CORRECTED: I mistakenly stated Aidan Johnson had won 10 of 11 polls. Ira Rosen won poll 106 in Ward 1, making Johnson’s victory 9 of 11 polls. I apologize for my error Why Bother? That’s the question I ask myself following Hamilton’s election with its low voter turnout. Why Bother to push for City Hall transparency, Why Bother to push for more civic engagement? Why Bother when people don’t vote and very little changes? It easy to feel disheartened at 34.02% voter turnout. It’s even easier to just give up, and walk away. Why didn’t people vote? There’s no single reason, and we don’t know what reasons equate to what percentage of those who didn’t vote. What we do know is this is not a desirable outcome, and its something we need to address. More about this in another later post, I really haven’t absorbed my emotionally draining disappointment about this. I hoped my work would contribute a small part towards improving engagement. On The Results The poll-by-poll results reveal the City is fairly united in our choices, this is not a suburbs versus city divide in how people voted, nor are their neighbourhood divides in the wards. All incumbents won with huge majorities and super-majorities. Based upon the results, Hamiltonians who vote are extremely happy with the direction of the City. The most interesting result of the election race? The Ward 15 Public School Trustee race which was decided by only 11 votes. Mayoral Eisenberger strongly carried the Mountain and Ancaster. Dundas and Downtown Hamilton were won by McHattie by very narrow margins, and Eisenberger’s support in Flamborough was barely behind Clark with Eisenberger winning the suburban parts of Flamborough. Clark won Stoney Creek, Upper Stoney Creek, and Glanbrook – the ward he represented and the areas surrounding. Even here, Eisenberger’s margins were very good. Eisenberger won the Lower City convincingly. He was elected no by one area of Hamilton, but by the entire City. While it may not feel so – mostly because Eisenberger ran a very quiet campaign – we have our first Mayor who is supported across the divides we created among ourselves post-amalgamation. The Wards Ward One Aidan Johnson won a convincing victory in Ward One. I was watching for the poll-by-poll results expecting to see very different margins in the many neighbourhoods. Instead, Johnson won 9 of the 11 polls in Ward One. Sandy Shaw, who placed second, won the poll at Ryerson Recreation Centre. Ira Rosen, who placed sixth, won Poll 106 in Westdale. Johnson’s margins were close in most of the polls he won, with only Poll 104 – Dalewood being a decisive victory at an individual poll. Nonetheless, on a Ward wide basis, Johnson won a good mandate for his platform. Also of note, McMaster students continue to join the rest of society in not voting. Poll 103 – Binkley United Church on Main West, just west of McMaster – continues to have the lowest turnout in Hamilton with only 152 ballots cast. 14% of registered voters. Keeping in mind the overwhelming number of McMaster students are not registered voters, the turnout is even more poor than the statistics imply. Want to increase voter turnout, McMaster is our low-hanging fruit. Ward Three The biggest surprise of the night was the overwhelming, incumbent-like, victory of Matthew Green. In a crowded field of 15 candidates, Green nearly won a majority of total votes. Of the 12 regular polls, Green only “lost” in two of them. I put lost in quotations because Green’s “lost” is only in election day ballots by margins that reflect his campaign focusing on getting his supporters out to the advance polls. Green put nearly 20% of his votes into the advance ballot boxes before voting day. In Keith Poll 301 – Eva Rothwell Centre, Green lost by 21 votes to Ralph Agostino. Agostino moved to the Keith neighbourhood early in the campaign. North of Barton at Poll 302 – United Steelworkers Centre, Green lost by 3 votes to Agostino. With 533 votes in advance polls, I have no doubt that Green won every neighbourhood if those advance ballots were counted at their home polls. Voter engagement is tied directly to socio-economic position. Traditionally in Ward 3, voter turnout is concentrated in the southern portion where incomes are higher, and lower north of King, even lower north of Barton. The candidates focused their efforts on getting people to advance polls. Almost unheard of, 16% of votes were cast at the advance poll. We don’t know which neighbourhoods the advance votes were front. There’s an irony in that the effectiveness of campaign voter mobilization efforts make it difficult to quantify the effectiveness of neighbourhood engagement/mobilization campaigns.