Municipal Election 2010

Hamilton Elects Bratina as Mayor, Re-Elects Nearly All Incumbent Councillors

Bob Bratina wins the mayoralty with 37.5% of votes cast. Jason Farr wins in Ward 2, Judi Partridge wins in Ward 15, and the incumbent wins in every other ward except Ward 11, in which Brenda Johnson beat David Mitchell.

By Ryan McGreal
Published October 25, 2010

Council-Elect

Bob Bratina wins the mayoralty with 37.5% of votes cast, defeating incumbent mayor Fred Eisenberger.

Bob Bratina is Mayor-Elect (Image Credit: Jason Leach)
Bob Bratina is Mayor-Elect (Image Credit: Jason Leach)

Bratina won 37% of the votes cast for mayor, with Larry Di Ianni winning 28.5% and Eisenberger winning 27%.

Eisenberger answers a question (Image Credit: Jason Leach)
Eisenberger answers a question (Image Credit: Jason Leach)

Voter Turnout

The final results for all 207 polls are in on the City's official election results page: out of 353,317 registered voters, 141,174 or 39.96% cast a ballot for mayor.

Election Winners by Ward

Ward Winner
Mayor Bob BRATINA
Ward 1 Brian McHATTIE
Ward 2 Jason FARR
Ward 3 Bernie MORELLI
Ward 4 Sam MERULLA
Ward 5 Chad COLLINS
Ward 6 Tom JACKSON
Ward 7 Scott DUVALL
Ward 8 Terry WHITEHEAD
Ward 9 Brad CLARK
Ward 10 Maria PEARSON
Ward 11 Brenda JOHNSON
Ward 12 Lloyd FERGUSON
Ward 13 Russ POWERS
Ward 14 Rob PASUTA
Ward 15 Judi PARTRIDGE

Mayoralty

Bob Bratina defeated incumbent Mayor Fred Eisenberger, taking 52,684 votes, or 37.32% of the total. Former Mayor Larry Di Ianni came in second place, with 40,091 votes or 28.40%, and Eisenberger came in third with 38,719 votes or 27.43%.

Mayoral Results
Candidate Votes % of Total
Michael J. BALDASARO 2892 2.05%
Bob BRATINA 52684 37.32%
Mahesh P. BUTANI 950 0.67%
Larry Di IANNI 40091 28.40%
Fred EISENBERGER 38719 27.43%
Pat FILICE 768 0.54%
Edward H. C. GRAYDON 404 0.29%
Andrew HAINES 557 0.39%
Glenn HAMILTON 949 0.67%
Ken LEACH 577 0.41%
Tone MARRONE 1052 0.75%
Gino SPEZIALE 356 0.25%
Victor VERI 313 0.22%
Steven H. WAXMAN 429 0.30%
Mark WOZNY 433 0.31%

Ward 1

Incumbent councillor Brian McHattie won re-election with 5,373 votes, or 64.90% of the total. Tony Greco came in second place with 26.42%.

Ward 1 Results
Candidate Votes % of Total
Tony GRECO 2187 26.42%
Brian McHATTIE 5373 64.90%
Raymond PAQUETTE 719 8.68%

Ward 2

Bob Bratina, who won the mayoralty, was the incumbent councillor in Ward 2. Of the 20 candidates who sought to replace him, Jason Farr won with 1,607 votes, or 20.97% of the total. Matt Jelly came in a close second with 1,434 votes, ior 18.72% of the total.

Ward 2 Results
Candidate Votes % of Total
Liban A. ABDI 96 1.25%
Marvin CAPLAN 559 7.30%
Paul CASEY 81 1.06%
John CASTLE 42 0.55%
Diane CHIARELLI 403 5.26%
Shane COLEMAN 217 2.83%
Ian DEANS 231 3.01%
Jason FARR 1607 20.97%
Lloyd FERGUSON 102 1.33%
Martinus GELEYNSE 805 10.51%
Matteo GENTILE 174 2.27%
Erik HESS 602 7.86%
Pat IELASI 67 0.87%
Ned JANJIC 113 1.47%
Matt JELLY 1434 18.72%
Hoojung JONES 312 4.07%
Dawn LESCAUDRON 77 1.00%
James NOVAK 514 6.71%
Charlie PIPE 135 1.76%
Kevin WRIGHT 91 1.19%

Ward 3

Incumbent councillor Bernie Morelli handily won re-election with 3,186 votes, or 44.66% of the total. Paul Tetley came in second with 1,720 votes, or 24.11% of the total.

Ward 3 Results
Candidate Votes % of Total
Bob BLACK 373 5.23%
Mark DiMILLO 723 10.13%
Sean GIBSON 976 13.68%
Wilamina McGRIMMOND 156 2.19%
Bernie MORELLI 3186 44.66%
Paul TETLEY 1720 24.11%

Ward 4

Incumbent councillor Sam Merulla received an astonishing 6,787 votes, or 82.41% of the total votes cast. Norm Bulbrook and Giulio Cicconi received 9.02% and 8.57% respectively.

Ward 4 Results
Candidate Votes % of Total
Norm BULBROOK 743 9.02%
Giulio CICCONI 706 8.57%
Sam MERULLA 6787 82.41%

Ward 5

Incumbent councillor Chad Collins won with 6,876 votes, or 66.92% of the total. Frank Rukavina came in a distant second with 1,512 votes or 14.72%.

Ward 5 Results
Candidate Votes % of Total
Jaswinder BEDI 1220 11.87%
Chad COLLINS 6876 66.92%
Frank RUKAVINA 1512 14.72%
Dave STACEY 667 6.49%

Ward 6

Tom Jackson won re-election with 6,560 votes, or 54.90% of the total. Chris Behrens came in second with 14.17%.

Ward 6 Results
Candidate Votes % of Total
Chris BEHRENS 1693 14.17%
Michelle FEBERS 1510 12.64%
Tom JACKSON 6560 54.90%
Steven KNOWLES 198 1.66%
Ed PECYNA 1127 9.43%
Nathalie Xian Yi YAN 862 7.21%

Ward 7

Incumbent councillor Scott Duvall was re-elected with 9,027 votes, or 57.61% of the total. Trevor Pettit came in second with 25.13%.

Ward 7 Results
Candidate Votes % of Total
Keith BECK 805 5.14%
Scott DUVALL 9027 57.61%
John GALLAGHER 1899 12.12%
Trevor PETTIT 3938 25.13%

Ward 8

Terry Whitehead was re-elected with 9,908 votes, or 68.37% of the total. Kim Jenkinson came in second with 26.26%.

Ward 8 Results
Candidate Votes % of Total
Jeff BONNER 451 3.07%
Kim JENKINSON 3877 26.36%
Terry WHITEHEAD 9908 67.37%
Bruce WHITELAW 471 3.20%

Ward 9

Brad Clark won his second term on council with 3,454 votes, or 45.33% of the total. Nancy Fiorentino came in second with 30.75%.

Ward 9 Results
Candidate Votes % of Total
Brad CLARK 3454 45.33%
Nancy FIORENTINO 2343 30.75%
Geraldine McMULLEN 999 13.11%
Andrew MOWATT 10.81%

Ward 10

Maria Pearson won re-election with 5,464 votes, or 64.85% of the total. Bernard Josipovic came in second with 23.31%.

Ward 10 Results
Candidate Votes % of Total
Jose P. BUSTAMANTE 1098 12.83%
Bernard JOSIPOVIC 1995 23.31%
Maria PEARSON 5464 63.85%

Ward 11

In the only ward in which an incumbent didn't win re-election, Brenda Johnson edged out incumbent David Mitchell with 4,410 votes, or 42.12% of the total. Mitchell came in second with 39.78%.

Ward 11 Results
Candidate Votes % of Total
Ken CHARTRAND 1896 18.11%
Brenda JOHNSON 4410 42.12%
David L. MITCHELL 4165 39.78%

Ward 12

Incumbent Lloyd Ferguson won re-election with 7,447 votes, or 73.28% of the total. The other candidate, Brenda Cox-Graham, received the other 26.72%.

Ward 12 Results
Candidate Votes % of Total
Brenda COX-GRAHAM 2716 26.72%
Lloyd FERGUSON 7447 73.28%

Ward 13

Incumbent Russ Powers won re-election with 4,884 votes, or 58.92% of the total. Dayne Scime came in second with 21.25%.

Ward 13 Results
Candidate Votes % of Total
Russ POWERS 4884 58.92%
Glenn ROBINSON 758 9.14%
Danya SCIME 1761 21.25%
Ron TAMMER 6.74%
Marty ZULINIAK 327 3.94%

Ward 14

As the only candidate, Rob Pasuta is acclaimed in Ward 14.

Ward 15

Judi Partridge won the seat vacated by Margaret McCarthy with 3,396 votes, or 52.72% of the total. Neil Bos came in second with 42.95%.

Ward 15 Results
Candidate Votes % of Total
Neil BOS 2767 42.95%
Brian GASPAR 279 4.33%
Judi PARTRIDGE 3396 52.72%

Ryan McGreal, the editor of Raise the Hammer, lives in Hamilton with his family and works as a programmer, writer and consultant. Ryan volunteers with Hamilton Light Rail, a citizen group dedicated to bringing light rail transit to Hamilton. Ryan writes a city affairs column in Hamilton Magazine, and several of his articles have been published in the Hamilton Spectator. He also maintains a personal website and has been known to post passing thoughts on Twitter @RyanMcGreal. Recently, he took the plunge and finally joined Facebook.

112 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By Anders (registered) | Posted October 25, 2010 at 22:03:38

Congrats to Bob and Jason and Judi! These are all good choices.

Comment edited by Anders on 2010-10-25 21:05:53

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By omro (registered) | Posted October 25, 2010 at 22:12:07

Disappointing Hamilton, disappointing :-(

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By DavidColacci (registered) | Posted October 25, 2010 at 22:16:28

Vote splitting killed the chances of true change this election. I am thoroughly disappointed for Matt Jelly, Mayor Fred and Paul Tetley.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By that's ok we got waterfalls in hamilton (anonymous) | Posted October 25, 2010 at 22:16:29

Gotta Love all of the Changes down at Hamilton City Hall.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted October 25, 2010 at 22:19:12

Hamilton web site says Ward 11

Brenda Johnson 4410 David Mitchell 4165

Hmmmm

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Anders (registered) | Posted October 25, 2010 at 22:19:23

Change that headline, Brenda Johnson just came through on the last two polls...'dewey beats truman'

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted October 25, 2010 at 22:32:23

Just saw that and updated the headline a few minutes ago.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted October 25, 2010 at 22:33:54

Still waiting for one last poll in Ward 1 to report.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By NoSugarAdded (registered) | Posted October 25, 2010 at 22:34:21

God help us all!!!!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By UrbanRenaissance (registered) | Posted October 25, 2010 at 22:42:25

At least we didn't elect Rob Ford...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By woody10 (registered) | Posted October 25, 2010 at 22:48:53

Sad about Fred, I hope this isn't a step backwards. We need to push the big stuff now, LRT, Poverty, velodrome, bikeways and yes get that stadium done. All of which I think B B might not be up for. I hope I'm wrong.
I also think Jason F is an excellent choice. (not my ward) Disappointed so many incumbents got back in.

Comment edited by woody10 on 2010-10-25 21:51:10

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted October 25, 2010 at 22:53:02

I hope Bratina's ridiculous suggestion to make a north-south LRT the first priority was just noise to differentiate himself during the election and/or thinking out loud while on the campaign trail. To throw out two years of work consulting, planning and designing the east-west line now is to give up on LRT altogether.

Then again, with Rob Ford as Toronto mayor, there may be enough provincial rapid transit money available to build both lines...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Meredith (registered) - website | Posted October 25, 2010 at 22:56:25

I'm ok with Bratina as mayor.

I'm really disappointed in Jason Farr. His comments during the Stinson debate weren't too encouraging, as he referenced living at one time on Erie Street but he didn't answer any of the poverty-related questions with much thoughtfulness.

And then in his victory speech he states that "No one who is on welfare wants to be on welfare." Several watching at my house immediately reacted... because several had relatives who do misuse and manipulate the system. Those folks think we're dumb because we actually work for our money, when they get an easy ride, and they're always looking for new ways to get more. (I edited this paragraph for clarity - and I don't understand the downvotes. I know it's not popular, but it's true).

Jason Farr, I hope we can chalk this up to overexcited overgeneralizing. But I can't imagine that you'd run in Ward 2 without realizing that even though a lot of people legitimately need the system, many abuse it as well. And I really hope you can see there's some real problems that need real solutions, not more meaningless statements.

Comment edited by Meredith on 2010-10-25 22:08:29

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted October 25, 2010 at 22:59:44

I heard an interview with Bob on CHML tonight and he spoke eloquently about Vision 2020, rebuilding the city, no more sprawl and he stated that he believes AEGD is the thing that handed him such a decisive victory. He believes residents are tired of spending more tax money for more sprawl. We've tried that for decades.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By len123 (registered) | Posted October 25, 2010 at 23:03:17

sad day for ward3 four more years of losing more hope the new mayor will help more for this ward then Bernie MORELLI has done or not done done.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mogadon Megalodon (anonymous) | Posted October 25, 2010 at 23:07:14

http://www.raisethehammer.org/article/1199/#comment-49572

"Prediction: We're heading for a council that is 80% identical to the current lot, under the guy who was edged out in the last election."

So was I half-right or does Bratina push us above 80%?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted October 25, 2010 at 23:07:38

Memo to Larry DiIanni:

2006 Hamilton municipal election - Strike one. 2008 Hamilton East-Stoney Creek federal election - Strike two. 2010 Hamilton municipal election - Strike three

Do I have to say it? You're out!

The people of Hamilton have spoken AGAIN. Now, put on your politically expedient Tiger-Cats jersey, jump on your politically expedient Vespa, put Eric Cunningham and the rest of the purple mafia on the jump seat and .... get to hell out of town.

