Raise the Hammer

What a motley collection of misfits and do nothings that the voters have to choose from. If this is going to be the group that steers Hamilton into the future, we have no hope at all.

Politico brings up a standard point. (Not that I believe they have a qualified opinion here; I sense an extraordinarily cynical attitude that's probably not been informed by any sort of research into the actual candidates' qualifications or appropriateness for serving.) The idea of handing over the keys to the store, crossing our fingers, hoping for the best...while expecting the worst for the ensuing four years.

Um...why?

Why do we do this, why is this our default for how we're locally governed?

Except for the fact that it's our longstanding habit, our tradition, as fueled by widespread apathy, there is no reason why it has to be this way.

But rather than harp on about my own initiatives regarding an increased 'relationship of engagement' on the part of us, not the expected suggestion that Councillors do more to remain engaged with their constituents, I'm going to ask two simple questions:

How do you feel the average Hamiltonian expects things to play out each term regarding what their role in the process is?

I'm wondering if I'm correct in believing that most people want to vote, then not be bothered in contributing anything else over the next four years, that they believe that 'good governance is what we pay these people to execute and I shouldn't be expected to do any more than vote.'

If this is the case, and what I'm suggesting regarding more involvement on our parts is a pipe-dream, don't you think we at least need to have a better informed citizenry choosing its Councillors? (Better yet, don't we need a better way to determine a candidate's qualifications, if we're going to remain generally 'uninformed' across the board?)

Comment edited by mystoneycreek on 2010-09-13 03:54:15