Westside Naming Referendum

[Bestside]

Thanks for joining us, Lori! I think a good joke is a great way to alleviate some of the stress in a situation like that. Of course it can always backfire, at least with some, but it's usually worth the risk. People are far too willing to get offended these days.

Well said Jo. I would much rather someone make an attempt at humour and have it backfire (I thought Lori's jokes were funny myself) than make no attempt at all. We take things way too seriously these days.

I commend Ms. Welbourne for recognizing that some of her jokes may have been bad...
Funny that such recognitions by the giver are more often than not right on the money...
Kudos to the Mayor for having a good sense of humour.. the Mayor is a wonderful inclusive person

I apologized to the mayor and many of the councilors later, explaining that I meant no disrespect and was merely going for a cheap laugh (bad habit!). They all said they thought it was funny.

Lori Welbourne

[angusog]

The thing is.. if the (non) event was in fact meant to ridicule West Kelowna, then, for reasonable people, it would have played as an advantage to West Kelowna, not a disadvantage.

I would assume Lori with her sense of humour would get a hoot out of her last name... and I expect she has made reference to it on more than one occasion...

I would tend to think of this as a Pseudo-event concocted by Mr. turner and his cohorts to make their position acceptable to the sway vote. They have no leg to stand on and need this to change popular view of the issue. Thanks to the committee and more precisely canadman or the Name Game his alter ego, we know what their intent was and are now galvanized in support of the only true name for our Municipality. Westbank will live on and not only in memory!

[Bestside]

The thing is.. if the (non) event was in fact meant to ridicule West Kelowna, then, for reasonable people, it would have played as an advantage to West Kelowna, not a disadvantage.

I would assume Lori with her sense of humour would get a hoot out of her last name... and I expect she has made reference to it on more than one occasion...

I would tend to think of this as a Pseudo-event concocted by Mr. turner and his cohorts to make their position acceptable to the sway vote. They have no leg to stand on and need this to change popular view of the issue. Thanks to the committee and more precisely canadman or the Name Game his alter ego, we know what their intent was and are now galvanized in support of the only true name for our Municipality. Westbank will live on and not only in memory!

Mr. Turner did not bring this up Angusog... a couple of new posters did... and Mr. Turner warned people to not read much into what those people were reporting about the event.

Angusog, I give you and your cohorts full credit for getting your direction for this confrontational name voting exercise put in place exactly how you wanted it. Your opposition danced to your tune and they handled it very badly... again to your credit... congratulations. You are the winner.

[occasional thoughts]

So now we know that Andy is a hypocrite too. I was not at the event, I did not know about the event, as Bestside notes, until days later, and I was trying to support Andy's mayoral hero Doug Findlater whose body language at the event was being diagnosed and read by self-professed experts. angusog, you disgust me, but now I know you're dishonest along with everything else.

[angusog]

So now we know that Andy is a hypocrite too. I was not at the event, I did not know about the event, as Bestside notes, until days later, and I was trying to support Andy's mayoral hero Doug Findlater whose body language at the event was being diagnosed and read by self-professed experts. angusog, you disgust me, but now I know you're dishonest along with everything else.

Thank you R.T. for at last telling us what your true feelings are! Not such a fine upstanding citizen are we? but flawed like everyone else.

[parachute]

At the All-Candidates meeting last night every candidate said that if they were on council they would accept the name that came in “first past the post” (some said they would go with the “majority” name but what they really meant was “plurality”).

So there we have it. Probably our city name will be decided by a plurality rather than a majority. We are treating the process of choosing a name like the process of electing a councillor (who will be in office for only 3 years, most likely). An ENDURING city name and a TEMPORARY elected official are completely different kettles of fish!

All indicators point to a two-way race between the names West Kelowna and Westbank and therefore any voter who chooses either Westlake or Okanagan Hills will see their vote dismissed and having no influence on the final name of our city whatsoever. Too bad!

Really, those people who would like either Westlake or Okanagan Hills should actually consider which of West Kelowna or Westbank they would prefer as a their second choice and actually vote for that name. In other words the electorate should ‘hold their nose’ (if necessary) and vote for either West Kelowna or Westbank. Only by voting that way will council really obtain a “majority” opinion. We may not like this procedure but that is the best we can do with the ballot given to us.

Unfortunately it is possible that even if we all do what I suggest above, council members could still find themselves in a pickle. What if the first question indicates that 60% of us want to keep Westside and then the second question gives a majority of 55% to one of West Kelowna or Westbank? What then?

[brightstar]

RE: last night's forum.....Could someone please post all the candidates names and what municipal name they said they would want. Thank you!

[canadman]

Chrschrs...

I believe it was as follows:

Jim Dixon made a joke and said his name wasn't on the ballot, Dixonville. Glad to see he took it seriously. He then said he'd be fine with Westbank, West Kelowna or any of the names

Peter Haslock said he had Westbank as his preference but after thinking about it since asked at the last forum he would be happy with either Westbank or West Kelowna.

Marc Greenburg, I think he said any of the names but he was more interested in once this is done everybody coming together and moving on.

Mary Mandarino expressed support for West Kelowna

Gord Milsom wouldn't answer the question and neither would Duane Ophus or Carol Zanon, all choosing instead to dodge it by suggesting they'd let the voters decide.

Joe Strocen said his preference was Westside though he would be happy with West Kelowna as well.

Elva Webber supported Westbank.

Rosalind Neis had left before that question was asked.

Bryden Winsby supported West Kelowna.

Interestingly though they were also asked if they would support selecting whatever name received the most votes even if that name didn't actually receive a simple majority of votes (in other words 50% + 1).

Jim Dixon didn't understand the question (despite it being posed to him twice) all others said they would except a 'first to the post' finish though Gord Milsom again kind of dodged the question suggesting he would 'consider' whatever name got the most votes rather than actually commit to accepting it. The audience broke out into a rather loud response questioning his use of the word 'consider'... very non-committal.

[Jim Dixon]

Chrschrs...

I believe it was as follows:

Jim Dixon made a joke and said his name wasn't on the ballot, Dixonville. Glad to see he took it seriously. He then said he'd be fine with Westbank, West Kelowna or any of the names

Close but you missed my statement. I said the name I would choose was not on the ballot, and, that they wouldn't let me put Dixonville on the ballot. I also said I liked Westbank because of it's history and background, but also liked West Kelowna as In North Vancouver, it too puts us on the map.

Interestingly though they were also asked if they would support selecting whatever name received the most votes even if that name didn't actually receive a simple majority of votes (in other words 50% + 1).

Jim Dixon didn't understand the question (despite it being posed to him twice)

I understood the question the first time regarding 'even if it is under 50%'. A point I wish to make here is that while on the governance committee I pointed out just how a minority could choose our future - the same applies to this ballot. I wanted to make sure the question was read again because there had been a carry-over of chatter behind John. I answered the question . I said I would "stand behind whatever the result and move forward."
I think we should pay closer attention to what the ballot says. It does say "community opinion vote to consider re-naming..."

The council, in my opinion should have butt right out of the whole process and instead allowed the naming committee to come up with a list, and that list goes on the ballot and we live with majority rule - nothing for council to consider.

[cpt64]

The following is an open question to the candidates for Council. Pretty much all of you at the Forum on Monday were fine with the " First past the Post " concept.

We're all assuming the majority of the electorate wants to change the name Westside however there are some who want to maintain that name and the only option for them is to vote " No " in Question 1.

What are your thoughts in a scenario where the percentage voting " No " in Question 1 is less than 50%, but still higher than the top choice in Question 2?

[Jim Dixon]

The following is an open question to the candidates for Council. Pretty much all of you at the Forum on Monday were fine with the " First past the Post " concept.

We're all assuming the majority of the electorate wants to change the name Westside however there are some who want to maintain that name and the only option for them is to vote " No " in Question 1.

What are your thoughts in a scenario where the percentage voting " No " in Question 1 is less than 50%, but still higher than the top choice in Question 2?

First, we must remember how this works. If the first question majority is a No 50%+1 (to changing the name) then the second part is not even counted. If the first question result is Yes (to change) then the second part is counted and the majority rules. The second part can't count if the first part is a No. Therefore, using your scenario, where question one where No is less than 50%, then Yes must be the result - more than 50%... ergo, it must be then 50+1=Yes to change and then the second part is counted and the name with the most wins.

However, the way it is worded, Gord Milsom was right when he used the word "consider" because council will consider the results, and don't have to stick with it. It was a very bad way to set this up.

Jim

[canadman]

I do see the point that has been made here. If Westbank or West Kelowna could be the name selected based on a plurality of votes, Westside would, in effect, be measured by different criteria, a simple majority (50% +1) to win.

Since Westside is, in effect, another name open to consideration, by virtue of Jim's explanation and the points made earlier, Westbank or West Kelowna (or either of the other two choices) could technically win with as little 26% of the vote, yet for Westside to win (which I hope it doesn't) question 1 would need 50% + 1 vote answering 'no change'.

So in a scenario where, let's say 38% say no change in question 1, and the name with the most votes in question 2 only has 37% of the vote, does that then not mean Westside has more votes than the top name in question 2?