Comment edited by realfreeenterpriser on 2010-10-25 22:08:55

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By John (anonymous) | Posted October 25, 2010 at 23:10:00

Hamilton Spectator, take note, when people visit your site on election night they want to see election results! Good job RTH on apparently doing what a major corporate-owned paper can't.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted October 25, 2010 at 23:12:10

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mogadon Megalodon (anonymous) | Posted October 25, 2010 at 23:14:04

I'd like to be hopeful that Mayor Bob will bring more of a focus to downtown, but I worry that he will be more like Mayor Fred than he imagines. Bob may have a singleminded love of downtown, but he's still just one vote of 16, and his campaign was getting juice off of deamalgamation – severing many of the suburbs from the core. Consensus will not be a cakewalk, and there will be no solutions for the old city without serious buy-in from suburban wards. Can anyone recommend a good cryonics lab?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted October 25, 2010 at 23:17:51

FYI I got all my numbers off the city's election results page.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted October 25, 2010 at 23:19:17

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By cityfan (registered) | Posted October 25, 2010 at 23:19:24

This goes to show that Hamilton is a clearly city divided. It shows in the poll results. Almost all the city ward councilors are the same even though people wanted to kick out the so called 'disfunctional' current city council. They (not me) voted Fred out but just put another council member in his seat (but at least DiIanni isn't there). We'll see if Mayor Bratina is the right choice. Jason Farr is an excellent choice for Downtown ward 2 I think because he is young and seems to have some excellent ideas.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted October 25, 2010 at 23:20:09

Sad to see Fred go. He had a great urban vision for our city. Hopefully Bob will continue with the strong focus on LRT, the west harbour, downtown intensification, bike infrastructure etc......

Thanks for everything Fred. You were a great mayor who got Hamiltonians believing in themselves again and realizing that our future lies in building a great city, not just sprawling across the countryside at the wishes of campaign donors.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted October 25, 2010 at 23:21:53

My bad I made a mistake in that 2 or 3 others quoted the Spec. Sorry

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Meredith (registered) - website | Posted October 25, 2010 at 23:22:43

I don't know, it seems I'm getting odd downvotes too. Perhaps just a lot of Jason Farr supporters who don't like honest criticisms, but my criticism has been objective evaluation of his statements, not a personal attack. And it's certainly not like our relatives are the only ones in the world who manipulate social services for their gain, so unless someone has a really rosy view of the system, I don't understand downvotes from there either - I'm not saying to cut off social services to those who need it.

The specific question I was thinking of at the Ward 2 debate (among a couple others) was about decentralizing social services instead of concentrating them in the core, and the response was so "meh, maybe that might be something to look at," not him answering in a manner that indicated he'd thought it through.

If a Ward 2 councillor doesn't understand that question, I'm really leery of him attempting to represent me.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted October 25, 2010 at 23:23:44

You guys are ridiculous. The fact is the Spec DID have a live blog with the numbers. Why the heck would you lie about it. They had the numbers BEFORE this site on many occasions. I was watching both

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted October 25, 2010 at 23:27:04

This is very interesting. We have an entrenched incumbent shocked over AEGD, McHattie winning in a landslide opposing AEGD and the mayor surprising everyone with a lopsided win, and again AEGD being front and centre.

http://www.thespec.com/news/municipalele...

Could that issue be revisited possibly?? There seems to be serious public angst about it.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By cityfan (registered) | Posted October 25, 2010 at 23:27:58

Does it really matter Turbo? who cares.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted October 25, 2010 at 23:31:40

Apparently a couple of troublemakers. You are right I should right them off as sore losers

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted October 25, 2010 at 23:38:26

Any time I get information from another news source, I credit the source. RTH isn't in competition for eyeballs or ad revenue, so we're not afraid to push traffic to other media by linking back.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted October 25, 2010 at 23:41:41

I respect that Ryan. I seriously misread a post early on in which you responded to a poster who had quoted the Spectator and mistakenly said you were the one who had made the quote. Again I apologize

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By johnny p (anonymous) | Posted October 25, 2010 at 23:42:37

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted October 25, 2010 at 23:47:51

that post illustrates clearly why change isn't easy.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted October 25, 2010 at 23:54:14

Realfree - you got your wish:

http://www.thespec.com/news/municipalele...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 00:15:38

2010

Ward 07: 15,669 votes
Ward 08: 14,707 votes
Ward 06: 11.950 votes
Ward 11: 10,471 votes
Ward 05: 10,275 votes
Ward 12: 10,163 votes
Ward 10: 8,557 votes
Ward 13: 8,289 votes
Ward 01: 8,279 votes
Ward 04: 8,236 votes
Ward 09: 7,620 votes
Ward 02: 7,580 votes
Ward 03: 7,134 votes
Ward 15: 6,442 votes


2006

Ward 08: 14,051 votes
Ward 07: 13,908 votes
Ward 06: 10,639 votes
Ward 05: 9,135 votes
Ward 12: 8,575 votes
Ward 01: 8,060 votes
Ward 04: 7,940 votes
Ward 13: 7,768 votes
Ward 11: 7,738 votes
Ward 10: 7,705 votes
Ward 09: 6,665 votes
Ward 15: 6,216 votes
Ward 03: 6,139 votes
Ward 02: 5,991 votes
Ward 14: 4,214 votes

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Brenda Johnson (anonymous) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 00:44:42

We should be really thrilled to see Brenda Johnson in there. Good to see mitchell gone.

Just think- an environmental anti-sprawl councillor elected from a rural area? Who says change can't come?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By sarah (registered) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 00:55:42

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By djbr (anonymous) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 01:12:46

So we have a new mayor, largely based on potential deamalgamation, this isssue was not one of the cities to decide but of provincial decree, so we are going to try to fight the province which forced this on us while at the same time seeking funds from them re their downloading of services?

At a cost of millions to amalgamate, Mayor Bob is going to proprose dealmmagamation?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Hopeful (registered) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 02:03:32

I back Baldasaro's notion that we need to go back to having two councilours represent each ward again (although not necessarily restrained by gender quotas).
We'd have some entirely different faces on Council tonight, and discussion to look forward to over the next four years, if some second choices had been elected as well (Jelly, Tetley, etc.). That said, I think some of the old boys have had to work harder than they're used to to keep their seats tonight and, hopefully, have seen as well that there's folks expecting more from them who are willing to pay attention, organize, and fight for decisions that improve the City as a whole. Maybe this will translate into action if we keep the pressure on them. I'm trying hard to stay Hopeful.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By bigguy1231 (registered) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 03:50:30

Although disappointed with the results of the Mayoral race. I am not going to worry about it too much. Most of council ignored him when he was a councillor, they will do the same with him as mayor. He is only one vote, just like the rest of them. Hopefully he won't embarass this city too much with his antics.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By notalemming (registered) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 05:07:09

