Westside Naming Referendum

[parachute]

From June 14 to November 5 is five months. Things change, angusog. On June 14th I wished for a 2 name ballot – allowing voters to choose either name XXX or name YYY. Do we have such a ballot now? NO WAY! Why do you suggest that I have changed my mind?

You can keep on wondering if you want to, I could care less about that but I do care that a flawed ballot will be taking time and money to process and will either get us nowhere or perhaps get us where we really and truly do not want to go.

[angusog]

From June 14 to November 5 is five months. Things change, angusog. On June 14th I wished for a 2 name ballot – allowing voters to choose either name XXX or name YYY. Do we have such a ballot now? NO WAY! Why do you suggest that I have changed my mind?

You can keep on wondering if you want to, I could care less about that but I do care that a flawed ballot will be taking time and money to process and will either get us nowhere or perhaps get us where we really and truly do not want to go.

"I have changed my mind"

That's why parachute! I really don't have to wonder though. You thought Westbank wasn't going to be on the ballot then so the process was fair in your mind! Now it is and you are crying foul along with the "anything but Westbank" crowd. Kind of hypocritical wouldn't you think?

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.

So we are required to have the first question by Victoria and it is followed by a four name ballot which you asked for parachute and still you are not happy! We only wanted the two frontrunners so that a clear decision could be reached but now thanks to you and your friends we have two spoilers.

[Jim Dixon]

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.

So we are required to have the first question by Victoria and it is followed by a four name ballot which you asked for and still you are not happy! We only wanted the two frontrunners so that a clear decision could be reached but now thanks to you and your friends we have two spoilers.

What? What do you mean I'm not happy? Where on earth did you get the idea I wanted a four name ballot? And what makes you think I had anything to do with this? I had ZERO to do with this naming process or the outcome of the ballot. And my "friends"??? I don't know where you get your ideas from, but you are way off base - way off.

Jim

[occasional thoughts]

Mathematically, the least the winner of a four-contender or four-choice referendum could win by on a plurality basis would be 25% plus 1 (with two getting 25% and one getting 25% minus 1).

So, change/no change could be decided by 50% plus 1 for change and and 50% minus 1 for retaining Westside, while the four-parter could declare a winner based on 25% plus a couple. Damn right, something's not right here.

"They" better hope it doesn't turn out that way. All grist for the appeal to the courts and/or the Ministry of Community Development by the losing side.

[angusog]

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.

So we are required to have the first question by Victoria and it is followed by a four name ballot which you asked for and still you are not happy! We only wanted the two frontrunners so that a clear decision could be reached but now thanks to you and your friends we have two spoilers.

What? What do you mean I'm not happy? Where on earth did you get the idea I wanted a four name ballot? And what makes you think I had anything to do with this? I had ZERO to do with this naming process or the outcome of the ballot. And my "friends"??? I don't know where you get your ideas from, but you are way off base - way off.

Jim

Sorry Jim but my remarks were directed at parachute and not you. I think if you read the preceding posts it will be more clear!

[Jim Dixon]

Sorry Jim but my remarks were directed at parachute and not you. I think if you read the preceding posts it will be more clear!

Whew! You had me worried there.

Since the 'name' is for consideration only by council. The division between the two names is like a dagger through the heart of the Westside. Since so many are feuding over it, and no matter which of the two are chosen, or any of the others for that matter,few will forget it. I predict animosity either way, any way it goes.

It's sad - disheartening actully.

Jim

[cpt64]

..........
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

Jim, thanks for responding to my earlier post. I was starting to wonder if anyone would and I appreciate the fact that you were the first up to the plate. I can understand what you're saying about Victoria but just because they're saying that Westside must be singled out because it's our current name, does not mean it must answer to a higher standard, IMO.

