When the Majority Doesn’t Decide

 

Nearly seven out of ten Nanaimo voters did not cast a ballot in the civic election. Yet the council elected by those who did will make decisions affecting everyone’s taxes, services and household budgets for the next four years.

The election produced a government. How much public support did it establish?

The City reports final turnout of 31.3%, up from 24.2% in 2022. That improvement deserves recognition. It also means 68.7% did not vote. When barely three in ten participate, we should be asking why so many residents are leaving decisions to so few.

The mayoral result raises another question. Leonard Krog received 10,368 of the 25,240 valid votes cast for mayor—41.1%. The remaining 58.9% went to three other candidates. He won the largest share, but a majority of those voting for mayor chose someone else.

That does not mean those other voters agreed on an alternative. Nor does it invalidate the result. Krog won under the rules.

But winning under the rules and receiving majority endorsement are different things. An honest discussion of democracy must keep that distinction clear.

We must be equally careful with the people who stayed home. Their silence cannot fairly be claimed by the winners or the losers. Some may be satisfied. Others may be discouraged, uninterested, unable to participate or unconvinced that any candidate deserves their vote.

The turnout figure tells us how many participated. It does not tell us why the others did not.

That unanswered question should concern everyone at City Hall.

Residents still have to pay their taxes whether they voted or not. They still depend on water, sewer systems, roads, fire protection and other municipal services. Council’s decisions reach every household, including those that had no hand in choosing it.

For that reason, a narrow base of demonstrated electoral support should encourage humility. Council has the authority to govern the whole city. It should also make a serious effort to hear from the whole city.

That requires more than an invitation to attend a meeting or read hundreds of pages of budget documents.

Can an ordinary working resident understand what is driving the next tax increase? Can a pensioner see what council considered before asking for more money? Can the public identify which spending is essential, which is discretionary and what could be postponed?

Those are practical tests of accountability.

Voters have responsibilities too. Staying home leaves the choice to those who turn out. Anyone who wants a different direction must be prepared to examine the candidates, ask difficult questions and cast a ballot.

But “people should vote” is an incomplete response from those running the system. Candidates must give residents a reason to participate. Local reporting must examine costs and competing choices. Council must demonstrate that public input can influence decisions.

My concern is that we have become too comfortable treating the completion of an election as proof of a healthy democracy. Ballots were counted. Winners were declared. The machinery worked.

The participation figures deserve more attention than that.

Nanaimo’s election settled who will govern. It did not establish that most residents support the winners, approve their priorities or can afford their decisions.

When the majority doesn’t decide, those who win owe the whole community an explanation of how they intend to earn its confidence.

Points to Ponder

• What will council do to understand why so many residents did not vote?
• How will taxpayers see whether their concerns actually change spending decisions?
• Will election winners distinguish the authority to govern from claims of majority public support?

Opinion. Turnout figures are reported by the City of Nanaimo. Mayoral vote percentages are calculated from the City’s published candidate totals.

Sources: City’s official results announcement and turnout  |  Official candidate vote totals