1. 1

2. Basis for Policy Reform of Political Decision-making Tyranny of the majority: 50% or more of decision-makers infringe on the rights and views of the minority. For example, 5 councillors out of 9 dominate political decisions despite the views of 4 councillors and the people they represent. Tyranny of the minority: a single decision-maker such as a councillor determines development outcomes in the County, and despite the views of all other councillors and the people of the County. Tyranny of the majority really tyranny of the minority: a majority of a Council which votes against the clear majority voice of the people. Policy position: balance needs to be obtained between the extremes of tyranny of the majority and tyranny of the minority. 2

3. 3

4. Referendum proportional weights based on overall proximity to development site; closest Division (2) given 4x say; second closest Divisions (1, 3, 8) given 2x say; third closest Divisions (4, 5, 6, 7, 8) given 1x say. majority rule (50% plus 1) determines whether or not development application passes. Rocky View Divisions Votes “yes” to Bingham Votes “no” to Bingham Weights Weighted Results For Bingham Weighted Results Against Bingham Division 25101,1904x2,0404,760 Divisions 1,3,81,9883,6902x3,9767,380 Divisions 4,5,6,7,93,9242,6231x3,9242,623 Totals 9,94014,763 Referendum Results 59.76% “no” to Bingham 40.24% “yes” to Bingham Development fails to pass Hypothetical example of Rocky View WEIGHTED REFERENDUM on Bingham Crossing 4

5. Based on proportional decision-making according to overall proximity and assuming the past vote of councillors stays same, then the Bingham Crossing Development would not have passed. Note, councillor with most weighted vote (Division 2: 4x) does not determine vote outcome. Requires at least three councillors. (Divisions 1, 2, 3 or other combination of Divisions.) Rocky View Council Weight of Vote based on overall proximity to development Actual vote of Council on Bingham Crossing Division 12xNo -2 Division 24xNo -4 Division 32xNo -2 Division 41xYes +1 Division 51xYes +1 Division 61xYes +1 Division 71xYes +1 Division 82xNo -2 Division 91xYes +1 Total -10 to +5 Bingham fails to pass by -5 Example of Hypothetical WEIGHTED COUNCIL VOTE on Bingham Crossing 5

6. Weighted Voting Systems Weighted voting systems have a different number of votes (or different value of votes) per voter. These systems are in contrast to one vote per person. Their value is contingent on the fairness of weights per vote Examples of Weighted Voting Systems International UN Security Council uses weighted voting: 5 countries as permanent members with veto power, and 11 countries as non-permanent members. Passage requires the support of 5 countries (permanent members) and at least 4 countries (non-permanent members). (Is it fair to have 5 countries dominating the Security Council decisions? Are these 5 countries the most powerful in world?) 6

7. National Alexander Hamilton’s Apportionment Method (approved by U.S. Congress 1791; vetoed by President Washington because he believed formula favoured northern states): distribution of seats based on population, with any surplus seats shared one per state. Total population divided by number of seats. Today, U.S. House of Representatives (makes & passes legislation) determined by population of states and U.S. Senate (introduces legislation except taxation related, consent to treaties with foreign governments, consent to presidential governmental appointments, tries all impeachment cases etc.) by equity—2 seats per state. Canadian Senate has 105 Seats from each 4 regions of Canada. Under the system, Quebec and Ontario have 48 seats (24 seats each), Maritime Provinces 24 seats (Nova Scotia and New Brunswick with 10 each, and Prince Edward Island with 4), Westerns provinces 24 Senators (6 per province), Newfoundland and Labrador 6 seats, and Territories, 3 seats. Is it fair western provinces despite their financial impact on Canada and growing populations have only 24 seats between them? Provincial Alberta Legislature has an informal weighted voting system: typically the Cabinet determine what legislation is passed through Government bills; Private Member’s public bills and Private bills are usually unsuccessful because of lack of simple majority support. Is it fair that MLAs do not really have one vote per person? 7

8. Municipal County of Simcoe, Ontario (7 Towns; 9 Townships) has weighted voting based on number of electorate. 1.Local municipalities entitled to a minimum 3 votes; each local municipality with more than 5,000 electorate shall be entitled to 1 extra vote for every 2,000 electorate over 5,000; 2.Votes split between mayor and deputy mayor of each local municipality with mayor having greater number votes if the municipality has an odd number of total votes. (Bylaw passed in 2002 & received triple majority (majority of Council; majority of local councils; majority of number of electors of councillors who support bylaw) County of Simcoe Act. Weighted votes must be requested by a councillor of Simcoe Council for a recorded vote, otherwise votes by show of hands; typically contentious and close votes are weighted votes. Number of electorate determined every 4 years during elections and using certified local census. Purpose of weighted votes to give greater voice to electors. Simcoe has had weighted voting for 35 plus yrs. County of Lanark, near Ottawa, Ontario (8 municipalities) has weighted voting based on number of electors by the County Council. Started in 1997: each 1,000 electors (rounded off to nearest 1,000) are given 2x; every four years during election periods, the number of electors calculated using a certified census of all municipalities. Currently, populations in the County Lanark municipalities range from 2,985 to 9,736. (The nine surrounding counties all use weighted voting as well.) Government of Ontario Municipal Act allows municipalities to determine their own structure and procedures subject to meeting certain conditions such as triple majority for County Councils. 8

9. County of Simcoe Procedure Bylaw County Council Weighted Voting 9

10. 10

11. MunicipalityYesNoNotes County of FrontenacY County of HaliburtonY Financial matters only County of HastingsY County of LanarkY County of Lennox & Addington N County of NorthumberlandY County of PeterboroughY County of Prince Edward NSingle tier County of RenfrewY United Counties of Leeds & GrenvilleY Specific matters only United Counties of Prescott & Russell Y United Counties of Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry N Excerpt from Lanark County Report #C-14-2013 County Council - Weighted Voting 11

12. Determination of Vote Weights Goal of Determination: Fairness Proposed Variables for Planning and Development Decisions: 1.Overall proximity to development site: Division in which the development site resides; bordering Divisions, and then outer Divisions. 2.Financial impact of development to County: to what extent will the development impact the finances/economy of the County? The greater the impact, the less weight of vote of the Division in which the development site resides. 3.Population size of electorate in each Division. The greater the population of a Division, the greater weight of vote in terms of population. Variables need to be current and accurate. Refuted weighted variables: male suffrage (lack of women suffrage) (Sweden post-1918/1919); property class and education (Rhodesia, 1961 Constitution); direct tax revenue, male suffrage, age (over 24) (Prussian three class franchise). Criticism of Weighted Voting: violates one person one vote principle; less transparency of how elected officials vote and therefore less accountability; too complex. 12

13. Hypothetical Example of Rocky View County using Three Variable Voting Weights: Proximity to Development, Population, and Financial Impact of Development 1.Proximity to Bingham Crossing: Three classes: Immediate proximity, bordering overall proximity, and outer proximity. (These classes allow different degree of impact from development.) Class 1: 4x; class 2: 2x; class 3: 1x) 2.Population of each Division (weighted votes) (Greater the population, the greater the weighted vote.) 38,055 2013 total population; 5% to 9.99% of population 1x (Divisions 1, 2, 6, 7) 10% to 14.99% of population 2x (Divisions 5, 8, 9) 15% to 19.99% of population 3x (Divisions 3, 4) 3.Estimated financial impact of Bingham Crossing Development on County: Estimated neutral long term impact on finances of Rocky View County: No weighted votes for finances. (If positive and negative financial impact, then class 2 and class 3 would be given more say in decision; degree of say would be contingent on estimated impact in terms of revenue and expenses) Result of Weighted Vote In Favour of Bingham: 14 Against Bingham: 17 * Note, recall legislation would be critical in weighted voting to remove councillors who fail to represent the voice of the people in their Divisions. 13

14. Obstacles to Weighted Votes in Alberta Alberta Municipal Government Act (MGA) (Current as December 11, 2013) Is there any section in the MGA and Rocky View County Bylaws which disallows weighted voting of municipal councils? MGA Restricted to One Councillor One Vote MGA, Division 9, Voting, Restriction to one vote per person Section 182 “A councillor has one vote each time a vote is held at a council meeting at which the councillor is present.” Section 182 may be interpreted as one vote of equal value/weight per person. Rocky View Bylaw Supports One Councillor One Vote Rocky View County Bylaw C-7295-2013-Procedure Bylaw. Bylaw 51 Voting on Motions (1) Unless otherwise specified in this Bylaw, a Motion shall be carried when a simple majority of the Members present at a Meeting vote in favour of a Motion. MGA review: inform the Alberta provincial government of your support of weighted voting for Alberta municipal councils. Deadline May 2014. 14

15. 15