Comparative Evaluation of Ranking Results and Actual Election Results

The FDA’s evaluation and ranking/grading of the 2008 Cranbrook Mayoral candidates is an outside perspective of how Cranbrook citizens, candidates, parties, and individuals and organizations outside of Cranbrook, can view the 2008 Cranbrook Mayoral election results. Also, the evaluation process is an example of evaluating as an addition to voting.

The FDA’s ranking/grading of the 2008 Cranbrook Mayoral candidates:

1. Stetski 60.5/80 (75.6%)

2. York 46.75/80 (58.4%)

3. Manjak 46.5/80 (58.1%)

Actual election results:

1. Manjak 2254 (15.28% of popular vote)

2. Stetski 2050 (13.9% of popular vote)

3. York 119 (.8% of popular vote)

30% of the Kootenay-Columbia voting public voted (Leanne Jensen, Cranbook Election Official), which means 70% of the voting public did not vote.

Analysis:

There is clear discrepancy between the FDA’s results and that of the actual election.

The FDA study is an evaluation and ranking/grading of the Cranbrook Mayoral candidates based on their backgrounds and visions, and policies of the candidates. The study is not a prediction or poll of how Cranbrook citizens would vote.

Moreover, the FDA study is limited to four key policies of the federal political parties—development, economy, environment, and housing. It does not evaluate, for example, culture and arts policy.

The FDA believes that the evaluation of the backgrounds, visions, and four key policy areas, gives a reasonable indication of how the candidates compare. Hence, it is the conclusion of the FDA that the 2008 Cranbrook Mayoral election was flawed, in that Mr. Stetski and Mr. York should have faired significantly better. The gap alone of 94.8% between Mr. Manjak and Mr. York, in terms of votes received, is in stark contrast to the FDA's grading of Mr. York at 58.4% and Mr. Manjak at 58.1%. Also, the gap of 9.1% between Mr. Manjak and Mr. Stetski, in terms of votes received, is in stark contrast to the FDA's grading of Mr. Stetski at 75.6% and Mr. Manjak at 58.1%. This gross discrepancy may be attributed to the public familarity of Mr. Manjak (i.e. two terms on the Cranbrook Council) as compared to the other candidates, and likely the failure of the Cranbrook public to know all three candidates.

Was democracy served in the 2008 Cranbrook Mayoral election? It is questionable because Mr. Stetski stood out from the other candidates, with an overall grade of 75.6%, 17.5% points ahead of Mr. Manjak, and yet as mentioned Mr. Stetski ended up receiving a 9.1% less votes than Mr. Manjak. Also, Mr. Manjak received only 15.28% of the Cranbrook popular vote, which means 84.7% of the Cranbrook voting public did not support him.

One could argue that Cranbrook citizens had an opportunity to evaluate the candidates and make up their own minds as to how they choose to vote (or to not vote), and therefore, democracy was fully served in the Cranbrook election. However, this point of view overlooks/ignores that the Cranbrook public who did vote may not have known all three candidates, and instead favored the one candidate they knew. The FDA's ranking/grading results suggest that this was the case. So democracy was not served in the Cranbrook election, because the Cranbrook public did not end up with the better candidate as their mayor.

In essence, it is the conclusion of the FDA that the Cranbrook electoral system failed to know all three candidates, and through that the process of knowing, determine which candidate is the better representative. Instead the Cranbrook public ended up with a third ranked candidate.

The inclusion of an evaluative and ranking/grading steps in the electoral process would likely reduce the potential for poor decision-making by voters.

As a side note, the western electoral process, at the municipal level, is deficient in that there is no mechanism in place to curtail the power of local officials based on the amount of public support they receive and/or do not receive. A grading system based on public support would help to determine the power an elected official should have over the public he or she represents.