Subject: Invitation to join the 2026 Toronto Municipal Election: Candidates & Voters Forum

Thank you again to those of you who replied to my first message. Your willingness to engage seriously with a hard question is exactly what convinced me this conversation shouldn't stay contained to a single email exchange between us. It's a real part of why a new space now exists, and I wanted you to know that.

That space is the 2026 Toronto Municipal Election: Candidates & Voters Forum. I'm writing to every candidate again to invite you into it directly.

The reasoning behind it is simple: a conversation this important shouldn't stay between me and each of you privately. More residents deserve to take part in it, and more candidates deserve the chance to be heard by more than whoever happens to read one email. A shared platform also does something a private letter can't — it can outlast October 26th, carrying this discussion forward regardless of who wins, instead of ending the moment the results come in.

I'd like to invite you to engage there in a way that reflects the cultural change I believe this city actually needs — and I want to be direct about what I mean by that, because I think vagueness is part of the problem, not just a symptom of it.

Too often, candidates campaign in a way that's clearly built around winning votes rather than expressing a real position — safe, broad language on safety, housing, shelters, affordability, accountability, phrased so generally that it's genuinely hard to tell what any individual candidate actually believes, or how their vision differs from the next name on the ballot. I understand the instinct: trying to avoid alienating anyone. But the result, I think, is the opposite of what's intended — trying to satisfy everyone tends to leave everyone a little unconvinced, and that distance between candidates and voters is itself part of why so many people disengage.

A few examples of what I mean, not aimed at any one of you specifically, but at a pattern I think most candidates fall into:

If you support adding police officers, tell us where the funding comes from. "Better financial management" isn't an answer — it quietly implies the current administration is wasting money on purpose, without ever saying what would actually be cut or reallocated. If you support shelters in principle but haven't named where, or oppose one location without suggesting another, that's not a position, it's an avoidance of one. The same goes for wanting better traffic flow without ever taking a side on bike lanes, or opposing a property tax increase without saying how the same services get paid for instead.

None of this is dishonest in the sense of lying — but it isn't fully honest either, and I think voters can tell the difference, even when they can't always name it. I also think it underestimates people: most residents can handle a real trade-off explained plainly far better than they can handle being told, implicitly, that there isn't one.

If we're serious about a cultural change in how this city does elections, I believe it has to start with candidates being willing to go first. Transparency about the trade-offs. Accountability for what a position actually costs. A real, specific vision rather than a shared, safe one. That's the standard I'd invite you to hold yourselves to on this platform — not because it's easy, but because I think it's the only version of this conversation that could actually rebuild the trust we've all been talking about losing.

Whatever you decide, thank you again for being part of this.

Subject: Call for collective efforts to increase participation

My name is Medi Shams. For the past ten years I've run a small, non-partisan project called [fordemocracy.ca / willowdalevote.ca], inviting residents and candidates to look honestly at the health of our local democracy, not just at the issues of any single campaign. I've already written individually to all 25 incumbents this year, and now I'm writing to every candidate, ward by ward, with the same open invitation.

You already know the odds better than most of us do. Across this city, when an incumbent runs for re-election, they win more than nine times out of ten. Every one of the 25 people currently on council first arrived through some kind of vacancy — a retirement, a resignation, a redrawn boundary. None of them, but one, ever defeated a sitting councillor outright.

Even that isn't the whole story, and I think it's worth naming plainly. When a seat does open up, the advantage doesn't always disappear — sometimes it simply moves. This year, an open seat in one ward drew a sitting councillor from another; an open seat elsewhere drew a well-known former councillor. That's not a criticism of anyone who makes that choice. It's simply a reality worth facing honestly: even "open," a seat can still carry someone else's years of name recognition into it.

In your ward this year, no one entering the race carries that kind of built-in advantage. Whatever else divides you as candidates, you're starting from close to the same place — which is rarer in this city than it should be. I'm not asking any of you to agree with me, or with each other. I'm asking you to consider two things, entirely on your own terms:

First, that your position as a candidate gives you a platform few residents have — a chance to say, publicly, whether you believe incumbency itself has become one of the more significant sources of unfairness in our elections, and if so, what limit you'd hold yourself to.

Second, that this conversation doesn't have to end on October 26th. Whoever wins your ward, I'd welcome the idea of the candidates who ran — win or lose — continuing to advocate together afterward for a fairer starting line next time. That kind of cooperation, among people who were technically opponents, would say something rather remarkable on its own.

Whatever you decide, thank you for putting yourself forward. Running for office, especially without the advantages some others carry into it, asks something real of a person.

Wishing you a fair and healthy campaign.

Subject: Call for collective efforts toward a fairer election

My name is Medi Shams. For the past ten years I've run a small, non-partisan project called [fordemocracy.ca / willowdalevote.ca], inviting residents and candidates to look honestly at the health of our local democracy, not just at the issues of any single campaign. I've already written individually to all 25 incumbents this year, and now I'm writing to every candidate, ward by ward, with the same open invitation.

You already know the odds better than most of us do. Across this city, when an incumbent runs for re-election, they win more than nine times out of ten. Every one of the 25 people currently on council first arrived through some kind of vacancy — a retirement, a resignation, a redrawn boundary. None of them, but one, ever defeated a sitting councillor outright.

Even that isn't the whole story, and I think it's worth naming plainly. When a seat does open up, the advantage doesn't always disappear — sometimes it simply moves. This year, an open seat in one ward drew a sitting councillor from another; an open seat elsewhere drew a well-known former councillor. That's not a criticism of anyone who makes that choice. It's simply a reality worth facing honestly: even "open," a seat can still carry someone else's years of name recognition into it.

