Sightline Institute Research

Sightline Institute

Cascadia’s sustainability think tank brings you a feed of its latest research articles, in text-to-audio recordings. Learn how the region can advance abundant housing for vibrant communities; reform our democratic systems and elections to honor the public’s priorities, including its support for climate solutions; make a just transition away from fossil fuels and into a 21st-century energy economy; and model forestry and agricultural practices that rebuild our soils, ecosystems, and rural economies. View articles in full at sightline.org.

  1. 29 SEPT.

    For Oregonians, Better Elections Are Hidden in Plain Sight The state's constitution lets localities opt for methods that better reflect their mix of voters. Common models of unstable representation Bloc voting doesn't stack up Numbered seats can be prec

    In 2024, Democrat-endorsed candidates swept all seven seats on the Bend Oregon, city council - even though city elections are technically nonpartisan. Democrats certainly outnumber Republicans in Bend, but 20 percent of city voters are registered with the G.O.P., and many more are not affiliated or are registered with smaller parties. Those voters don't get their views represented in their city government. In southern Oregon's Jackson County, the representation failure is reversed. Democratic or Independent candidates have won more than 40 percent of the vote for every county commissioner contest over the last five general elections - but Republicans consistently hold all three seats. Even though county voters are split between the two major parties, Democrats are locked out of county policy decisions. Sightline catalogued voting methods in all Oregon counties and the 50 most populous cities (view and download the list here). The findings: Almost all of Oregon's cities and counties operate with election methods that tend to fall into the same pattern of misrepresentation. These local governments use outdated, easily gamed voting methods. Fortunately, Oregon's constitution, unlike those of neighboring states, enables localities to choose a more effective path: proportional representation. Nearly all local governments in Oregon - every county and all but one of the state's 50 largest cities - use one of three methods of electing councils and commissions, or some combination. While each of them can, and often does, achieve adequate representation for residents, all three are susceptible to political manipulation and to oscillation between political extremes. Bloc voting can shift governing bodies wholesale based on whatever group turns out the most voters. At-large positions similarly give majority viewpoints unfair sway and set up additional avenues for political gamesmanship. And single-winner wards (or districts) put voters at the mercy of artificial lines, including gerrymandering. Voters in more than one-third of Oregon's 50 largest cities and many more smaller towns, from Baker City to Yachats and Lake Oswego to Redmond, are familiar with bloc voting, even if they don't know it by name; it's a common method for electing multiple people to city council at once. But those candidates are not assured to reflect the diversity of public preferences. With bloc voting, voters get the same number of votes as there are council seats up for election. In a three-seat election, for example, voters pick their three choices from the list of all candidates, and the three with the most votes win spots on the council. Some cities use bloc voting for all seats at once, while others elect some of their members in midterm years and the rest in presidential years. Bloc voting might seem like a simple method - choose three, elect three - but the outcomes can belie what voting is supposed to achieve. Instead of electing a council that can represent everyone, whichever group or faction gets the most votes can easily win all the seats. In partisan elections, bloc voting frequently means that the party with the most votes sweeps the board; in nonpartisan elections, candidates on either side of local wedge issues (like police funding or low-income housing) might win every single position even if voters are closely divided. A small shift in voter preference can flip half or all of a local council, so residents might have to endure dramatic policy swings; a policing or housing ordinance adopted one year could be reversed the next. Plus, when votes are close, there's no guarantee that the top vote-getters are actually the most popular candidates. Take the city of Forest Grove, for example. In 2024, six candidates ran for the three open seats in a bloc voting election, and all received between 12 and 19 percent of the vote. The third-place winner, Brian Schimmel, beat out next-place runner-up, Peter Truax, by less than half a percentage point. With few...

    11 min
  2. 15 SEPT.

    Homes on Wheels Are Filling a Big Gap in Portland Three personal stories show how these small, affordable, flexible homes provide big solutions for families. A fast solution for a family in crisis Tiny homes on wheels: A Portland success story A grandma

    The Maine family needed a cheaper place for one of them to live. And quickly. It was 2024. Synia Maine, 56, had just developed a back injury so severe that she had to retire from her career as a hairstylist a decade earlier than planned. Suddenly, she had increased medical bills and no income. Her daughter-in-law, Ember DeVaul, recounted that they'd explored multiple options to try to keep Synia in Arizona, where she lived. Even the lowest-cost housing option, manufactured homes, required a permanent foundation and tens of thousands of dollars in permitting costs. Ember and her husband, who live in East Portland, looked into converting their own garage into housing. Only one contractor bothered to reply to them after they stated their budget was just $100,000. The verdict? It would take $150,000 minimum to convert the garage, but the resale value of the property would only increase by half that amount. Another issue was the estimated six months to get through design and permitting. "We didn't have time to wait," Ember said. Because Synia was an independent contractor, she didn't have health insurance, and she had used up her savings just to keep up with the bills. "It's crazy how fast everything can change," said Ember. Kol Peterson, the sole contractor who showed up at Ember's home, proposed another idea: a tiny home on wheels. Unlike a traditional backyard cottage, tiny homes on wheels and recreational vehicles (RVs) are legally considered vehicles. This means that they aren't subject to the building permit process and its associated fees. All that the city requires is an additional utility connection, or access to the main house if the external dwelling doesn't have internal plumbing. "It ended up being realistically our only option, other than her being homeless, really," said Ember. Synia ended up settling on a park model RV, which is larger and designed as a long-term residence rather than for cross-country voyages. Even with upgrades like four-season insulation and a 35-year warranty on the roof, the total cost came to $104,000. Adding the water and sewer connection only cost another $5,000. The new home is being delivered in mid-September. Though it's intended to be permanent, the fact that it could move elsewhere in the future made everyone more comfortable. Ember recalled, "She is just so scared of being a burden. If she doesn't want to live with us anymore, she can take it somewhere else and not feel indebted to us." Synia is lucky that her son and daughter-in-law moved to Portland five years ago. It's possibly the only city in the United States that has fully legalized living in wheeled dwellings on residential lots instead of just within commercial RV parks. In both of the Arizona cities where Synia's other daughters live, Synia's new living arrangement would be illegal, as it is in the vast majority of North American jurisdictions. Portland first started creating a legal pathway to this low-cost shelter option in 2017, after Luz Gomez, an immigrant from Honduras, brought a spotlight to the issue alongside the Leaven Community, a faith group in NE Portland she was involved with. At the time it was estimated that at least 100 of these homes already existed illegally, and their residents could lose their homes if neighbors reported them. City Commissioner Eudaly, elected to city council as a housing advocate, directed the Bureau of Development Services to stop enforcing prohibitions against them in 2017. Four years later, Portland passed an ordinance fully legalizing tiny homes on wheels and RVs as permanent housing options on residential lots with an existing home. Because so little paperwork is required, there is no official count of how many Portlanders live in homes on wheels. But it's likely more common than people realize. Peterson, the contractor who worked on Synia's project, counted more tiny homes on wheels and occupied RVs in his neighborhood than traditional ADUs on foundations back in 2020. In other ...

    14 min
  3. 8 SEPT.

    How Cascadia Can Maintain Its Heat Pump Momentum Three tools to help the region's low-income families afford more efficient heating and cooling systems - even as public dollars dry up. Amid dwindling subsidies, Cascadians face heat pump sticker shock St

    Meeting Cascadia's climate goals will require millions of households to stop burning fossil fuels for warmth. In Oregon and Washington, buildings emit more pollution than any other sector besides transportation. (The building sector is the third highest emitting in British Columbia and Idaho, and fifth in Montana.) Heat pumps powered by renewable electricity are what the International Energy Agency calls the "proven technology of choice to decarbonize heating," and several Cascadian jurisdictions are working hard to expand access to the technology. Oregon, for example, set itself a goal of heat pumps accounting for 65 percent of new residential heating, cooling, and water heating equipment sales by 2030. British Columbia resolved for all new space and water heating equipment sales and installations to be at least 100 percent efficient by 2030, a standard that favors heat pumps, which can exceed this threshold. Heat pumps have now outsold gas furnaces and central air conditioners for two consecutive years in Cascadia; nearly three heat pumps sold for every two gas furnaces in 2023. Still, heat pumps are prohibitively expensive in upfront costs, and that fact, coupled with tightening public budgets, could threaten their rapid scale-up, especially among low-income families. In this challenging context, leaders in Cascadia would do well to direct their limited treasuries of funds for public subsidies toward low-income households for whom heat pumps offer the biggest reductions in both utility bills and greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, policymakers can support creative funding models, such as tariffed on-bill investments and green banks, to help more households get heat pumps installed. They can also strengthen building codes to ensure heat pumps are installed in new homes, avoiding costly future retrofits. This multi-pronged approach stretches scarce public dollars, while still reaching families that stand to benefit most from these clean, cost-saving, and comfortable systems. Many families, particularly those with low incomes, cannot afford heat pumps. A medium-efficiency heat pump can cost between $14,000 and $22,000 in Cascadian states. The median heat pump costs $8,200 more than installing fossil-fuel heating equipment (such as a gas boiler) and air conditioning in Oregon; in Montana, that figure is $16,200. Steep costs stem from expensive manufacturing and labor, installer shortages and inexperience, the need for electrical upgrades in some homes, and the added cost of backup heating systems where required. Governments have stepped in to help. The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) provides rebates of up to $8,000 for low-income households purchasing medium- or high-efficiency heat pumps. These rebates have so far withstood roll-back attempts by the Trump administration; Oregon and Washington have already secured hundreds of millions of federal dollars to launch their rebate programs. (Montana has paused its rebate rollout, while Idaho has provided no public timeline.) But the IRA rebates are a one-time, capped allocation, and the Trump administration eliminated tax incentives for energy-efficient home improvements in July 2025, including heat pumps. States and provinces also subsidize heat pumps, but tight budgets have led to substantial cutbacks. Washington scaled back funding for heat pump programs from $80 million in the 2023 budget cycle to $30 million in 2025. Oregon lawmakers appropriated $25 million to heat pump rebates in 2022 and added another $4 million in 2024, but allocated no new funds in 2025. British Columbia lowered its heat pump program budget from Can$150 million in 2024 to Can$50 million in 2025. (Idaho and Montana do not offer any state-funded heat pump rebates.) Several utilities in the region chip in heat pump rebates of their own, though amounts tend to be modest. For example, Puget Sound Energy offers $3,900 rebates to low-income households, and Idaho Power offers $500. Crucial as they a...

    18 min
  4. 28 AOÛT

    Who Owns a Utility Matters Less for Climate Than the Rules They Play By Advocates can focus on fast-tracking policies that are already working well elsewhere. The ideas behind public utility ownership: Lower rates, cleaner energy, and local control US p

