Is there democracy at the municipal level in Chilliwack? It's a question that came up, once again, at the December 3rd City Council meeting during the annual review of the Financial Plan. Longtime Chilliwack resident Gary Raddysh, who has become a familiar voice at council meetings over the years, stood up to challenge the process. He argued that council lacks a true democratic mandate to increase taxes or make spending decisions, largely because voter turnout is so low—only 24% of eligible residents participated in the last municipal election.
Raddysh’s proposal was straightforward: freeze taxes, halt all new spending, and ensure that future financial decisions are backed by a majority of Chilliwack’s citizens. He suggested that any initiative, be it a tax increase or a new project, should only move forward if at least 50% of the community supports it. His frustration was palpable. How, he asked, could council truly represent the people of Chilliwack if less than a quarter of them even bothered to vote?
His concerns resonate with a broader theme of disillusionment that some citizens feel about local government—a sense that decisions are being made by a small group of elected officials without adequate community engagement. When Raddysh called for town halls or alleged that Engage Chilliwack was frequently censored, he wasn’t merely being difficult; he was voicing a real concern about the distance people often feel from those who govern them.
But Raddysh's solution—that all spending decisions be subject to some kind of direct democracy—raises complex questions. Is it even practical to expect half of the community to weigh in on every spending decision? Would such a system actually strengthen our local democracy, or would it risk paralyzing decision-making, making it impossible to accomplish even the simplest of tasks? And most importantly, does low voter turnout mean that democracy isn’t functioning, or does it simply reflect a general contentment, as Mayor Popove suggested?
It’s easy to dismiss Mr. Raddysh’s demands as unrealistic. But his criticism—that our democracy feels more like a small group of insiders making decisions rather than a system by and for the people—shouldn’t be taken lightly. How can we get more people involved? And is the answer really in digital referendums and community surveys, or do we need to rethink the very structure of how we make decisions at the local level?
During Tuesday's meeting, Mr. Raddysh asked repeatedly, “Who is my representative?” At first, it seemed rhetorical, but as he continued, it became clear he was genuinely seeking clarity. Was any one of the councilors his dedicated representative, similar to how an MLA or MP serves a defined constituency?
This moment highlighted a fundamental difference in how Chilliwack’s city council operates. Unlike the ward system used in many Canadian municipalities—where councilors represent specific neighbourhoods—Chilliwack uses an at-large system. In this model, all councilors represent the entire city rather than any one area. While this can encourage a more cohesive approach to city-wide decision-making, it can leave some residents feeling disconnected. Without a dedicated representative, who can they turn to when they have specific local concerns?
In a ward system, the city is divided into geographic areas, and each area elects its own councilor. This structure creates clear lines of accountability and ensures that every neighbourhood has a voice at the council table. Councilors in a ward system often develop a deep understanding of the unique challenges and priorities of their constituents, fostering closer connections between residents and their local government.
Chilliwack’s at-large model, on the other hand, assumes that all councilors will act in the best interest of the city as a whole. However, as Mr. Raddysh’s question revealed, this approach can leave some residents wondering if anyone is truly “their” representative.
Mayor Popove’s reaction to the question, and the following exchange clearly carried some tension, rooted in a misunderstanding of the at-large system. In this model, there’s no single representative for specific neighbourhoods, which can leave residents feeling uncertain about who, if anyone, is directly advocating for their local concerns.
If you're electing a mayor and six council members to represent the entire city, that means just four votes—FOUR people—decide on critical issues shaping Chilliwack’s future. Think about that for a moment: whether it’s approving the next Official Community Plan, determining how we grow, or addressing our most pressing challenges, a majority of only four council members can steer the course for the entire city.
Is that truly reflective of a democratic process in a city with an estimated 107,000 residents and growing? When decisions of such magnitude are made by such a small group, it raises questions about whether our current council structure is equipped to handle the increasingly complex needs of our community.
This becomes even more interesting when comparing Chilliwack to other municipalities in British Columbia. For example, Vancouver’s council consists of a mayor and 10 councilors, representing a population of over 650,000. Even smaller cities like Nanaimo, Prince George and the City of Victoria, with populations similar to Chilliwack, have larger councils. Vancouver, notably, has the largest council size in BC, while cities like Surrey and Burnaby also recognize the need for more voices at the table to address their growing populations.
The 2022 election reignited discussions about whether six council members are enough to represent Chilliwack’s growing and diverse population. Many residents questioned if expanding council could bring fresh perspectives and ensure important decisions—like those shaping the city’s future—aren’t made by just four people, as is currently the case.
The idea has merit. More seats could create opportunities for less mainstream candidates to run, including people from underrepresented communities or those with fresh perspectives on Chilliwack’s challenges. With the city’s population growth and increasingly complex needs, some believe a larger council would better reflect the community and its varied priorities.
But does this idea hold up under scrutiny? Critics point out that increasing the number of council members doesn’t necessarily mean better representation. After all, when only a quarter of eligible voters participate, does the number of people sitting at the council table really matter? If residents feel disconnected from their local government, simply expanding the council may not solve the underlying problem.