I don't believe that much will change due to the fact that the mayor accounts for only one vote. At least he is against the AEGD. It would be nice to hear this council openly discuss Peak Oil and the geographical advantages Hamilton has over other cities preparing for this inevitability.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By winona res (anonymous) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 05:30:55

Check Ward 11 results on your spreadsheet at the top of your post, Ryan. Thanks for sharing the info though!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted October 26, 2010 at 05:59:28

Check Ward 11 results on your spreadsheet at the top of your post

Thanks for catching that! It's fixed now.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Greg (anonymous) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 07:59:13

Surely there is more than 7134 people in my Ward, Ward 3!!! Where in the world was everybody? that's probably what disappoints me the most is that no one showed up; No wonder we're stuck with Morelli again. Too bad for Tetley though, he would have been a much better councilor.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Tnt (registered) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 08:10:56

Nearly 40000 people live on ward3. Shame on them.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Supau (anonymous) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 08:14:16

I love the Ward 8 results. Over 900 votes for two candidates who dropped out weeks ago. People DO need to educate themselves more.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 08:25:45

The advance vote was hopefully responsible for the bulk of that.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By cityfan (registered) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 08:28:43

There is a sayin that I heard (and I'm sure some have heard) that could be said for the low voter turnout in Ward 3 and the rest of Hamilton's wards.

A man comes by to visit a friend and sees his dog moaning loudly on his friends porch. The man asks his friend what is wrong with your dog? Why is he moaning like that?. His friend says "my dog likes to rest in his spot on the porch but there is a nail sticking up out of the wooden boards poking him". The man say why doesn't your dog just move? His friend says "apparently the nail dosen't hurt enough for him to get up off his ass and do something about it".

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By wardcleaver (anonymous) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 08:39:52

I am happiest by one departure - See ya Dave Mitchell!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 08:41:23

I just want to say thanks to RTH for treating voters like grown ups! I found myself coming here more than any other source when I was making up my mind.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Go GO (anonymous) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 08:54:00

I am totally convinced now that Ward 3 has a case of "battered woman syndrome"!
How Morelli gets any votes is beyond me!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By What a waist (anonymous) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 08:56:04

Another 4 years of ARMPIT-itis!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 09:18:00

Increase in voter turnout, 2010 vs 2006 (descending order):

Ward 14: 5,802 votes (+27.4%)
Ward 11: 10,471 votes (+26.1%)
Ward 02: 7,580 votes (+21%)
Ward 12: 10,163 votes (+15.6%)
Ward 03: 7,134 votes (+13.9%)
Ward 09: 7,620 votes (+12.5%)
Ward 07: 15,669 votes (+11.2%)
Ward 05: 10,275 votes (+11.1%)
Ward 06: 11.950 votes (+11%)
Ward 10: 8,557 votes (+10%)
Ward 13: 8,289 votes (+6.3%)
Ward 08: 14,707 votes (+4.4%)
Ward 04: 8,236 votes (+3.6%)
Ward 15: 6,442 votes (+3.5%)
Ward 01: 8,279 votes (+2.6%)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By FenceSitter (anonymous) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 09:41:12

To TnT and Greg,

you say 40,000 people in ward 3. I wonder how many eligible voters??

Lots of illegal dwellings. Remember, the owners of those dwellings, no matter where they live, have a say as well.

But yes, it is sad.



Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 09:57:46

Bratina Vote Geography:

Ward 14: 51.51%
Ward 15: 50.58%
Ward 04: 44.02%
Ward 13: 41.22%
Ward 03: 38.45%
Ward 02: 38.19%
Ward 11: 38.14%
Ward 06: 37.51%
Ward 05: 36.36%
Ward 07: 35.94%
Ward 08: 30.94%
Ward 09: 37.17%
Ward 10: 32.15%
Ward 12: 35.15%
Ward 01: 29.67%

Eisenberger Vote Geography:

Ward 01: 48.88%
Ward 02: 36.93%
Ward 13: 35.43%
Ward 03: 30.08%
Ward 08: 29.74%
Ward 12: 29.60%
Ward 07: 26.56%
Ward 06: 25.55%
Ward 14: 24.42%
Ward 05: 23.33%
Ward 04: 23.17%
Ward 11: 21.81%
Ward 15: 20.82%
Ward 09: 20.07%
Ward 10: 14.75%

Di Ianni Vote Geography:

Ward 10: 48.03%
Ward 09: 35.91%
Ward 11: 34.32%
Ward 08: 33.20%
Ward 05: 33.05%
Ward 12: 31.47%
Ward 07: 30.54%
Ward 06: 29.83%
Ward 04: 23.87%
Ward 15: 20.16%
Ward 03: 19.61%
Ward 13: 18.07%
Ward 14: 18.06%
Ward 01: 15.43%
Ward 02: 15.25%

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted October 26, 2010 at 09:58:32

I don't understand Farr in Ward 2. It must be simply name recognition. His platform seemed to be "we need to roll up our sleeves and work hard to do things"

But I ask: What things?

It saddens me that Caplan and Geleynse took so many votes - this splitting may have cost Jelly the race. I still believe that Jelly would have been the best man for the job in Ward 2, despite other commenters' opinions about his beard.

I'd feel better if Jason Farr actually stood for something... or had, you know, any ideas... or had done something for the core before running.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted October 26, 2010 at 10:03:46

I can live with Bratina as mayor - his ties to Vranich worry me, but I think so much of his crazy crap he talks about (de-amalgamation? A-line first?) is just that he thinks out loud too much before doing the digging. Throughout the stadium debate he was always pushing for more study and research of the options, so it sounds like he'd back off on any of his bad ideas when the facts became apparent.

Of course I'm sad that Fred lost his spot, but I can live with Bob.

Wards 2 and 3 are the saddest result - this election demonstrated the massive power of

a) Incumbency b) Being a media personality c) Strategic voting

Every Geleynse voter I talked to was flipping a coin. In an approval or IRV or whatever mechanism for Ward 2, Matt would've won with a landslide. Instead, a media-personality with brand-name recognition won over the self-made candidate (just like in the Mayor's office) and it will be a lifetime before Matt gets another real chance as the results in every other ward demonstrate.

@Sean

Farr does stand for something. A stadium on a wheat-field on the taxpayer's dime.

I hope Bob Young doesn't take this as vindication, and Council doesn't take Farr's election and Fred's ouster as a referendum on stadium issues telling them to cave to Young.

Well, if there's one thing Bratina's got it's balls, so hopefully he won't let council run back to East Mountain. I'm betting we'll end up with Confed. park now.

Comment edited by Pxtl on 2010-10-26 09:06:53

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 10:21:27

I agree with the vote splitting in Ward 2, but as predicted it was split by Martinus and Jelly. Farr slid up the middle. Too bad, but hopefully they both run again in the future, but in different wards! LOL

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 10:22:45

The Cats wanted Larry.