    Cascadia's transition to safe, healthy, gas-free homes and businesses is not moving quickly enough, and the region's gas utilities bear much of the blame. Consider a few recent examples: In 2022 Oregon's gas utilities sued the state over its landmark Climate Protection Program, setting back implementation by at least a year. In 2023 NW Natural funded a campaign in Eugene, Oregon, to repeal the city's ban on gas hookups in new residential buildings. In 2024 Cascade Natural Gas and NW Natural supported ballot initiative 2066 to keep Washington state hooked on gas, including by restricting the state's ability to incentivize electric heat pumps in new construction. The measure may now be headed to the state supreme court, after voters narrowly approved it and then the King County Superior Court overturned it. Allowing gas utilities to explore new climate-friendly business models such as thermal energy networks (TENs) could soften their stance on decarbonization. But here, too, momentum has been halting. An Oregon bill to establish TENs pilot projects stalled in the Joint Ways and Means committee this year. The gas sector's slow-walk on climate progress demands more transformative ideas. One that surfaces from time to time among advocates is transferring gas utilities to public ownership. It's a common model in Cascadia for electric utilities, and one that could theoretically speed electrification by removing utilities' profit motive and making companies more accountable to the public. What we found, though, is that publicly owned gas utilities in the United States aren't moving faster toward decarbonization than their privately owned counterparts. That's likely because they face many of the same misaligned incentives and lax climate policies as their for-profit counterparts. In much of Cascadia, too, public gas utilities (there are a few) do not serve customers that want to shut them down. That's to say nothing of the practical and financial challenges of transferring aging fossil fuel infrastructure to government ownership The good news, though, is that both those ingredients - the policy context in which they operate and the desires of the public they serve - can change, and they don't depend on first altering gas utility ownership structure. A slew of effective policies is already at work and available to copy-paste from more climate-forward places, namely the Netherlands and Denmark. Those countries do own their gas utilities, but that's not a prerequisite when it comes to decarbonization. Rather, it's their exceptionally strong gas transition policies that can apply to any type of utility, including the investor-owned companies prevalent in Cascadia today. The takeaway: Cascadians can spare themselves the immensely challenging campaign of trying to take over the region's investor-owned companies and instead focus on pushing the measures that are already succeeding elsewhere. Which of course means a faster path off gas and toward the cleaner, healthier homes and businesses. Government ownership of utilities is nothing new to Cascadia. More than 110 publicly owned electric utilities dot the region, ranging from the tiny City of Rupert Electric in Idaho, with 3,200 customers, to the gargantuan HydroBC in British Columbia, which serves more than 2.2 million customers (95 percent of provincial residents). Customers of publicly owned electric utilities in the United States tend to enjoy lower rates and more reliable electricity than customers of other types of utilities, according to US Energy Information Agency data analyzed by the American Public Power Association. For these reasons and more, community members and activists have pushed for public takeover of privately owned electric companies in the Northwest and beyond. Cascadia added two publicly owned electric utilities in the past 25 years: Jefferson County Public Utility District, which split from Puget Sound Energy (PSE) in 2008, in northwest Washington, and Hermiston En...

    17 min
  5. 28 AOÛT

    Seattleites Keep Their Model Campaign Finance Reform Program City voters renewed funding for their iconic democracy vouchers. What's next: Program improvements and complementary reforms

    With 57 percent in favor of Proposition 1 (and 150,000 ballots in; last updated August 7, 2025), Seattle voters have reaffirmed their commitment to advancing a more democratic city government. Seattle's iconic Democracy Voucher Program will have funding for another ten years. This renewal means the city can continue to lead the way in the share of its population who contribute to city campaigns. Candidates will keep having more reasons to knock on doors rather than spend hours a day calling up the wealthiest people they know to fund their campaigns. And Seattle residents will get more choices in their elections and more power to express their views. Along with helping to design the initial policy, Sightline has documented the impressive effects from the program's first decade: The program has unlocked an "incredible explosion in participation" in campaign funding and empowered a much more representative group of people to become donors. It decreased large donations and elevated small ones, and it pushed away money coming from outside the city. For example, before the program was implemented, in the 2013 election cycle, gifts of $400 or more made up almost 60 percent of campaign dollars; in 2023, those large contributions plummeted to 9 percent of funds. The program even helped boost voter turnout, likely because of increased personal touches from candidates. While it couldn't put a damper on dark money (no one can, thanks to US Supreme Court cases including Buckley v. Valeo, Citizen United v. FEC, and McCutcheon v. FEC), the program also didn't cause a spike in those "independent expenditures" - PAC spending is up everywhere. Democracy vouchers have encouraged more diverse candidates to run and given them a pathway to win. Almost all viable candidates have participated in the program since it began, including people with viewpoints across Seattle's political spectrum. The program has done all that with "budget dust," a portion of the city budget you need a magnifying glass to see in a chart. Tuesday's vote shows Seattleites' confidence in the program and belief in the importance of doing everything possible to make their government representative and accountable. City residents face many daily challenges - and the stronger and more democratic our governments, the better equipped they are to understand and respond to what's happening in people's lives. One component of the measure that passed is a directive for the mayor, city council, and the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission (the SEEC, the entity that manages the program) to convene a workgroup to explore potential improvements to the program. While the SEEC has already tweaked some elements based on ongoing feedback, the workgroup will offer a more defined process for additional recommendations, considering input from candidates, campaign staff, consultants, advocates, and the SEEC. Commentators have already pointed to spending caps for possible modification, particularly given the large number of PAC funds that enter city races. Others have suggested shifting the timing of voucher mailings, improving outreach, and allowing candidates into apartment buildings to meet voters. Some might look beyond the program to other ideas for making political donors more accountable, perhaps following Maine's example (currently moving through the courts) to limit donations to super PACs. Future city elections will get another boost toward fairer representation: Seattle will start using ranked choice voting in city primaries in 2027, the next local primary election. Ranked choice voting offers similar voter-centric benefits as democracy vouchers: candidates benefit from knocking on more doors and talking to more voters because they seek out second-choice votes as well as first choices; more diverse candidates tend to run and win, because voters don't have to just pick the popular option while others get squeezed out; and voters get a more nuanced way to express their political choi...

    4 min
  6. 28 AOÛT

    "If One Path Is Blocked, Nature Will Find Another" A Q&A with award-winning author John Vaillant on our new fire weather reality. It's been a little over two years since you published Fire Weather - in other words, countless wildfires later and already

    Editor's introduction: John Vaillant is a Cascadian icon. An award-winning and bestselling author residing in Vancouver, British Columbia, he has written gripping tales, both fiction and nonfiction, on the nuanced interfaces between people and nature. Vaillant's 2023 Pulitzer finalist book Fire Weather: On the Front Lines of a Burning World recounted the harrowing 2016 megafire in the Alberta oil town of Fort McMurray, weaving in the histories of the oil industry, climate science, and the very technology of fire in human history. His account not only won international praise; it also drove urgent conversations about our new age of ultra-destructive, climate-fueled wildfires - a topic Sightline has also researched. Below, John Vaillant shares his reflections on developments since publishing Fire Weather, answering questions from Sightline researchers. The Los Angeles fires this past January were a signal event that forced twenty-first century wildland-urban interface fire and urban conflagration into the international consciousness with a new urgency. The size and speed of it, combined with the scale of the evacuation (about 200,000 people), the structure loss (16,000+), the cost (likely over a hundred billion dollars when all is said and done), and the death toll (30) shocked the nation. I happened to be in Orange Country when those fires broke out, and I did more media interviews than I've ever done in my life. Those fires, as intense and destructive as they were, were "out of season," implying that there is no longer a fixed "fire season," but rather "fire weather," which can now occur almost any time (see the hundreds of fires that burned across the Northeast last November). That said, it's summertime now, and huge, stubborn fires are wreaking havoc in the heart of Canada, and across the American West. Particularly intense fires, burning in record-breaking temperatures, have been destroying property and also causing fatalities across the eastern Mediterranean. Years - and in some places, decades - of prolonged drought have made many northern and western forests much more fire-prone. Milder winters, elevated summer heat, and year-round drought conditions have also enabled a variety of insects to kill or weaken vast swathes of forest, increasing flammability and transforming historic carbon sinks, like Canada's boreal forest, into net carbon emitters. Meanwhile, as highly flammable, petrochemical-heavy modern homes push deeper into the wildland-urban interface (WUI) in search of the "neighborhood in Nature" sweet spot, more and more structures are exposed to wildfire energy and embers. As I've been learning on my now-global Fire Weather tour, communities are at very different stages of awareness and/or preparatory action, ranging from high (Hornby Island, BC; Steamboat Springs, CO) to low (Lucca, Italy; Cambridge, UK; Jaipur, India). Individuals have taken some of the messages from Fire Weather (and their own hard-won experience) to heart, abandoning synthetic (petroleum-based) clothes, gas-powered vehicles, and/or urging their town councils to build alternative routes out of their dead-end valley communities. The biggest surprise is how fast it's happening, and how broadly. The petroleum industry, which is still insured, is destroying what was a very lucrative twentieth-century business: if you're an insurance company pulling coverage from vast swaths of the country, you may be reducing your exposure, but you're not making any money from policies either. You have to wonder if the industry is connecting these dots in a meaningful way . . . Fire Wise (FireSmart in Canada) is a really good local program that operates through local fire departments. I think every local solution, from yard planting choices, to external sprinklers, to alternate escape routes, to fire preparedness guides can be scaled to policy level. What makes this hard and slow is that it requires a shift in consciousness and these, like attitudes toward litt...