When the TNC ballot was trashed, those councilors responded to one group of Westsiders and dissed another group at the same time, just because they weren't being vocal. Those silent were trusting the process and saw no need to say anything. And probably the worst part is, they were not even given the chance to respond and be vocal because the alternate ballot was voted on and passed immediately.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, because the majority want change, those wanting Westside should be ignored and dissed as well, even though potentially they could have more votes than the top choice of Question 2.

Of course, the point may be moot if the scenario above doesn't materialize, but I'm thinking if it does, Council would be hard pressed going with anything but Westside or face not only the wrath of those who voted " no change " but also some who voted to change but didn't get the top spot in Question 2. No doubt there are those out there who dislike Westbank or West Kelowna so much, they'll be glad to keep Westside.

I agree with parachute 100%. This ballot is totally flawed in more ways than one but we're stuck with it now and there's nothing left to do but vote and see what happens.

I would appreciate any comments from other candidates.

[Urbane]

Whew! You had me worried there.

Since the 'name' is for consideration only by council. The division between the two names is like a dagger through the heart of the Westside. Since so many are feuding over it, and no matter which of the two are chosen, or any of the others for that matter,few will forget it. I predict animosity either way, any way it goes.

It's sad - disheartening actully.

Jim

Unfortunately you're right about the animosity Jim. The naming issue should have been handled differently and some of the old battles will continue regardless of the naming decision. As the years go by, I say with genuine optimism, the community will come together. Mount Boucherie Secondary is a shining example of how people from all over the community (and beyond - we won't forget Peachland!) can work together. I hope that you're elected to council on November 15th. I find your honesty and openness refreshing (not every politician would acknowledge the fact that animosity is likely to continue) and you will be a welcome addition to council.

[Bestside]

..........
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.

Apparently we can't blame Victoria. This was covered before and... because it is only an opinion poll, and is not a binding vote, the ballot can be made up however the council dictates or whatever the council approves as recommended to them. There are no rules to cover a simple opinion poll.

"The ballot is not a referendum, but merely an opinion poll designed to give the new Westside Council enough data to gauge public opinion."

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

Agreed as well... because the ballot is flawed and STUPID.
Question No. 1 is Findlater's. Simply put he does not know the rules for an opinion poll ballot or he was designing the ballot to change the agenda in mid-stream. The majority of Council, with the exception of Neis and Milsom, are now on record that the opinion poll ballot is a binding referendum with first past the post? A very good presentation to the Ministry outlining council's methods of not being straight with the electorate could well overturn the result if it is not to retain "Westside".
But what the hey... it is what it is...

[Bestside]

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.

Ouch... you are singling me out to make it difficult to not give some 20/20 hindsight advice... LOL...

Well... you already know what I thought should have been on the ballot... the primary and most important question should have been do you want a new name or a current community name?

I don't think you can compare a two question set on "Westside" to a four question set on four names. They are fundamentally different. With the two-set there is either a tie or a majority... with the four-set you have another level... a simple plurality... So a comparison and an argument as to which is more popular is really not possible. I do think however a case could be made to have a run-off between the top two names if one of the four names does not receive a majority. This was promoted by the Westbankers in a previous time...

I disagree with your ballot... it should be in alphabetic order in keeping with BC place name protocol:
a) Okanagan Hills
b) West Kelowna
c) Westbank
d) Westlake
e) Westside

You should have kicked the expert in quantitative analysis azz down the road right at the start and the NC might have had a better result. The first clue was he belongs to same club as Findlater... retired Fed. Vote up to three names and he will tell you which is the one? How many of the 30,000 residents is going to buy that? The answer is it depends on what he comes up with. (His Fed. analysis might have spit out "Lac Okanagan" for the name. )

Another thing (fully hindsight) you should have never came on and asked the Castanet thugs for input into the Naming process.

So you agree with the Westbankers that there was never any support of any consequence for a new name. Some new names were getting some good press... it could have happened... until some people made sure it would not happen. But I am still hopeful that a great many people will not participate in this destructive West Kelowna vs. Westbank exercise.

