Hell hath no fury like a politician being told there will be fewer jobs for politicians.

While certain members of Toronto city council are lighting their hair on fire because they may not have a job for life, Toronto taxpayers should be rejoicing.

Doug Ford cutting the size of Toronto’s bloated and dysfunctional city hall will save money, should improve governance, and is more democratic. It’s good news for the city, and taxpayers shouldn’t believe the self-interested voices telling them otherwise.

Reducing Toronto city council from a planned 47 members to 25 members will save taxpayers millions. The province provided a low-ball estimate of $25.5 million in savings. In all likelihood, this number will be much higher. The Toronto Star calculated that it would be closer to $30 million over four years, but even this calculation doesn’t include a number of high priced items, like generous pensions or the start-up costs for three new wards.

And it also doesn’t include the savings associated with having fewer politicians with their own taxpayer-funded pet projects. A 2017 study by the Toronto-based Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance noted that large city councils tend to spend much more per capita than municipalities with small councils, and that this higher spending was a result of greater levels of “pork barrelling.” Just consider the story of the expensive installation and removal of the Jarvis bike lanes, or the odd support of some councillors for the money-vacuums that are municipally owned golf-courses.

And fewer city councillors means City Council should function better.

With its current 44 members, Toronto’s city council can feel as gridlocked as the city’s traffic. Council meetings can last days, and go late into the night. Last week, a single council meeting went on for five days. Councillors will make important cost decisions at 11 pm after a day-long session. Council will spend hours on minor procedural issues, and lack of prioritization means council may spend as much time debating the location of tree or a traffic light as they will a multimillion dollar construction project. Los Angeles manages with a population of 4 million and a city council of 15. Brisbane, Australia, has a population of 2.35 million (similar to Toronto’s 2.73 million) and survives with a city council of 26.

One of the loudest criticisms against the Ford move is that it is undemocratic. Ford didn’t run on this policy, and it is coming as a “shock” just months out from a municipal election.

But Ford’s move is actually a move towards better democracy. While the timing may not be ideal, waiting four years and letting council expand to 47 is worse. Ford’s announcement should come as a surprise to no one. Not only did Ford commit to reducing the size of government, but as mayor, the Premier’s brother Rob Ford supported a motion to reduce the size of council to 25 members.

The shrinking and re-distribution of the municipal wards also improves democracy by ensuring that there is more even population distribution across the wards. With the planned 47 wards, some wards would have had as few as 28,665 voters while others had 70,535, giving far greater weight to some votes. The 25 ward plan has a more even distribution of population, without an enormous increase in ward population. The new wards will have a much tighter population range of 94,579 to 129,081 voters.

Finally, democracy would be improved if the municipal wards mirrored the federal and provincial boundaries. Many Torontonians don’t even know who their local councillor is, let alone which ward they live in. And the proliferation of candidates and wards makes it even harder for voters to make informed decisions. Studies have shown that low information among voters leads to higher incumbency rates and makes it harder for voters to track their councillors’ actions and hold them accountable. Mirroring the federal and provincial boundaries will make following municipal political developments easier and less confusing for voters, improving the democratic process.

The decision to reduce the size of city council is the right one for taxpayers, for the city, and for democracy.