The way the ballot should have been constructed based on Councillor Findlater's proposal would have been to draft it like this:

Question

Our present official municipal name is District of Westside. Which name would you prefer for our municipality?

a) Westside (our current name)
b) Westbank
c) West Kelowna
d) Westlake
e) Okanagan Hills

Again, this is something that could easily have been remedied had Council been willing to hear from the expert in quantitative analysis on Councillor Findlater's ballot proposition, which it refused to do. Instead, the Councillor's attempt to create a ballot to produce a 'clear' result without seeking professional advice first may now have only confused matters even more.

I think it's clear now that this ballot has to be approached as one that will be determined by plurality and therefore a split vote.

I doubt highly that no change will get more than 50% of the vote therefore the choice comes down to 4 names, the one with the most votes most likely being selected by Council, as confirmed by most candidates at this week's forum.

Again I say that, this being the case, since I truly believe there is simply not enough support for either Westlake or Okanagan Hills to beat out Westbank or West Kelowna, any vote for either of those other two names must be considered not just a non-vote but possibly, and most likely a vote in favour of Westbank.

If you want Okanagan Hills (or Westlake) but are equally content with Westbank as a name then of course it doesn't matter. If, on the other hand you want Okanagan Hills or Westlake, but your next choice, beyond those two, would be West Kelowna and not Westbank you should probably vote for West Kelowna as not doing so will simply take a vote away from West Kelowna and therefore strengthen the chances of the name Westbank winning.

I realize I will now have spawned a series of responses to this post blasting me for advocating West Kelowna but I am only pointing out the practical reality of the voting situation as it exists now.

I realize this is not how Bestside and some others wanted this to end up, and we had created a ballot (TNC) in the hopes of avoiding just this dilemna, but this is how it exists today and we need to all vote with our heads, despite our emotions telling some of us to vote otherwise.

[parachute]

In canadman’s latest post he suggests that there will be a number of responses to his advocating West Kelowna – and I am sure there will be. However, instead of blasting or praising canadman and telling him how wrong (or how right) he is, what about answering the following question?

How many posters on castanet – or ever better: how many residents of the Westside believe the presently worded naming questionnaire is flawed?

If the answer to that question is a resounding ALMOST EVERYONE (which I believe it would be) then perhaps the new council will step back and bring in some experts to advise them as to a non-flawed process for deciding our city name!

Basing the name choice on the results of a non-binding questionnaire that is flawed is STUPID in my opinion.

[Jim Dixon]

..........
How many posters on castanet – or ever better: how many residents of the Westside believe the presently worded naming questionnaire is flawed?

We can blame Victoria. When the governance committee worked on this same thing for the referendum, I brought up how the decision to incorporate or amalgamate could be made by 26% of the voters. There was a lot of debate over this but Victoria approves the ballots. The point Victoria made clear is that, and in our case now, Westside IS the name of our municipality. You can't make it an option along with the rest, you must make it a choice to keep it or change it. Just like the referendum ballot asked if we wanted change and if there was change, which option would we choose. The same is being applied here, almost, because the results are non-binding and council can do whatever.

Basing the name choice on the results of a non-binding questionnaire that is flawed is STUPID in my opinion.

Agreed. Since council can simply reject the whole outcome of the naming and leave it as it is, or they can do what Lake Country did and just pick a name and that will be that. The democratic process is there in spirit alone. Too bad.

Jim

[angusog]

Re: Try A Two Track Voting Procedure For A Municipal Name
by parachute on Jun 14th, 2008, 7:14 pm

I have changed my mind about having 3 names on a November naming ballot. The simplest and most straightforward ballot would have 2 names so that the result of the ballot voting would be unambiguous. One name would receive the most votes and that would be it!

When we consider that any resident of the District of Westside can submit an application to be a member of the 9 person “naming committee”, then look at what that committee must do: call for the public to submit names, arrange for some public discussion, form a public task force, work for the best interests of the community at large, and finally submit their recommendations to Council by end of September: --- that should be sufficient.

After all of that effort by the committee and the public, our elected Council must study those recommendations and prepare a ballot.

I view all of that process as providing sufficient community consultation, input and feedback. Council should not, at that late stage, insist on waffling still further and presenting a preferential ballot with a whole bunch of names! Two names on the ballot give us a “yes” for this name or a “yes” for that name and no need for us to hum and haw, back-and-forth, which of the 5 names do I really want?

Make the final vote by the public as simple as possible and get it done!

This makes perfect sense parachute, "that would be it!" but what happened between then and now to have you change your mind I wonder?