Who knows what will happen now?

http://rthtools.org/bratinas_positions/

Comment edited by jason on 2010-10-26 09:24:24

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 10:23:30

"I back Baldasaro's notion that we need to go back to having two councilours represent each ward again"

Bad, bad idea. That type of configuration breeds mediocrity and favours incumbents, especially poor performing incumbents, even more than the current system. Why? Because the worse a Councillor performs the more candidates line up to run against him/her especially because there are two spots available. Bill McCullough and Vince Agro played this game for years in Ward Two; publicly humming and hawing about retirement until enough candidates declared and then, late in the game, they'd throw there names in and ride incumbency up the middle of a large pack.

If you REALLY want change on Council; double the wards, cut the wages in half (or less) and redistribute by population. That increases the voices on Council, eliminates the fulltime jobs AND brings back the element of public service. The three mountain wards are currently wildly underrepresented but you hardly hear a peep from those Councillors because redistribution would eliminate at least one of the five old boys' wards in the lower city. Why rock your friends' boat when you've got a fulltime job that, with the rarest of exceptions, you'd never attain in the private sector? (Note: only one incumbent lost their seat and only after committing, not one but, two offences, [municipal conflict of interest and influence peddling with a police officer] that would land regular people in court).

Real change in Hamilton will only be structural not electoral.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By BeulahAve (registered) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 10:43:31

I voted for Fred and wish that he at least gotten more votes than Di Ianni! At first I found Andrew Dreschel's piece on page 1 of The Spec to be a little inflammatory re: Bratina, but perhaps he is trying to push Bratina to overcome his loud-mouthed, thin-skinned tendencies. If Bratina has indeed acted with more decorum and purpose in the days since he entered the mayor's race (as evidenced by his move to better support local cultural industries), then I am hoping that this bodes well for his time as mayor. Trying to be optimistic, but disappointed to be entering another term of new mayor needing to learn the ropes.

I hope that McHattie and Bratina can patch things up as they do certainly have some common interests.

I have really appreciated the coverage offered by RTH. Over the past year I have become a daily reader and have been buoyed in the knowledge that there are other people out there with similar worldviews and interests. Thanks!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 10:46:24

Beulah Ave, Dreschel has made it clear over the years that he is as pro-DiIanni as anyone in the city.
He hopes we have a fractious council for 4 years. That will be more up to the Clark/Collins clique than anything. If they can focus on doing the best job for Hamilton instead of merely opposing the mayor every chance they get, we could have a good 4 years. New blood like Partridge, Johnson and Farr should help too - they haven't been entrenched long enough to put petty politics ahead of the well being of the city.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 10:46:33

If you look at the numbers, some of Bratina's greatest political traction was in Flamborough and Dundas, which leads me to believe that makes it look like deamalgamation has life in it, however impractical and momentum-sapping it would be.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted October 26, 2010 at 11:00:45

@BeulahAve

No, I like having councillors that see council as their top priority, not their hobby. Cut-rate councillors means politics are a sport for the rich or the easily-bought.

For me, I have a simpler design: 1) Approval voting or IRV for council and mayor. 2) More power to the mayor's office - the mayor is the name the public has heard of, the mayor needs more power. The media does not give voters the tools to realistically assess the success or failure of councilmembers, and so they should not have that kind of power if they are unaccountable.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By hmag (anonymous) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 11:02:21

Municipal Reform may be our best bet to change this place...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mikeyj (registered) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 11:13:09

I'm with Meredith, It's hard to believe Farr got voted in with next to nothing in platform solutions, even for his main priority Poverty there is nothing concrete... except blaming poor people for the state of the Core and stepping up law enforcement to remove them. To top it off this is how he summarizes his Poverty stance:

"Those who sy they will never go down there anymore. It sucks - but it's true. The haves wil better understand, and I am confident imbrace this problem - if they share, in their community, in helping to solve it."

http://elections.raisethehammer.org/cand...

I mean how serious can someone be to have released that?

The only concrete statements I've heard from him are for a water park and something on his site about a grocery store. He does seem like a decent guy but it's pretty shocking to see this candidate win out of the promising group we had.

Does this confirm the real voter motivator: face and name recognition? Lets hope there is more substance to this guy, than this guy lets on.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By BeulahAve (registered) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 11:15:51

I agree that councillors should be full time (did not post otherwise), and that the mayor should have more power. I like a model where at least some representatives have an interest in multiple wards or even the city as a whole. Part of what makes our Council dysfunctional is that everyone but the mayor is watching out for their own ward.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted October 26, 2010 at 11:32:27

Are councillors allowed to endorse mayoral candidates? Because in Ward 1 I saw a shockingly large number of Bratina signs on the same lawns as McHattie signs, and I'm surprised that McHattie didn't officially endorse Fred and try to use his massive Ward 1 support to swing some votes Fred's way.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Shaddupsevenup (registered) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 11:43:31

If you look at the numbers, some of Bratina's greatest political traction was in Flamborough and Dundas, which leads me to believe that makes it look like deamalgamation has life in it, however impractical and momentum-sapping it would be.

I noticed that as well. Thanks for the stats. Did you compile them? I didn't think that many people were still behind deamalgamation. Are the casino proceeds really enough to cover the costs of infrastructure development costs in Waterdown? Really?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted October 26, 2010 at 11:45:15

Are councillors allowed to endorse mayoral candidates?

They are, and McHattie did officially endorse Eisenberger.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By BeulahAve (registered) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 11:46:52

McHattie did endorse Fred, and indeed Fred received almost 50% of the votes in Ward 1, a higher percentage than any other ward (shown above on this page). This is one reason why I wrote that McHattie needs to get on better terms with Bratina.

McHattie also endorsed Martinus G. in Ward 2.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 11:48:37

Yeah, I just did a low-tech add & sort. It'd probably be more striking expressed as a map, but as I say… low-tech.

Deamalgamation is what I'm reading into those results. You can also arguably see the imprint of his years as a Ticat colour man and his Ward 2 pedigree.

The Nanos poll inference that his strongest support lay in West Hamilton could not be more wrong, though.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 12:11:57

"No, I like having councillors that see council as their top priority, not their hobby. Cut-rate councillors means politics are a sport for the rich or the easily-bought."

Unfortunately, Hamilton's experience has been Councillors who see being re-elected to the best-paying job they've ever had or will have as their "top priority".

If "cut-rate councillors means politics are a sport for the rich" then how come we didn't see many "poor" people mounting any decent campaigns for Hamilton's "non-cut-rate" positions? I see only one in fifteen wards.

The reality of fulltime municipal positions in Hamilton is that they are almost exclusively filled by those who a) can't get a better job elsewhere - Collins, Merulla, Whitehead, Jackson, Pasuta, Mitchell, Clark, or b)have non-political name-recognition - Bratina, Farr or c) are retired or have jobs/personal situations that allow them the time to be on Council - Ferguson, Morelli, Pearson, Powers, McHattie and Partridge.

The true measure of real representative democracy is the absence of structural impediments to "regular people" running for office. The fact that fulltime municipal positions effectively require people to fund expensive campaigns and then give up their jobs or businesses has relegated Hamilton's Council, with a few exceptions, to the rich, the retired or the unemployed.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted October 26, 2010 at 12:13:17

As much as Deamalgamation is silly to float in an election, the map of Hamilton does look rather absurd.

http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?cd=2&h...