I am not blasting you for your stance of going head to head. What you are doing is a very normal reaction to being treated badly, not being appreciated, not shown any respect for your efforts and them not paying attention to your warnings about what would happen. People in this situation as often as not react such that their warning actually comes true. That is playing out here. Angusog thanked you for that.

I fear that by your not taking a neutral stance and not taking the high road you have driven the Westbank agenda for them to attract more members who may have preferred a new name as well.

Again I don't necessarily blame you... given what you went through...

Everyone should vote for what they think the best name is... then they can look themselves in the mirror going down the road through Okanagan Hills...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Life isn't like a bowl of cherries
it's more like a jar of jalapenos.
What you do today,
might burn your *bleep* tomorrow." - Garfield

[Jim Dixon]

......Apparently we can't blame Victoria. This was covered before and... because it is only an opinion poll, and is not a binding vote, the ballot can be made up however the council dictates or whatever the council approves as recommended to them. There are no rules to cover a simple opinion poll. s...

I understood Vicxtoria had to approve all ballots that were outside the standard. I missed where it was covered before.

[canadman]

You know, someone was pointing out to me today, and it's true, beyond naming committee's, meetings of Council members and everything else, we need to put all the ballot debate behind us. The ballot is what it is and we all have to move forward now. None of us will ever agree 100% with each other what constitutes the 'best' ballot. What we have now is the ballot we've been given.

Personally, and I agree with Rob Turner on this, we should all insist, regardless of which name gets the most votes come next Saturday (and yes, I mean this even if West Kelowna beats out Westbank) that unless a name gets 50% +1 vote or more that we should remain Westside, take the top two names and have a future binding referendum between those.

If Westbank were to get 50% +1 of the vote I will gladly accept Westbank as our name. Likewise if West Kelowna or any of the other names do the same. Anything less than 50% does not reflect the will of the majority of Westside citizens (voters) and for something as permanent as a name I think a majority of voters is what we should all settle for and nothing less.

[cpt64]

Yup, we've proven the ballot is flawed. We need the candidates to acknowledge that it's flawed as well. It would be pretty tough for anyone to dispute 50+1 and that's the standard that needs to be met for us to move forward as a community under one name.

[canadman]

I agree, and the more I've thought about it tonight the more I believe it's the only way we'll achieve unity.

If any name achieves 50% +1 it will be undeniable, vote split or otherwise that the majority has spoken in which case I believe the minority will accept the decision in this case.

Otherwise consider what happens if a name wins, whatever name it is, by 35% let's say... 65% of the community will feel disenfranchised.

In fact I'd go so far as to say Council should put this on the next agenda (do they meet next week?) and set this as a commitment. This way they avoid all the hassles and if next Saturday's vote doesn't achieve a majority you treat the vote like stage one of a runoff... you set a future date for a referendum, which I know will cost money, but that's the price of creating unity, and you runoff the top two names so you ensure a simple majority for the winner. Unity problem solved.

Honestly, if Westbank won by a majority of 50% +1 I'd be satisfied with that. And I'd go so far as to say that if West Kelowna won by 50% +1 many Westbank supporters would accept that too. And yes, this applies to Westlake, Okanagan Hills and Westside too.

This whole thing has been about creating unity. No, I won't give up my right to advocate for the name of my choice but I am completely willing to accept theresult if it's by simple majority whichever way it goes and I think most in this community would feel the same way.

All Council has to do is agree to make that the standard and they will have redeemed themselves for any suspicion that may have been brought against them for having an agenda and will have moved one big step closer to creating unity in this municipality.

[cpt64]

Right on the money canadman. It should be dealt with prior to and not after the fact to suit the needs of one particular group. If there's not enough time, at the very least, we should get some sort of commitment from the candidates. The more I think of it as well, it's the only solution, now that we're stuck with a flawed ballot. I agree that this is a chance for certain councilors to redeem themselves.