    7 min
  7. 28 AOÛT

    Oregon Decides It Was a Mistake to Let Cities Ban Homes Two new bipartisan laws suggest that for Oregonians to afford to live where and how they want, state-level zoning works better. Pre-approved state zoning allows a race to the top Oregon required ci

    Over the last eight years, a bipartisan coalition of Oregon lawmakers has led North America on a new trend: state-level zoning. As zoning restrictions spread across the continent almost exactly 100 years ago, state and provincial governments mostly delegated to cities all decisions about where and what sorts of housing should be allowed locally. During the century that followed, that led to problems. A big one: cities and towns deployed zoning to gradually ban the rooming houses, duplexes, triplexes, and small-scale apartment buildings that had always been, until then, the places you could live when you had a small household or a tight budget. At first, this wasn't an obvious problem. A city banning apartments might reason that inexpensive homes would still be legal in the next town over. Or they might observe that the next town over had offloaded its housing needs on them by banning apartments, so it was only fair that they do the same. It was all very rational, and contagious. And after a century of local rules upon local rules, the state's largest city looked like a muddled patchwork of zoning. The complexity of Portland's 779 distinct zoning categories, each one restrictive in its own ways and multiplied further across hundreds of other jurisdictions, has helped create a huge shortage of homes. That's especially true for the smaller and less expensive sorts of homes, since those are the ones most frequently banned by zoning. That housing shortage and the rising prices it drives have spiraled across city lines and ultimately left many thousands of people sleeping on couches, in parking lots, and in the woods. Starting in 2017 and with rising confidence in each year since, Oregon has been responding to this endless civic buck-passing by rethinking its 100-year-old decision to leave the details of zoning mostly up to local jurisdictions. Instead, much of the work on this statewide issue is now returning to the place it maybe should have always remained: the state. To see how far Oregon's consensus has moved, read a bill Governor Tina Kotek signed today. House Bill 2258 gives the state the power to override local zoning and allow any type of housing on standard urban lots. I'll read that last sentence again. The bill passed the state House 50-2, and the Senate 28-2. Kotek, its chief advocate, held a signing ceremony Monday for it and others. Aurora Dziadul, a legislative and policy analyst for the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, said by email that her state agency plans to voluntarily apply "extra parameters" that narrow the scope of the program. But she said that yes, the bill does give the state the power to preemptively give zoning and building permit approval to any variety of housing project, from a backyard cottage to a skyscraper, on any lot that: allows housing of at least one type; falls within an urban growth boundary (a border that, in Oregon, defines the frontier between suburban and rural areas); is between 1,500 and 20,000 square feet has no more than a 15 percent slope; is outside areas officially designated as environmentally sensitive, naturally hazardous, containing significant natural resources, scenic, or open; and is vacant, including from a recent demolition as long as it results in more homes. A key phrase in the bill is in Section 4(2)a, which says that on such lots, the state may pre-approve only "attached or detached housing" - in other words, all housing. (That's one item in a list of qualifying factors that Dziadul said includes an implicit "or.") It's unlikely that the state will decide to use this power to legalize 4-story apartment buildings on every urban lot, for example. If it did, cities would have a strong incentive to look for ways to nullify the law - for example, with tight new regulations on demolition. Until any previous building on the site has been demolished, it wouldn't qualify for the de facto state zoning code created by HB 2258. Another issue: the staff...

    16 min
  8. 23 JUIL.

    British Columbians Could Enjoy Better City Elections If the province would let them. Local councils: Caught between a bloc and a ward place Bloc voting: Multiple winners, lopsided rules One-winner wards: Geographically accurate, but far from fair Viewer

    You made it! The last contestant standing on an old-school game show. "Behind Door Number One" your charming host reveals, "a pile of rocks!" Behind Door Two, he grins, "a slightly larger pile of rocks!" And, gesturing to the last door with a glimmer of gold pouring out from beneath, "or will our lucky winner pick the million-dollar mystery prize?" It's a no-brainer. But as you reach for the knob, the host grabs your wrist. "What are you doing?" he hisses. "You're only allowed to pick between the first two doors!" Hardly seems fair, does it. But municipalities in British Columbia get the same treatment when it comes to their local governments. The province strong-arms cities, towns, villages, and districts into using bloc voting to elect their councils, a poor fit for representation in local elections. Ward (or "district") voting, the only current alternative, appears a bit more generous but has its own weighty problems: spoiled elections and two-party dominance. This year, as a special provincial committee studies election reform, might it finally come to pass that local governments get a glimpse behind that third door? Gold-standard elections, using the new best-in-class model now operational in Portland Oregon, are so close to being in reach: only a few lines of provincial law stand between municipal governments and better representation. British Columbia's standing election laws simply don't give local councils a fair shot at better elections. Bloc voting and ward voting - the only two choices municipalities are allowed - are hardly ideal for representing voters. Also known as plurality at-large voting, bloc voting is BC's default voting method for local councils. If 10 seats on the body are up for a bloc vote election, voters get to pick 10 candidates. The 10 winners are the ones with the most votes. The problem? In partisan contests, bloc voting often means the most popular party will win outsized representation on the council. Take the Vancouver City Council election of 1996 for example. The Non-Partisan Association (a center-right party, despite the name) won slightly more than 50 percent of the total vote, but took 100 percent of the seats. By contrast, if voters had the same preferences under a proportional model, the Non-Partisan Association likely would have wound up with half of the seats, roughly equal to their vote share. Other parties - including the Coalition of Progressive Electors, Vancouver Organized Independent Civic Electors, and others - would have split the remaining five seats, giving their communities a voice in local government. With turnout perpetually low in BC municipal elections, it's not out of the question that an extreme faction could seize control of most or all seats in a single election. As authors for Fair Vote Canada wrote in 2022, the winner-takes-all nature of council elections causes sudden and extreme policy swings, which can be expensive for taxpayers and create uncertainty for the individuals, communities, and businesses that local policies impact. BC offers local governments only one alternative to bloc voting, which might provide slightly more accurate representation on a council, but creates headaches of its own. Municipalities also have the option to elect councillors partially or entirely in districts, also known as wards. Wards that elect a single councillor operate under simple plurality rules (most-votes-wins), while multi-winner wards must use bloc voting. So far, only the District of Lake Country has adopted wards, but larger cities - including Burnaby, Surrey, and Vancouver - have debated or proposed converting to ward voting. While wards guarantee geographic areas will have representation on a council, they create concerns for fairness and representation. First off: if wards split neighborhoods or communities between districts, those communities might not win representation at all, so local governments must take precautions to draw maps impartially and fairly. (The ac...

    13 min

À propos

Cascadia’s sustainability think tank brings you a feed of its latest research articles, in text-to-audio recordings. Learn how the region can advance abundant housing for vibrant communities; reform our democratic systems and elections to honor the public’s priorities, including its support for climate solutions; make a just transition away from fossil fuels and into a 21st-century energy economy; and model forestry and agricultural practices that rebuild our soils, ecosystems, and rural economies. View articles in full at sightline.org.