Now, anybody thinking Dundas or Ancaster or Stoney Creek should be de-amalgamated are out to lunch - those areas are practically engulfed into the city.

But does it really make sense for, say, Rockton to be part of the city? Carlisle? Their issues aren't our issues, and vice versa. Realistically, does it make sense for Ward 14 to extend almost the whole way to Brantford and Cambridge? Ward 15 actually physically reaches around part of Burlington.

Bob should set up the new stadium in Freelton! It's part of Hamilton! And it has great highway access.... to the 401.

Waterdown is far more a part of Burlington than it is Hamilton. The only reason any of these regions were duct-taped onto the city was

a) a conservative government looking to cut costs, and b) they have money (ie. Casino), and downtown Hamilton has impoverished addicts from all over the region who consume social services, so we need their money.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 12:36:30

A fresh snapshot based on the Clerk’s GEMS reports @ http://goo.gl/kZ2x. Apologies for the premature breakdown. Increase in voter turnout, 2010 vs 2006 (descending order):

Ward 11: 10,554 votes (+26.7%)
Ward 02: 7,730 votes (+22.5%)
Ward 12: 10,226 votes (+16.1%)
Ward 03: 7,150 votes (+14.1%)
Ward 09: 7,692 votes (+13.3%)
Ward 07: 16,002 votes (+13.1%)
Ward 05: 10,473 votes (+12.8%)
Ward 06: 12,006 votes (+11.4%)
Ward 10: 8,671 votes (+11.1%)
Ward 13: 8,341 votes (+6.9%)
Ward 08: 14,956 votes (+6.1%)
Ward 04: 8,309 votes (+4.4%)
Ward 15: 6,432 votes (+3.3%)
Ward 01: 8,373 votes (+3.7%)
Ward 14: 4,259 votes (+1.1%)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Desmond (anonymous) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 12:53:41

Its pretty indicative of Fred's short reign as mayor that the ward that he served as a councillor previously had him in a distant 3rd place.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 13:16:59

The fact is, during the Harris debacle, the people of Flamborough voted in a Town-supervised referendum, almost unanimously in an incredible turnout, to partition the Town between the County of Brant, the Township of North Dumfries and the City of Burlington all of whom were willing hosts. This bit of grassroots democracy only confirmed what everbody already knew; the parts of Hamilton that are north of the escarpment fit better into other places than they do into Hamilton. The rural parts of Ancaster (west of Highway 52/Trinity Road) would fit nicely into Brant County as well.

The reality of municipal taxation bears little resemblance to the services received; people don't pay for what THEY get but rather what EVERYBODY gets apportioned by the value of their property. It is, essentially, a wealth tax on unliquidated, and in many cases unliquidatable, wealth. As a rule, rural and suburban properties pay more for the same or lesser service. Area-rating softens the blow, but 20-30 minute emergency response times in rural areas still mean that you died of a heart attack, just at a lower cost.

This isn't to say that rural Hamiltonians shouldn't shoulder their fair share of running a city or dealing with the costs downloaded by the Province. But with property values in Hamilton so wildly disparate it seems that the increasing disconnect between what one pays versus what one receives will only fuel the desire to go where the gulf is narrower.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 14:42:30

@ Fred Street:

I wonder how much of the increase can be attributed to population increase. It would be interesting to know the change in turnout as a percentage of the population.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By SadSadDay (anonymous) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 15:01:21

Despite a clear agenda to curb poverty, Martinus Geleynse couldn't win the poorest polling stations (Beasley, East North End, East Corktown, Stinson), ceding most to Farr who has no clue on poverty (or Downtown) in general.

This is a terrible loss for Ward 2!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted October 26, 2010 at 15:11:51

Jason Farr lives in Ward 4. Why didn't he run there? Because Sam asked him not to - and suggested he would have an easier time in Ward 2. Lucky for Sam, it also gives him a friend in a ward which is normally represented by someone a little more progressive.

A challenge to Farr: Move into the ward you are going to be representing. Now.

These Ward 2 hijinx represent the biggest disappointment in this election for me.

Comment edited by seancb on 2010-10-26 14:12:27

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 15:26:48

@ highwater "I wonder how much of the increase can be attributed to population increase. It would be interesting to know the change in turnout as a percentage of the population."

I'd be interested to see that kind of info. Newer arrivals might also be less jaded and more apt to vote.

The GEMS info would make dozens of interesting infographics, but here's another really mundane expression of the results: An advance polling hierarchy.

Ward 06: 1,494 adv
Ward 07: 1,267 adv
Ward 13: 1,114 adv
Ward 11: 1,105 adv
Ward 12: 1,078 adv
Ward 05: 1,039 adv
Ward 02: 979 adv
Ward 10: 943 adv
Ward 03: 869 adv
Ward 08: 756 adv
Ward 09: 741 adv
Ward 01: 690 adv
Ward 04: 622 adv
Ward 14: 334 adv

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Slyvia (anonymous) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 17:34:22

Jason Farr lives in Ward 3!!! Fyi

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted October 26, 2010 at 18:11:23

i stand corrected

still - close but no cigar

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By lawrence (registered) - website | Posted October 27, 2010 at 11:34:25

I cannot be happy with the results of Ward 3. The people have to create the change needed in that ward themselves. That, or Morellis has to look at Paul's platform and realize by his numbers, that many people want the engagement that his platform was built on. I want to get together with my councillor and fellow citizens. Not go to a website that is out of date.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By lawrence (registered) - website | Posted October 27, 2010 at 11:36:30

I wonder if a flyer distrubuted by Tetley in the closing days heading into election stating he had had enough of the stadium debate and a call to end it and make Ivor Wynne the future home of the Cats, actually did more harm then good? As much as I want for Ivor Wynne to live on, it worried me when I seen the flyer in my mailbox.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted October 27, 2010 at 11:46:05

IMO Tetley showed poorly in the televised Cable 14 debate.

During a campaign it's a complete waste of time to come out trashing the incumbent. If your campaign is for change, talk about the issues and what you are specifically going to do to address them.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By lawrence (registered) - website | Posted October 27, 2010 at 12:23:21

I did not see that debate, Andrea. Morelli just seems so uninvolved at the council meetings I have attended, and I don't feel him reaching out to us. Not to say that he doesn't answer emails about concerns I have in our neighborhood, but Ivor Wynne is a perfect example of how I don't feel he engaged us.

If the citizens want to save Ivor Wynne in that area, he should fight for that even if he isn't for it. That is his job. To serve us. If they don't want to save it, than he should be vehemently against me trying to save something he knows for a fact, those he represents don't want saved.

Tetley may have failed on television, but Morelli fails in council chambers when he speaks in my opinion. Fight for us. That's all I want. Reflect our voice, and not your own.

As I said, hopefully the fact that there is someone fighting for his job, will force him to step it up a notch if politics is something he would like to continue with going forward, until a time when he is ready to hang 'em up.