In your ward, that advantage has a name and a face: [incumbent]  That's not a criticism — it's simply the reality every one of you is running against, whether or not it's ever said out loud. I'd only ask that it's named honestly, by all of you, rather than treated as if this were an even contest. I'm not asking any of you to agree with me, or with each other. I'm asking you to consider two things, entirely on your own terms:

First, that your position as a candidate gives you a platform few residents have — a chance to say, publicly, whether you believe incumbency itself has become one of the more significant sources of unfairness in our elections, and if so, what limit you'd hold yourself to.

Second, that this conversation doesn't have to end on October 26th. Whoever wins your ward, I'd welcome the idea of the candidates who ran — win or lose — continuing to advocate together afterward for a fairer starting line next time. That kind of cooperation, among people who were technically opponents, would say something rather remarkable on its own.

Whatever you decide, thank you for putting yourself forward. Running for office, especially without the advantages some others carry into it, asks something real of a person.

Wishing you a fair and healthy campaign.

Letter sent to current councillors running for re-election individually

Subject: Call for collective efforts to increase participation

Dear Councillor,

My name is Medi Shams. For the past ten years I've run a small, non-partisan effort in Willowdale called [www.fordemocracy.ca / www.willowdalevote.ca], trying to do one simple thing: invite residents and candidates alike to look honestly at the health of our local democracy, not just the issues of any single campaign.

I'm writing to every candidate in this election — not to endorse or oppose anyone, and not to ask you to take a position on any policy question. I only want to raise something I believe deserves your attention before the campaign gets busier.

In the last municipal election, only about three in ten eligible Torontonians voted. That means most seats on this council are held with the support of a small fraction of the people they represent — and when an incumbent runs for re-election here, they win more than nine times out of ten. That's not a comment on any individual councillor's record. It's a structural pattern, and I think it's part of why so many residents have quietly stopped believing their vote changes much of anything.

There's a great deal about this that can't be fixed quickly — meaningful reform often requires provincial legislation, which takes years. But there's one thing that needs no permission from anyone: any candidate who believes, as I do, that incumbency has become one of the most significant sources of unfairness in our elections can simply say so, and commit publicly to a term limit of their own choosing — two terms, three, whatever number reflects your own judgment.

I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm asking you to consider it, on your own terms, and if it resonates, to say so publicly in whatever way feels right to you — a line on your platform, a post, a reply to this letter, anything.

Whatever you decide, I want to thank you for putting yourself forward. Regardless of the odds any of us have discussed, running for office asks something real of a person, and that deserves respect.

Wishing you a fair and healthy campaign.

Subject: Call for collective efforts toward a fairer election

Dear Olivia, Brad, and Chris,

My name is Medi Shams. For the past ten years I've run a small, non-partisan project called [fordemocracy.ca / willowdalevote.ca], inviting residents and candidates to look honestly at the health of our local democracy. I've already written to every council candidate this year and to the other mayoral candidates as well — but I wanted to write to the three of you separately, because two things in this race are, realistically, mostly in your hands.

The first is incumbency. Olivia, you're now in the position every sitting councillor we've written to this year already knows well — running as an incumbent, in a system where that status alone tends to be the single strongest predictor of the outcome. Brad and Chris, you're both trying to do what's historically been the hardest thing in Toronto politics: unseat one. I don't say this to suggest anyone should feel differently about running. I say it because I think all three of you are better positioned than almost anyone else in this city to speak honestly about what that advantage actually feels like, from both sides of it.

The second is a narrower, more specific kind of fairness. In the last mayoral race, the winner took office with just over 37% of the vote in a crowded field — meaning most voters chose someone else, and no one was ever asked for a second choice. With three well-known names splitting most of the vote again this year, a similar outcome is entirely possible. A ranked ballot — already legally available to Ontario municipalities, though Toronto has never adopted it at any level — would ensure that whoever becomes mayor can say they were chosen by a genuine majority of the city, not simply the largest single share of a divided one.

I'm not asking any of you to change a position or commit to anything specific. I'm asking whether you'd be willing to say, publicly, whether you believe a Toronto mayor should have to earn that kind of majority — regardless of who it might have helped or hurt in any past election, including this one.

Whatever the outcome on October 26th, thank you for putting yourselves forward for what may be the hardest job in this city to do well.

Wishing you all a fair and healthy campaign.

Subject: Call for collective efforts toward a fairer election

My name is Medi Shams. For the past ten years I've run a small, non-partisan project called [fordemocracy.ca / willowdalevote.ca], inviting residents and candidates to look honestly at the health of our local democracy. I've written to every council candidate this year and to Olivia Chow, Brad Bradford, and Chris Alexander as well — and now to each of you, grouped simply by the month you chose to enter this race.

I want to be honest about something rather than pretend otherwise: in a field of 53 mayoral candidates, most of the attention this fall will go to a small number of well-known names. I don't say that to discourage anyone reading this. I say it because I think it makes what you're doing more worth noticing, not less. Standing for the city's highest office without expecting the spotlight still takes something most residents, myself included, have never risked.

You came in with the least time of anyone to be heard — and chose to run anyway.

Whatever brought you into this race — a cause, a frustration, a belief that deserved a voice, or simply the conviction that democracy means more when more people take part in it — I think it's worth saying plainly. And there's a specific fairness question worth rising too: the last mayoral race was won with barely more than a third of the vote, in a field almost as large as this one. A ranked ballot would mean whoever wins earns support from a real majority of the city, not just the largest slice of a divided one. That's true no matter which three names end up leading — and it's worth hearing from candidates who have less personally at stake in the answer, not just the frontrunners.

I'm not asking you to take a position on anything else, or to expect a particular outcome. I'm only glad you're part of this, and I mean that regardless of where your name lands on October 26th.

Wishing you a fair and healthy campaign.