Olivia Chow vs. Brad Bradford… Is this a defining moment for the city?

Toronto’s upcoming municipal election is about much more than choosing a mayor. It is a referendum on the direction of Canada’s largest city: how it should grow, how it should spend taxpayers’ money, how it should tackle housing affordability and congestion, and how it should balance the needs of motorists, cyclists, businesses and neighbourhoods. The contest between incumbent Mayor Olivia Chow and councillor Brad Bradford raises a fundamental question: Does Toronto want to continue along its current path, or does it want a different approach to governing the city?

Polls will inevitably shape conversation. But there is an important distinction between what a poll measures today and what voters will decide on election day. The latest polling available as of October 19 suggests a competitive two-candidate race, with Olivia Chow ahead but Brad Bradford having gained ground. Olivia Chow 52%… Brad Bradford 46%. The numbers tell an interesting story. In September, an Ipos poll for the Toronto Star gave Chow a 15% lead over Bradford. These are not identical surveys, so they should not be treated as a perfectly consistent trend line. Nevertheless, they show that Bradford has become substantial challenger and that the size of Chow’s advantage depends on the poll and when it was conducted. The margin of error also matters. A six-point difference in one poll is not a guarantee of the result, and the report margin of error does not account for every possible source of polling error.

Why the race has become so important…

Olivia Chow is seeking another term after taking office in 2023. Her record includes difficult budget decisions, property-tax increases, housing initiatives and efforts to expand public services. Supporters can point to continuity and her experience in office; cities can question the cost of city government and whether residents are seeking enough improvement in their daily lives. Brad Bradford, a Toronto city councillor and urban planner, has built his mayoral campaign around public safety, congestion and the cost of living. His campaign argues that Toronto needs a different approach to delivering results for residents. The contrast is not simply between two personalities. It is between different approaches to the city’s priorities, spending and management.

For voters, the central questions are practical…

• Are housing and living costs becoming more manageable?
• Are public transit and roads working well enough for residents and businesses?
• Do people feel safe in their neighbourhoods and on the TTC?
• Are property taxes and city services in a reasonable balance?
• Is City Hall responding to the concerns of residents across the entire city?

Those questions will help determine how voters judge both candidates.

Do the polls influence voters? 

Absolutely, polls can influence the political atmosphere, although they do not necessarily determine how people vote. There are four important effects to consider. Momentum… when a challenger closes a polling gap, supporters may become more energized. Strategic voting…. voters who prefer another candidate may decide to support one of the two leading contenders. Complacency… a lead can encourage supporters to feel confident and stay home. Media coverage… a tight contest attracts attention and forces candidates to defend their records.

The advance polls are playing a big significance these days to determine the outcome of races. The last municipal election had a significant turnout that those votes determined the last mayoral race and giving Olivia Chow the win through its advance voting. This is a significant development. It means many voters have already made their decision before October 26. The final stretch of the campaign must therefore focus on voters who have not yet voted, as well as eligible voters who did not participate in advance voting.

The candidates’ differences are very clear when their proposal is examined issue by issue. You can get all their positions by going to their official web sites. These are campaign positions, not guaranteed outcomes. The candidates have disputed each other’s records and costs, feasibility and effects of their proposals. For instance, Bradford’s proposed tax freeze raises a question about how the city would maintain services and fund infrastructure without increasing property-tax revenue. Chow’s approach raises a different question: whether keeping future increases near inflation would provide sufficient revenue while making life more affordable.

Could this election be a turning point in Toronto’s history? Yes, it could make an important political turning point, although the extent of that change will depend on the election result and what the next administration accomplishes. If Olivia Chow wins a second term, a victory would provide a mandate to continue her governing approach. If Brad Bradford wins a victory would represent a change in mayoral leadership and a mandate to pursue his campaign priorities. 

Toronto’s mayor does not govern alone, city council, the provincial government and the federal government all influence what can be accomplished. A change in mayor would not automatically resolve the housing crises, traffic congestion or the city’s financial pleasures. The October 26 municipal election is an important test of public confidence in Toronto’s leadership.

The real turning point will not simply be who wins the mayor’s office. It will be whether the next mayor can turn campaign promises into visible improvements in the lives of Torontonians. On October 26, voters will choose the direction. The next four years will determine whether that choice delivers the change they expect.

Vincent Black/MS

In this essay at Panorama: The Journal of Travel, Place, and Nature, writer and professor Samuel Autman reflects on tourism and privilege, especially in a time of xenophobia; traveling as a Black queer American; and the idea of not fully belonging wherever he goes. The sections in Autman’s piece are organized as terms and conditions in a legal agreement, reminding us that when we cross borders, we navigate different cultural and social scenarios, written and unwritten rules, and people who view us as foreign—no matter how at home we might feel.

I found myself asking harder questions about the young men around him, about the relationships, the patronage and the blurred line between generosity and dependency. Mark had paid for many of them to study law, medicine or business. He had even helped one man living in the United States without legal status by paying for him to attend a Spanish-language school.

None of it suggested scandal or anything obviously illegal. But parts of it no longer sat comfortably with me.