He is once again our representitive and if the populous is still truly happy with him, I'll give him another chance but we should challenge him. Perhaps not simply complain like I have done here, share these thoughts with him instead of over a public forum. It's easy to rant when you don't think someone is looking, but these days, eyes are everwhere.

Thanks for bringing that up, Andrea.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted October 27, 2010 at 12:27:07

With all due respect, he did win the election :-) Obviously some of us feel he more than adequately represents Ward 3.

Bernie doesn't talk just to hear his own voice during Council meetings. Or throw pens, or give in media soundbites every five minutes.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By didImissit? (anonymous) | Posted October 27, 2010 at 12:34:13

When did Tetley bash the incumbent?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted October 27, 2010 at 12:43:21

Apparently posting the list of Morelli's donors from 2006 on his website equals 'bashing' in some people's minds. I guess pointing out the fact that the majority of the incumbent's financial support comes from private interests outside the ward, just isn't 'nice'. We should all just smile and pretend that Bernie has the best interests of his constituents at heart. Oy. I think many of the residents of ward 3 are suffering from a collective form of Stockholm Syndrome.

While it would have been nice to see Bernie go into retirement, I think the election results show that an increasing number of residents are beginning to realize that they deserve better.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted October 27, 2010 at 12:48:57

Vote me down all you want. Tetley was weak during the Cable 14 debate. Even DiMillo corrected him on facts.
Dimillo was well prepared, but far too aggressive - basically slinging mud at all the other candidates. I did not hear one proactive statement from Tetley during that particular debate. Instead his strategy was to hurl statements directed at Morelli regarding his tneure, and interject 'on your watch', or words to that effect. I was waiting to hear a new progressive platform and was disappointed. The opportunity to showcase change was missed.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted October 27, 2010 at 12:50:36

Let me clear it up. I wasn't referencing the donor list. I was referencing the debate.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By didImissit? (anonymous) | Posted October 27, 2010 at 12:59:51

Andrea, Okay, so no bashing then just a weak showing in a debate. That's too bad for him.

highwater, I just took a look on the citys website and this is the first time in the last 3 elections that Morelli has bene below majority of votes. 2003 - 4802, 2006 - 4460 and this year - 3186.

And this year, there was about 1200 more votes than last election. He may have won but it looks like it had everything to do with too many candidiates in the race, not with how many thought he was doing a worthwhile job.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By lawrence (registered) - website | Posted October 27, 2010 at 13:01:16

Yes, some in the chairs do seem to like the sound of their own voices, but perhaps throwing pens is at least a sign of frustration and that Bob cares and has some passion for what he does. I don't know, but when Bernie speaks, I am not drawn to stop and listen. I do listen, but his voice doesn't command it. You would barely know that he is there.

I will give this to Bob. He is the only one who truly made me laugh at all the meetings I attended this summer. The blinds going down on 'the stadium debate.' Clever.

Some people also questioned Mahesh's abilities on a couple of his debates. I don't know, but I find some people with strong debating skills, are those that like the sound of their own voices and they actually annoy me because you can't get a word in edgewise. It's one thing to believe in what you are debating about, and another to simply demand your voice and opinions be heard at all cost.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By didImissit? (anonymous) | Posted October 27, 2010 at 13:10:46

Correction, I just did the math on votes in Ward 3 and it looks like 995 new voters, not 1200. Still not picking up or losing votes in that large an expanding voter turnout doesn't speak well of the incumbent.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted October 27, 2010 at 15:41:59

Still, not picking up or losing votes in that large an expanding voter turnout doesn't speak well of the incumbent.

I find it funny that even with results in, there's still a tendency to question the viability of the returning Councillor.

Making me ask the question: If we think something's gone awry when 11 of 12 incumbents get re-elected...and then we question the fact that two didn't win a majority...at what point do we shine The Spotlight of Accountability on who actually created these results...

...the voters?

Hmm...?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted October 27, 2010 at 19:57:03

I lived in Ward 3 for 10 years and had my problems with Bernie. Also, I really hoped he would resign or lose the ward, change is needed there. However, I had many dealings with Bernie and he always got back to me quickly and with answers. If he didn't have the answer I would get a call from a city staffer who would always follow-up on any issues. Basically, Bernie got shit done for the homeowners in the area. That's tough to compete with. I can criticize Bernie on many things but not on the attention he gives to the voting public in his ward.

Bernie also has his charms with regards to one on one conversations, he can come across as very warm and caring to some of the folks in the neighborhood. I can't comment on his council demeanor or presence but I have seen him in local meetings and he knows what he is doing. I have to say that Tetley's campaign felt very cerebral, analytical and distant. That just does not play well in Ward 3.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Michelle (registered) | Posted October 27, 2010 at 22:34:17

I can also attest to Bernie Morelli's quick response. He did so regarding my concerns with ongoing issues on King St. I sent an email from work and not more than an hour later, he called. Also, either it was divine intervention or he actually got on the phone to the police and had it cleaned up within the week. I must say, he listened to me, welcomed me to the neighbourhood, and I've received correspondence from him since. It's nice to feel listened to, especially where I felt anything but in areas I lived in the past. I've read elsewhere on here that this has been the experience of others in Ward 3.

He has his detractors, obviously, but this is my experience and I voted accordingly. He is approachable, and I feel that should I have an issue in the future, I could call him and I would again get the same response.

BTW, I wanted to comment on this site. It is just great. It's really helped me get to know Hamilton. It's been an incredible resource for me.

Cheers, Michelle (Ward 3)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted October 27, 2010 at 22:48:44

I saw the Cable 14 debate and although I would have voted for Tetley if I lived in that ward, the fact is he didn't do very well in the debate. Regardless, I can't fathom why the northern portions of Ward 3 would vote him back in. Poor old Ward 3. I feel for those of you living there wanting to see change. Looks like you're going to have to roll up your sleeves and bring change bit by bit.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted October 27, 2010 at 23:27:23

Jason,

I can't really agree with the following statement,"Regardless, I can't fathom why the northern portions of Ward 3 would vote him back in. Poor old Ward 3."

Tetley only won polls 8 and 10 out of 16. Here are the numbers:

Poll 308: Bernie MORELLI 256 36.83% Paul TETLEY 270 38.85%

Poll 310: Bernie MORELLI 248 31.92% Paul TETLEY 291 37.45%

From these numbers in only 2 polls I can't conclude that it was only the Northern portions of Ward 3 that voted Bernie in.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Slacker (anonymous) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 13:42:21

mrjanitor, it was votes for the other candidates, particularily Dimillo and Gibson, and to a lesser extent Black that voted in Bernie.

Odds are that only a few of those votes would have gone to Bernie if those candidates were not running. If the others had thrown their support behind Tetley almost none would have gone to Bernie.

