Media Hypocrisy: CBS recently praised Germany’s government for conducting pre-dawn raids on citizens over online speech.

Diving Deeper:

Daily Wire commentator Matt Walsh sharply criticized CBS News for pushing what he described as an “astonishingly ignorant” argument about free speech. In a segment on Face the Nation, host Margaret Brennan questioned whether the Holocaust was made possible by an unregulated public discourse, saying, “Didn’t the Nazis weaponize free speech to conduct a genocide?”

Walsh wasted no time dissecting the absurdity of Brennan’s claim. “It doesn’t actually mean anything to ‘weaponize free speech to conduct a genocide.’ The words don’t come together in a way that makes any sense,” he wrote. “It’s like saying the Nazis ‘weaponized air to conduct a genocide.’”

He then pointed out the historical reality that completely undermines Brennan’s argument. “Before the Nazis rose to power, Weimar Germany had laws against so-called ‘hate speech,’ including laws that prohibited hate speech against Jews,” Walsh noted. In fact, German authorities cracked down on dissenting voices long before Hitler’s rise, shutting down newspapers and banning public speeches. Yet, as history showed, these restrictions did nothing to stop the Nazis from gaining power.

The discussion around free speech restrictions comes at a critical time in Europe, as Germany prepares for a major election where the nationalist party, Alternative for Germany (AfD), is surging in popularity. The establishment media has repeatedly labeled AfD “far-right,” despite the party’s focus on issues like border control, energy independence, and rejecting radical gender ideology.

This broader push for censorship was highlighted by a separate CBS segment showcasing how German authorities now conduct pre-dawn raids on people over online speech deemed offensive. Walsh highlighted the disturbing reality of the situation: “Try to imagine how CBS would be covering raids like this if they came at the direction of Donald Trump.”

The media’s reaction to Vice President JD Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference further underscored their bias. The Ohio senator directly challenged European elites on their handling of migration and security, prompting outrage from diplomats and bureaucrats alike. Christoph Heusgen, the conference chair and a former German diplomat, went so far as to break down in tears in his farewell speech—a moment Walsh ridiculed as a “new low in global leadership.”

For Walsh, the media’s selective outrage over free speech and censorship is telling. “The corporate press isn’t actually concerned about the rise of an authoritarian government,” he concluded. “They just want to make sure they’re the ones running it.”

Continue Reading

illegal immigration

Trump signs executive order cutting off taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal aliens

Published on February 20, 2025

By

MXM logo  MxM News

Quick Hit:

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Wednesday night barring illegal immigrants from receiving federally funded benefits, a move he says will ensure taxpayer dollars are reserved for American citizens in need.

Key Details:

  • The order directs federal agencies to identify and cut off benefits to illegal immigrants.
  • Trump argues the Biden administration “undermined” federal law and improperly expanded benefits to non-citizens.
  • The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, is tasked with reviewing all federal funding sources for illegal aliens.
  • The order mandates stricter eligibility verification systems and calls for improper payments to be referred to the DOJ and DHS.

Diving Deeper:

President Donald Trump took executive action Wednesday night to block illegal immigrants from receiving taxpayer-funded federal benefits, calling the move necessary to uphold the rule of law and protect resources for American citizens, including veterans and individuals with disabilities.

In signing the order, Trump pointed to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), which was supposed to bar most illegal immigrants from accessing government benefits. However, he argued that multiple administrations—especially President Joe Biden’s—had worked to “undermine” these restrictions, effectively allowing taxpayer funds to support illegal immigration.

“The Biden administration repeatedly undercut the goals of that law, resulting in the improper expenditure of significant taxpayer resources,” Trump said. He further asserted that these benefits had acted as a “magnet” for illegal immigration, drawing more people across the border unlawfully.

The order directs the heads of all federal agencies to identify programs that currently allow illegal aliens to receive taxpayer-funded benefits and to take “all appropriate actions” to bring them in line with federal law. It also aims to prevent federal funds from subsidizing sanctuary policies, which shield illegal immigrants from deportation.

One of the most significant aspects of the order is the role of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a relatively new federal agency led by billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk. DOGE is tasked with reviewing all sources of federal funding for illegal immigrants and recommending additional measures to align spending with Trump’s directive. Trump has praised Musk and DOGE for cutting through bureaucratic resistance to implement his policies.

Additionally, the order calls for enhanced eligibility verification systems to prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining benefits in the first place. Federal agencies are also required to refer any improper payments to the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security for further action.

The move is the latest in Trump’s aggressive crackdown on illegal immigration, a central issue of his presidency and his 2024 re-election campaign. With a focus on border security, ending sanctuary policies, and tightening federal spending, Trump’s executive order represents yet another step in his administration’s effort to reverse the policies of his predecessor and enforce strict immigration laws.

Continue Reading

Trending

X