Connect with us

Opinion

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

Published

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.

Follow Author

International

Watch your a** Petro. Trump threatens Colombian President

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

President Trump delivered one of his bluntest warnings yet to Colombian President Gustavo Petro during a Saturday press conference, brushing aside Petro’s claim that he had no concerns about his own safety following the U.S. military operation that captured Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro. Asked directly about Petro’s remarks, Trump pointed to Colombia’s role in the global cocaine trade and made clear he was not backing off earlier threats. Petro, Trump said, presides over cocaine production facilities whose product is being funneled into the United States, adding that the Colombian leader “does have to watch his a**.”

The exchange revived tensions that have been simmering since December, when Trump publicly warned Petro to shut down multiple major cocaine labs inside Colombia. At the time, Trump said U.S. authorities had precise intelligence on their locations and openly labeled Petro a “troublemaker,” cautioning him to “watch it.” Since returning to office, Trump has taken a far more confrontational posture toward leftist leaders in the hemisphere, and Petro — a self-described Marxist and former guerrilla — has repeatedly found himself in Washington’s crosshairs.

Petro’s clashes with the United States extend well beyond rhetoric. He was previously sanctioned by the Treasury Department and had his U.S. visa revoked after urging American service members to defy Trump’s orders and join what he described as a multinational force to “free Palestine.” He has also triggered diplomatic flare-ups over deportation flights, branded Trump an “obstacle to democracy,” and drew widespread condemnation last October after suggesting humanity should “get rid of Trump,” punctuating the comment with a finger snap during a televised interview.

Those remarks now hang over a far more consequential moment in U.S.–Latin American relations. Trump’s comments came in the immediate aftermath of the high-risk operation that resulted in Maduro’s capture and removal from Venezuela — a move the president hailed as a “brilliant operation.” Carried out under the banner of Operation Absolute Resolve, the joint military and law enforcement mission ended with Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, flown to the United States without the loss of American personnel or equipment. The takedown marked the most aggressive assertion of U.S. power in the region in decades, with administration officials openly framing it as a modern enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine — rechristened by Trump as the “Donroe Doctrine.”

Maduro’s legal exposure is extensive. Indicted in 2020, the longtime socialist ruler has been accused by U.S. prosecutors of leading the Cartel de los Soles, a transnational cocaine trafficking network. According to the indictment unsealed by Attorney General Pam Bondi, Maduro’s regime worked hand-in-glove with Colombian insurgent groups including the FARC and ELN, as well as Mexican cartels such as Sinaloa and Los Zetas, to move enormous quantities of cocaine into the United States. He and Flores now face charges ranging from narco-terrorism and cocaine importation conspiracy to weapons offenses involving machine guns and destructive devices.

Petro has tried, cautiously, to put distance between himself and the fallen Venezuelan dictator. In late 2025, he referred to Maduro as a dictator for the first time, but stopped short of acknowledging the narco-trafficking allegations that have followed Caracas for years. Even after Maduro’s arrest, Petro has continued to dismiss U.S. accusations as a manufactured “narrative,” despite a trail of indictments and evidence stretching back more than half a decade.

For Trump, the message Saturday was unmistakable. The Maduro operation was not a one-off, and public defiance from regional leaders will be met with pressure, exposure, and consequences. Petro may insist he has nothing to worry about — but Trump made clear he disagrees, and he is no longer content to issue quiet warnings.

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Nearly half of Netflix kids shows push LGBTQ content, watchdog warns

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Nearly a quarter of TV-Y7-rated shows crossed into what it labeled explicit territory, including direct statements about sexual orientation or gender identity and depictions of related behavior. The group argued that this goes well beyond background representation and enters the realm of ideological messaging directed at children who are still years away from adolescence.

A new year-end analysis is raising fresh questions about what major streaming platforms are serving to young audiences, and whether parents are being given an honest picture of that content. According to a report released by Concerned Women for America, more than four in ten children’s programs labeled as suitable for general audiences on Netflix now include LGBTQ-themed material, despite ratings that suggest the shows are appropriate for very young viewers. The group’s review of 2025 programming found that 41 percent of Netflix shows rated TV-G contained what it described as overt gay or transgender content. Even in the TV-Y category, which is meant for children up to age seven, 21 percent of programs included similar material. For slightly older children, the share jumped sharply, with 41 percent of TV-Y7 programs containing LGBTQ themes. Taken together, CWA concluded that roughly one-third of all Netflix programming across the three primary child-rated categories — TV-G, TV-Y, and TV-Y7 — now includes such content.

Beyond simple presence, the report also attempted to measure intensity. Programs were categorized on a scale ranging from “meta” references and implied messaging to “queer-coded” characters and fully explicit content. CWA found that nearly a quarter of TV-Y7-rated shows crossed into what it labeled explicit territory, including direct statements about sexual orientation or gender identity and depictions of related behavior. The group argued that this goes well beyond background representation and enters the realm of ideological messaging directed at children who are still years away from adolescence.

The report also points to a noticeable pattern in reboots and long-running franchises. According to CWA, revived or extended versions of familiar children’s shows often introduce LGBTQ characters or storylines that were absent from the originals. Titles cited include The Magic School Bus, Power Rangers, The Baby-Sitter’s Club, She-Ra, and The Fairly OddParents. CWA said this trend suggests a deliberate choice by creators to reshape legacy brands that parents may trust based on earlier iterations.

To place the shift in a broader cultural context, the report traces the normalization of LGBTQ representation in television back several decades. When Ellen DeGeneres’ character came out on the sitcom Ellen in 1997, it was widely viewed as a watershed moment in entertainment. What once sparked national debate, the group notes, has since become routine — driven in part by sustained pressure from advocacy organizations such as GLAAD, which has tracked and promoted increased representation through its annual “Where We Are on TV” reports. GLAAD’s most recent assessment claimed another year-over-year increase in LGBTQ characters across television.

CWA argues that the implications are different when that momentum is applied to children’s programming. In its view, the growing volume of LGBTQ content aimed at young audiences — coupled with the unapologetic defense of those choices by showrunners and studios — reflects a belief within the industry that children’s entertainment should actively shape cultural attitudes rather than simply entertain. For parents relying on ratings systems to make informed decisions, the group warns, the labels no longer tell the full story.

Continue Reading

Trending

X