Tetley, made some mis-steps for sure, but it was his first run so cut him some slack. It was Gibson's second run and he couldn't capitalize on his previous run. If Tetley runs again we'll see if he can, or can't, improve in debates and at the polls.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 14:14:39

Slacker,

I personally can't agree that it is the fault of other candidates that Paul Tetley did not win the ward. The Tetley campaign did not overwhelmingly excite the people of Ward 3 to vote for him, the numbers don't lie. I had the same situation here in Ward 9 with Brad Clark, two strong candidates in contention, however neither of them captured enough hearts or imaginations of the voters to win on their own merit. I also think that your second statement is pure speculation, unless there is some data to substantiate it.

My previous post is not about whether I cut slack for Tetley or not, it's an investigation into whether Jason's assertion that the North part of Ward 3 voted Morelli in. I looked at the polling data and I could not come to the same conclusion as Jason.

Morelli has been a master at using the personal touch and leveraging his might of 20 years in office to appease people in the Ward. This makes a good argument for term limits as how can one competing with him help with a noise complaint when that person is not in office yet.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 14:23:14

I don't see it as a matter of "fault" but of how broken first-past-the-post is, we've accepted a system where you can win when more than half the voters voted against you, that's crazy. And it's not like there aren't any alternatives that are more fair and representitive.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Slacker (anonymous) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 15:07:49

mrjanitor, I never said fault of other candidates, you said that. I only gave a reason why Bernie was able to win this election. He dropped from 72% of the popular vote to 44%.

In real numbers there was approx. 1000 more voters this time, but Bernie still lost over 1200 votes. That in itself is very significant. Bernie losing 2 polls, is also significant as he never lost any polls in the previous 2 elections (or probably the prior ones as well). Tetley was also close in 2 other polls. To me, that means he caught some hearts and imagination in pockets of the ward but couldn't transfer that to other areas.

Why couldn't that be transferred to other areas is an interesting question. Was it a poor debate showing, was it lack of face time in other areas, not enough volunteers to cover entire ward, or maybe poor media coverage, ie. TV? Don't know but all interesting questions.

Interesting the 2 polls he did win are in the neighbourhood where there was an All Candidates Meeting. Correlation? Again, I dont' know but interesting. Was that the only Candidates Meetings in the Ward?

We can analyze all we want, but the council is set for another 4 years, and soon we won't be talking about the election, but how council has let us down ;)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted October 28, 2010 at 15:38:19

I only attended one all candidates meeting in the Ward...wasn't aware of any others.

Is it fair to say there are two major issues during this election that were pertinent in Ward 3 (Pearl Company & Festival of Friends)?

It would actually be interesting to see if there have been any studies done in regards to voters in municipalities that own vs. voters that rent property.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mogadon Megalodon (anonymous) | Posted October 30, 2010 at 08:57:23

Harry Stinson's reaction to the mayoral and Ward 2 election results:

"I'm really excited because, putting personalities aside, it seems to have been a really strong vote for the downtown. And Bob really took that position. He was the only one, he and McHattie, against the Aerotropolis. I think for a lot of people that was a key issue. And he seems to understand this is a city, it needs to think like a city, it needs to sell itself like a city, and Bob'll be good at that, you know? This really is about selling and giving a sense of optimism rather than squabbling and finger-pointing. I think it's great."

"In our particular meeting it was clear that, in our meeting, Jason was the only one who coherently answered the questions. Clearly, strongly, and in the time period. Whereas there seemed to be otherwise a lot of squabbling over whether they got three minutes or two minutes and 59 seconds, you know… it was just painful the pettiness in some cases. Jason just sort of nailed it might on and, you know, he'll be a strong councillor. And an urban one."

http://www.musicfusion.us/th/harry.mp3

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By I. C. Deadpeeple (anonymous) | Posted October 30, 2010 at 10:42:39

Just a note on ward 12, where the incumbent 'cruised to victory'.

During this campaign we got 1 piece of literature from Ms. Cox-Graham. Nothing from Mr. Ferguson. We got lit. from all the Public School trustee candidates.

Our new P.S. school trustee, Alex Johnston, came to the door & actually spoke to people. She Won! -Handily, because she made the effort. She was not endorsed by the former office holder.

There was no actual in-media debate in Ward 12. When Ms. Cox-Graham found that out @ least week ahead, THAT was the time she should have started knocking on doors. I'm not saying this would have won her the ward, but it would have boosted her votes & given her more cred. & recognition factory next time, should she decide to run again. Maybe her family responsibilities & time constraints prevented this? She blamed money in part for her showing @ the polls.

(Note to Ms. Cox-Graham -We have not seen, heard or received any campaign lit. from your former opponent since he ran when his brother became ill. Next time, get out into the community, listen, learn & tell us what you have to say. No one is going to vote for someone who seems to have given up 1/2 way through a campaign.

I think there is something to be said about a 'landslide' win by an incumbent who doesn't even campaign, & for candidates that will neither debate, nor show their faces at your door to say what their respective visions are for their ward & their City.

The something that can be said is, "Fearful &/or Complacent Electorate". I hope these people are going to enjoy the tax cost of more roads & highways, higher taxes to support & service Airport development, jet fuel stink in the air & lots & lots of Noise from air traffic. Losing Area rating is the least of our worries!

Jobs??? Most of them won't be well paying.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By MAB (registered) | Posted October 30, 2010 at 15:22:44

This council ensured they had jobs at the end of the election. I am still trying to find out if it was the Feds or our local council who voted to change the election date. I do know they added advance polls, without time to plan and inform the public, then moved them up as much as 18 days. Most of the votes were won in the advance polls way ahead of the election day.

As far as the City of Hamilton 2010 Muncicipal Election results it shows that Ward 13 had 15 polls that were counted in. When in fact we had an increase of five polls. Where did the five polling stations votes go?

Did this happen in other wards.

We want to engage the public to vote, by offering convienience... and accessiblility to vote.. not make it unfair to the new running candidates..

This election did not engage people, they just voted to do their civic duty as convieniently as possible. How many would have changed their mind when they found out some the shinangins DiIanni played out... etc etc etc..

Voting 18 days ahead in advance polling does not serve the public.., it served the incumbent councillors who voted to establish these days.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted October 31, 2010 at 18:59:48

I believe runoffs of the top 2 candidates in any ward that no candidate receives 50% would be useful. The problem is probably cost and mechanics but say 30 days after the election a runoff was held with no additional campaigning allowed how many changes would there be. Probably very few but even one would be welcome

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted November 01, 2010 at 08:34:54

Late realizations:

The 2010-14 council is 81.25% identical to preceding council: 3 of 16 changed
The 2006-10 council was 62.5% identical to the preceding council: 6 of 16 changed

Bob is not Hamilton’s first talk radio mayor. Four words: Vic Copps, Civic Square.

Permalink | Context

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted September 03, 2014 at 21:38:06 in reply to Comment 50992

With Bratina, Powers and Morrow gone in the next term, and at least one of McHattie or Clark – and possibly both – eliminated, Hamilton is guaranteed a council with slightly more new blood than the current one had compared to its predecessor,

Even so, if the historic incumbents' handicap holds, there will probably not be quite as much new blood as the City experienced in the 2006 election. Matching that achievement would require the defeat of two incumbent councillors in addition to the one guarantee to be done as a result of the mayoral contest.

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds