Comment 106031

By ItJustIs (registered) | Posted November 07, 2014 at 10:20:06

As your fearless Editor opined four years ago, right before the 2010 election:

"I'm inclined to think elections are overrated. If you vote for a candidate once every four years but don't get involved in the meantime, it doesn't really matter much who you vote for. Once politicians get inside the bubble, it's impossible to keep any kind of perspective without ongoing, substantive interaction with 'regular voters' for grounding. Which is why it's so important for citizens to: a) elect councillors who will allow themselves to be engaged, and b) keep up their end of that engagement between elections."

As much as I have fervently yammered on over the past few years about the importance of informed ballots cast as opposed to simply increasing turnout, I'm finding myself more and more questioning the decision-making process for those who vote beyond name recognition.

To whit: Why did you choose the Ward candidate you voted for? What was this decision based on? What were the differences between this candidates and those who didn't pass muster for you?

I ask these questions simply because of the nature of Municipal governance, where, in the main, no Councillor possesses the power to have their 'agenda' put into play. So most declarations can be seen as 'strategic platitudes'. So does it really come down to simply how comfortable we feel with a particular candidate?

More and more, I believe what Ryan proffered to be of immeasurable value...mostly because it places the responsibility for good governance where it should be: on the resident. After all, we are the employers in this scenario, and Councillors and the Mayor are our employees. It's up to us to guide them in leading us. "You don't ask, you don't get."

Comment edited by ItJustIs on 2014-11-07 10:20:23

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds