Harry Shannon
Just over 20 years ago, the Ontario government created a new City of Hamilton by amalgamating what had previously been the city with surrounding towns. At the time it was highly controversial. One town, Dundas, held a plebiscite (an unofficial vote) on the issue. About half the electorate voted – far more than typically turn out for municipal elections. Over 90% did not want to join Hamilton, but the provincial government went ahead anyway.
So fast forward to 2022 and the municipal election that took place a few weeks ago. There has long been a line of thought that holds that the old city is very different from what are now the suburbs, in attitudes of people, etc. Following the election for Mayor, a Hamilton Spectator (‘the Spec’) columnist wrote a story claiming that the results for the two leading candidates showed the city is badly divided. He showed a map of the city divided into polls, colour-coded by which of the two won that poll. (The city is divided into Wards, which in turn are divided into polls, with several hundred people voting in each poll.)
I didn’t like the map so I got hold of the voting data from the city clerk’s office. My analysis showed the picture was more complex than the Spec’s story suggested. My Opinion article explaining this was in today’s paper.
Below is the version I sent; there were a few tweaks by the editor in the version the Spec put out.
Just how divided is Hamilton?
HARRY SHANNON
If you read the Opinion piece ‘The divided city of Hamilton’ (Nov 3), you could be forgiven for thinking that the moment you crossed the boundary of the old city of Hamilton, you were in enemy territory.
The article was based on a map showing that, in the election for mayor, Andrea Horwath led in almost all areas in the old city, while Keanin Loomis got most votes in the amalgamated sections of the city (as well as some of the mountain). But a more thorough analysis shows the divisions are not nearly as stark as claimed.
Regardless of who won any given poll, the gap between Horwath and Loomis was typically small. Half the time it was less than 10%, and it was more than 20% in only a fifth of the polls.
Incoming mayor Horwath has solid support throughout the whole city. She got at least a third of the total vote in all 15 wards and in more than 80% of the polls. (Similarly, Loomis polled at least 30% in each ward and won a third or more of the votes in 80% of the polls.) In Dundas, which was not part of the old city, Horwath beat Loomis by a few votes.
So while you can draw a line around the old city and use it to determine with a few exceptions who won any given poll, the differences are not great. As Mayor-elect of Hamilton, Horwath has a good base to work from.
Another issue is that the map in the article is potentially misleading. The green regions, showing where Loomis led the poll, take up the vast majority of the city by area. It makes us think that Loomis won most of the city, so maybe he should be mayor.
But that’s because the population density varies a lot. For example, multi-story buildings in the centre house many people, taking up an area that may be occupied by just a single home in rural areas. Polls in the outer parts of the city take up a much bigger area and our eyes trick us when we see the map. It’s crucial to do more detailed analyses and present additional results to get a more complete and accurate picture.
In a time of extreme partisanship, we must be careful not to sow the seeds of division – or claim it’s there when it isn’t. As I noted, Mayor-elect Andrea Horwath has gained broad support throughout the entire city. I wish her well as she takes office and works to enhance the lives of all Hamiltonians.
Thanks to the City Clerk’s office for providing the raw data for this article.
Harry Shannon is Professor Emeritus of Biostatistics at McMaster University.