Same five questions, every candidate

The questionnaire

On September 3, 2026, every mayoral and ward candidate on the City's certified list got the same five questions by email. Every school board trustee candidate, on every board, got five of their own. Answers are published word for word on each candidate's entry, next to every other candidate's, on the 2026 race pages. Nothing is edited, scored, or summarized.

Researched September 2, 2026 · updated October 27, 2026 · Sent September 3, 2026

THE ELECTION IS DONE · THE QUESTIONNAIRE TALLY

About 40% of candidates answered (41 of 102).

Elected members who haven’t answered are encouraged to reach out to hello@londondecides.ca and fill it out. Answers are published the same way as every other: word for word, dated, never edited.

Answers received

Mayor3 of 12 · 25%

Ward councillors29 of 65 · 45%

School board trustees9 of 25 · 36%

SHOW EVERY WARD AND BOARD ↓

Ward 12 of 2 · 100%

Ward 21 of 4 · 25%

Ward 31 of 6 · 17%

Ward 42 of 8 · 25%

Ward 53 of 5 · 60%

Ward 63 of 4 · 75%

Ward 74 of 8 · 50%

Ward 81 of 3 · 33%

Ward 92 of 6 · 33%

Ward 102 of 5 · 40%

Ward 111 of 2 · 50%

Ward 121 of 3 · 33%

Ward 135 of 6 · 83%

Ward 141 of 3 · 33%

French-language boards0 of 2 · 0%

London District Catholic1 of 8 · 13%

Thames Valley8 of 15 · 53%

What the questions are built to do

Ask what they did, not only what they would do. Hiring research finds past behaviour predicts performance better than a promise, so two questions ask for something already done. “In any part of your life” keeps first-time candidates in.
One checkable particular per question: a name, an event, something a reader can verify. A hedge then looks like a hedge.
No statistic and no loaded premise. The League of Women Voters found that a stem leading with a number reads as bias, so each question asks what the candidate would do, never why their opponents are wrong.
“Where do you feel torn” instead of “what is your position.” A shallow answer has nowhere to hide.
The questionnaire measures the person. Positions live in each Hard File’s list of questions for council.
The first question is the seed of a promise tracker. For the people elected, their own words become the ledger they are measured against.

Mayor and ward councillors

Identical for all 81 candidates. There was no separate set for the mayor.

Q1
What is the one thing you most want to have changed in London by the end of this term? Tell us what a resident would be able to see in 2030 that shows you did it, and what you would be willing to give up to get it.
Q2
A councillor is one vote of fifteen, and staff write the reports council votes on. Tell us about a time, in any part of your life, when you needed a decision from people who mostly disagreed with you and got it. Who did you have to bring around, what did you change in your ask, and what did you give up?
Q3
Name one thing the people you'd represent will ask you for that city council cannot actually decide. Say plainly what you would tell them, who does hold that decision, and what you would do to move it anyway.
Q4
Pick the issue you most want to be known for. Where do you feel torn on it, and what is the strongest argument against your own position?
Q5
Point us to one thing you have already done for people in London, before this campaign, that a reader could check and that shows how you would do this job. A web address is welcome.

School board trustees

Identical for all 29 trustee candidates across Thames Valley, the London District Catholic board, Viamonde, and Providence. Supervision is mentioned once, as context, and only Thames Valley is under it.

Q1
What is the one thing you most want to be different for students in your zone by the end of this term? Tell us what a parent would be able to see in 2030 that shows it happened, and what you would be willing to give up to get it.
Q2
A trustee is one vote on a board, and at Thames Valley, under provincial supervision, not even that for now. Tell us about a time, in any part of your life, when you needed a decision from people who mostly disagreed with you and got it. Who did you have to bring around, what did you change in your ask, and what did you give up?
Q3
Name one thing parents will ask you to fix that a school board trustee cannot actually decide. Say plainly what you would tell them, who does hold that decision, and what you would do to move it anyway.
Q4
If a school in your zone were slated to close or have its boundary redrawn, what would you actually do, step by step, from the day you heard about it to the day of the vote?
Q5
Point us to one thing you have already done for students or families in London, before this campaign, that a reader could check and that shows how you would do this job. A web address is welcome.

How answers are published

Answers are published exactly as sent. No editing, no commentary, no scoring, and nothing is ever trimmed.
Candidates were asked to keep answers to a reasonable length, no more than 150 words each. An answer over the limit is never shortened by the site; it is held back whole and the candidate is asked for one within the limit.
The election is over. Elected members who have not answered can still send answers, and they are published the same way, with the date they arrived.
A candidate who never answered shows "No response received." That is a fact, not a judgment.
Every answer set shows the date it arrived. A candidate can replace their answers at any time, and the newest version is what shows, with its date.
In the rare case an answer is not published, the candidate's page says so and names the rule. The seven publication rules are below, and on the methodology page.

Questionnaire publication rules

Every 2026 candidate got the same five questions, and every answer was published word for word. The site never edited an answer. These rules, adopted September 1, 2026 before the questionnaire went out, covered the rare case where an answer was not published at all. Each was applied identically to every candidate, and they still govern the answers kept in the 2026 archive.

1
Published whole, as sent. Nothing is cut, trimmed, translated, or reformatted. Answers run in the language they were written in, as plain text: web addresses appear as text, not links, and images, attachments, and formatting are not published.
2
Keep answers to a reasonable length, no more than 150 words each. An answer over 150 words is not shortened by the site. It is held back whole and the candidate is asked for a version within the limit.
3
No unsourced factual accusations about named candidates, officials, or private people. Naming an opponent is fine, and so is disagreeing with their policy. Stating as fact that a named person did something wrong, with nothing checkable behind it, is not. The source travels with the answer.
4
No hate, harassment, or targeting of private individuals.
5
Holding back is slow, visible, and reversible. No decision is made the day an answer arrives. The candidate is told within two days which rule applied and may resubmit at any time; a resubmission that meets the rule is published. Their page reads, in the same words for everyone: "An answer was received on [date] but not published under publication rule N. The candidate may submit a replacement at any time."
6
Only from the candidate, always dated. Answers are accepted only from the email address on the candidate’s certified listing, or a campaign address they have confirmed from it once. The page shows the date the answers arrived. If the candidate later replaces them, the newest version shows with its date, and earlier versions are not published.
7
Never backward. These rules apply from the day they are published. Any rule added later applies only to answers received after it is posted, and the addition is logged on the Updates page.

The same rules, in the same words, sit on the methodology page.