Maybe it’s Time For Toronto City Council To Officially Recognize Party Politics
- CIVILIAN Magazine
- Sep 27
- 4 min read
When Calgary introduced partisan politics to its municipal elections, I scoffed at the news, assuming it would only create more division. I could only imagine that bringing parties into local politics would nationalize conversations, potentially creating unnecessary conflicts over issues that don't need to be ideological—like street-level traffic policies, zoning changes, or local park development.
But as we get closer to Monday’s byelection in Scarborough-Rouge Park, I’m starting to think that Calgary might be on to something.
For the average voter, local politics–especially in a large, diverse city like Toronto–can often feel like navigating a maze of competing interests without clear road signs. While non-partisan ballots may seem ideal for fostering practical, community-focused governance, it can, and has, led to confusion.
There are now a staggering 20 candidates vying for the vacant Ward 25 seat, leaving locals scratching their heads about who to vote for.
But hey, at least most candidates have their phone numbers publicly listed on the City website, right? Now all residents have to do is set aside—20 candidates, times 45-minute phone calls…carry the one—15 hours of their already busy weeks, and they can find out the ideological make-up of the people who are looking to govern their neighbourhood for the next four years.
Here’s an idea. Perhaps the best way to bring clarity to municipal elections is to officially introduce party labels to Toronto City Hall.
I would be remiss if I didn’t highlight potential complications: Would partisan politics at the local level create more gridlock? Could it risk politicizing everything from social services to public transit?
Before we explore this, let's be clear…Toronto City Hall is already partisan.
At the moment, we’re dealing with the worst of both worlds: a system that pretends to be non-partisan while still being shaped by party ideologies in practice. To anyone paying close enough attention, the political reality is that ideologies are very much at play.
If you don't believe me, sit in on a budget meeting.
There are factions at Toronto City Hall—whether they’re loosely defined as “progressive,” “conservative,” or even “centrist”—that shape the decisions and direction of the city. Some councillors are clearly aligned with certain ideological viewpoints, even if they don’t have party labels next to their names. And they vote together.
So, the absence of official political parties in Toronto’s municipal system only creates a landscape where casual voters struggle to understand candidates' core beliefs, leading to fragmented and sometimes opaque policy debates. As a result, residents may elect a councillor they believe aligns with their views—only to discover, when the issue extends beyond hyper-local concerns, that their representative votes against motions related to major citywide projects they expected them to support.
In a video interview conducted by Scarborough Civic Action Network (SCAN), candidates parroted the same message regarding the City’s approval of new zoning bylaws that allow for the construction of sixplexes in designated areas "as-of-right".
The general consensus was opposition to allowing property owners to expand their buildings to six units without the need for special permits or rezonings–exactly what voters wanted to hear.
But without the clarity of party affiliation to provide ideological context, it seems even harder than usual for casual voters to tell whether these are simply narratives crafted by candidates who hide their true motivations behind pragmatic speech designed to win votes.
As the system stands, it's difficult to rely on candidates' words as reliable indicators of their future actions.
I understand that the main concern with introducing partisanship in municipal elections is the potential for the same kind of ideological gridlock that often plagues federal or provincial politics.
But the difference is that at the federal or provincial level, voters are voting for a party and its leader, and their vote is often married to the national message. If a voter supports the Liberal Party, for instance, they are supporting the Liberal leader as the potential Prime Minister or Premier, and the party’s policies generally unify the message.
At the municipal level, however, the position of Councillor is independent of the Mayor, thus decentralizing the politics. City councillors don’t owe their position to a “party leader” and are more likely to prioritize their constituents' immediate needs over a party’s broader political agenda–on hyper-local issues.
This makes municipal party labels simply serve as identifiers—a helpful guide to navigating City Hall's muddy waters.
Moreover, this newfound clarity would likely increase engagement from community members who would otherwise sit out of the electoral process.
In the lead up to the upcoming byelection, a part of me was expecting more candidates than voter turnout considering that in the 2022 municipal elections, Toronto had some of its lowest voter turnouts with only 29.7 per cent of eligible voters casting their ballot.
According to the City, as of Sept. 24, 77,876 people are eligible to vote in Scarborough-Rouge Park. I’d set a low bar, but still, I was glad to discover the City’s advanced voting reports depicted numbers that exceeded my expectations.
But let's pretend that Scarborough-Rouge Park residents turn up in large numbers to vote on election day. What good is high voter turnout if the individuals showing up to cast their ballots aren’t able to identify the wolf in sheep’s clothing?
All I’m saying is…I’m tired of surprises. Aren’t you?
Do you think a party system in municipal elections would give voters a clearer image of their candidates core beliefs?
Yes
No