Ultimately, the idea of expanding council raises an important discussion about representation and democracy. While a larger council might help diversify voices, the real challenge lies in making local governance feel relevant and accessible to the average resident. Until more people see the value of participating, the size of the council might make less of a difference than the sense of connection voters feel to the decisions being made on their behalf.
Let's take a closer look at the 2022 municipal election. According to CivicInfoBC, Chilliwack had a 24.77% voter turnout in 2022. Compared to similar-sized cities—those with eligible voters within 15,000 of Chilliwack's 69,997—Chilliwack ranks second last, just ahead of Nanaimo at 23.93%. Meanwhile, Victoria had a voter turnout of 36.81%. If Chilliwack voted at the same rate as Victoria, we would have had around 8,400 more voters. To put that in perspective, Bud Mercer was elected with 7,970 votes—meaning those additional voters could have significantly influenced the outcome. This data makes it clear that voter turnout is an issue worth addressing. The question is whether Chilliwack is an outlier or if this trend is more widespread across the province.
When we look at the provincial average, Chilliwack's voter turnout has typically been lower. Since the 2008 election, Chilliwack has only surpassed the provincial average once, in 2018, during one of the most contentious mayoral races the city has seen. That election saw incumbent Mayor Sharon Gaetz face off against Sam Waddington in a heated contest that got the whole community talking. Both candidates took an aggressive approach, and the tension drove voter engagement. In the end, Ken Popove came up the middle to win, surprising many. On the flip side, the worst turnout since 2008 was in 2011, when Mayor Sharon Gaetz ran unopposed—proving just how much specific issues and competition can impact participation.
So, is it realistic to expect 50% voter turnout? Well, it’s not impossible. Take New Denver, for example, where 417 of the 467 eligible voters showed up at the polls—though we're talking about a small village where it took just 250 votes to become mayor. For larger municipalities, the picture is different. The largest community to reach 50% turnout was the District of Oak Bay in 2018, with 53.6% turnout out of 13,499 eligible voters. The closest any city larger than half the size of Chilliwack got was Victoria in 2018, with a 44.85% turnout of their 66,243 voters.
Compared to larger municipalities in the region, Chilliwack's turnout is pretty much in the middle of the pack. For example, Port Coquitlam and Burnaby both had under 20% turnout, while Coquitlam barely managed to get over the 20% mark. It makes you wonder—are there people like Gary Raddysh in those cities, voicing similar concerns about their local democracy?
There’s also a question of engagement. Are people more likely to vote for a specific candidate or against a policy or issue they oppose? Some studies suggest voters are more energized by clear stakes—contentious decisions or pressing local issues—than by an expanded list of names on a ballot, like in 2018. If Chilliwack wants to boost engagement, the focus may need to shift to making elections feel more personal and impactful, not just adding more seats to council.
Every election is different, and so are the priorities of the voters. Local issues matter, and they often dictate how much people care to participate. When it comes to voter turnout, Chilliwack is average at best—maybe even a bit worse. It’s not like we’re completely apathetic, but there’s definitely room for improvement.
In response to Mr. Raddysh’s concerns, it’s worth taking a look at how the City of Chilliwack currently engages with its residents to gather public input. As pointed out during the council meeting, the city seeks feedback every year when property tax notices are sent out. This survey is one way to capture resident opinions on financial priorities and other matters. Additionally, the city offers public information sessions, distributes a newsletter, and as several council members, including the mayor, mentioned, they are always ready to listen to the concerns of the public.
In recent years, the city has also implemented a tool called Engage Chilliwack, designed to provide more structure to the process of soliciting and receiving feedback from residents. This online platform allows citizens to participate in discussions, provide input on specific projects, and share their views on upcoming decisions. It’s an attempt to modernize community engagement and make it easier for people to get involved without necessarily attending council meetings in person.
But digging deeper, it becomes clear that using a tool like Engage Chilliwack to require 50% of the community’s support for every decision, as suggested by Mr. Raddysh, would likely bring city business to a halt. If we can’t get 50% of residents to vote once every four years, it’s unrealistic to expect that level of participation annually, let alone monthly, for every key decision. Democracy, especially at the local level, requires a balance between engagement and practical governance. The challenge lies in finding ways to include as many voices as possible without making decision-making impossible.
But the real question is: Is it enough? For those who don’t feel represented, it’s unlikely that any format will fully make them feel like they have a voice that’s being listened to. For others, all of these opportunities might just seem like an invitation for more noise, something that doesn’t necessarily lead to tangible changes.
Low voter turnout is often seen as a sign that something is missing in democracy, but what would it take to change that? For many, the process feels disconnected, and the complexity of the issues can be overwhelming. The challenge isn’t just getting people to the polls—it’s helping them feel confident that their vote matters and that they understand the decisions being made.
To create a more democratic future, increasing access to unbiased information and breaking down complex topics are essential steps. When people have a clearer view of how things work and why they matter, engagement naturally follows. This is why this website exists.
By 2026, the hope is for a community where more people are equipped to participate—not out of obligation, but because they feel informed and empowered to make a difference. A stronger democracy starts with understanding, and that’s something we can all strive for.
