Comment 50533

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted October 26, 2010 at 10:23:30

"I back Baldasaro's notion that we need to go back to having two councilours represent each ward again"

Bad, bad idea. That type of configuration breeds mediocrity and favours incumbents, especially poor performing incumbents, even more than the current system. Why? Because the worse a Councillor performs the more candidates line up to run against him/her especially because there are two spots available. Bill McCullough and Vince Agro played this game for years in Ward Two; publicly humming and hawing about retirement until enough candidates declared and then, late in the game, they'd throw there names in and ride incumbency up the middle of a large pack.

If you REALLY want change on Council; double the wards, cut the wages in half (or less) and redistribute by population. That increases the voices on Council, eliminates the fulltime jobs AND brings back the element of public service. The three mountain wards are currently wildly underrepresented but you hardly hear a peep from those Councillors because redistribution would eliminate at least one of the five old boys' wards in the lower city. Why rock your friends' boat when you've got a fulltime job that, with the rarest of exceptions, you'd never attain in the private sector? (Note: only one incumbent lost their seat and only after committing, not one but, two offences, [municipal conflict of interest and influence peddling with a police officer] that would land regular people in court).

Real change in Hamilton will only be structural not electoral.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds