Toronto Mayoral Elections & System Dynamics

1. Voter Turnout Rate (Past 20 Years)

Across the last 20 years, city-wide municipal turnout in Toronto has fluctuated between a peak of 54.7% and an all-time low under 30%:

• 2003: ~38.3%

• 2006: ~39.3%

• 2010: ~ 50.4% (Rob Ford wave - High turnout driven by a heated open-seat contest won by Rob Ford)

• 2014: ~ 54% - 60.0% (Historically, voter turnouts in Toronto mayoral elections have fluctuated depending on whether there is an open seat or a high-stakes competitive race.)

• 2018: ~40.9%

• 2022: ~29.7% (Historical low for a regular election cycle)

• 2023 (By-Election): ~38.5%
   

Over the last 20 years, the average turnout sits around 42%.

Average Length of Mayoral Terms

Since the amalgamation of the Mega-City of Toronto in 1998, mayors have served an average of roughly 6 to 7 years.

Under current municipal laws, terms are 4 years long, but incumbents who choose to run again historically have a very strong track record of winning re-election:

• Mel Lastman: 6 years (1998–2003)

• David Miller: 7 years (2003–2010)

• Rob Ford: 4 years (2010–2014)

• John Tory: ~8 years (2014–2023)

• Olivia Chow: Took office in July 2023 following the special by-election.

Average Number of Candidates

The barrier to entry for running for mayor in Toronto is intentionally low (requiring Canadian citizenship, being 18+, a $200 filing fee, and 25 endorsement signatures). Consequently, the candidate field is typically large:

• 2014: 65 candidates

• 2018: 35 candidates

• 2022: 31 candidates

• 2023 By-Election: 102 candidates (a record high)

• 2026: 53 candidates

The average over recent elections ranges between 35 and 57+ candidates, worth noting the by-election as an outlier.

Is Media Focus on Front-Runners Discrimination, or Practical Necessity?

The frustration expressed by candidates is a structural issue in modern local democracy. Whether limiting coverage to top contenders is an "insult", "discrimination" or a "necessity" depends on which angle we view it from:

The Argument That It Is Unfair / Anti-Democratic

• Self-Fulfilling Prophecies: When media outlets and polling firms only feature 3 to 5 candidates, they create a feedback loop. Voters are conditioned to think only those candidates can win, which denies lesser-known candidates momentum, donor support, and coverage.

• Suppression of New Ideas: Non-mainstream candidates often present innovative, detailed policies (such as specific transit or housing proposals) that main contenders avoid to stay politically safe.

• Incumbency Bias: Denying access to debate stages and media coverage protects established politicians and locks out grass-roots reform.

The Media & Practical Argument

• Capacity and Format Constraints: A debate with 30 to 102 candidates on stage yields zero meaningful discussion. If 50 candidates are given equal time in a 90-minute debate, each person receives under 2 minutes total to present their entire platform.

• Viability Thresholds: Media organizations, debate organizers (like news outlets or civil society groups), and polling firms generally use objective viability criteria (e.g., campaign infrastructure, previous polling numbers, fundraising thresholds) to decide who qualifies for major broadcasts.

Potential Solutions to Democratic Emptiness and Election Fairness

If the goal is to make elections fairer while keeping debates and news coverage informative, electoral reformers and political scientists point to several potential solutions:

1. Ranked Ballot Voting (Alternative Vote):

   • Problem it solves: Under First-Past-The-Post, voters fear "wasting" their vote on minor candidates or acting as "spoilers."

   • Solution: Ranked voting allows citizens to list their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choices. If no candidate gets 50%+ of the vote, the lowest candidate is eliminated and their supporters' second choices are reallocated. This gives lesser-known candidates a realistic chance to demonstrate true voter preference.

   • Chow's win with just 37.17% of the vote, against 101 other candidates in the 2023 by-election, is a concrete example of exactly this problem — a winner chosen by little more than a third of voters, with no way to know what a majority actually wanted

2. Tiered or Multi-Stage Debates:

   • Organizers can host open-stage primary debates or multi-night forums divided by random lottery so all official candidates get broadcast time, followed by a final debate for candidates who cross a specific polling/fundraising threshold.

3. Public Campaign Financing & Equal Access Rules:

   • Providing public matching funds for small donations ensures campaigns are not purely driven by wealth or existing name recognition.

   • Modifying municipal bylaws to allow public spaces (like community centres) to be freely accessed by all registered candidates levels the field for grassroots outreach.

4. Transparent Criteria for Polling and Media Inclusion:

   • Requiring polling firms and major media debates to publish clear, objective entry criteria months in advance—and offering open-ended "Other / Unspecified" options in polling surveys—prevents early narrative lock-in.

   Why Mayors Turn Over While Councillors Rarely Do

   Toronto's mayors have never needed a formal term limit to see relatively regular turnover — but this isn't because voters treat the office differently in principle. It comes down to structure. A mayor is one person the entire city can name, credit, and blame directly; every citywide failure attaches to them personally, while council-level problems are diffused across 25 separate incumbents.

   Opposition to a mayor also consolidates around a single strongest challenger, while ward-level anti-incumbent sentiment fragments across many long-shot candidates who can't build a large enough coalition alone. And scandal finds the spotlight — a councillor's misstep rarely makes citywide news, while a mayor's almost always does, which has ended tenures here through resignation (Tory) or defeat far more often than council's typical 90%+ safety margin allows.