As an observer of our municipal election, certain well-heeled candidates had access to ads (e-mail, radio, TV, mail-outs, signage) and election offices where the unwashed masses would be greeted and feted to a cool glass of orange juice.
Less solvent candidates had, well, themselves plus large doses of hope and resolve.
The signage widely varied in size; as well, some candidates had many more signs than others; apparently no restrictions there.
The sheer number of candidates
resulted in allowing each candidate just one minute to give his or her answer to a pre-arranged question.
With this limit looming over their heads, even Demosthenes, Greek orator, would have been tongue-tied.
Another difficulty, as I see it, was that the questions posed of the candidates were pre-arranged, and more often than not, similar questions kept popping up (at least that was the case when I attended the CNC atrium meeting,) such as:
"How would you improve the downtown?" and "How will the 2015 Winter Olympics help improve our city's
reputation?" etc, ad nauseum.
Pre-arranged questions are simply not effective.
At the very least, (within that time frame), each candidate should have been allowed to state the one or two issues that were of his or her
particular interest.
Actually I was hoping that there would finally be questions from the floor, but that did not happen.
Unfortunately, such a rigid format, I believe, turned off voters, who left, knowing little more of the candidates than before.
I believe the public is savvy enough and just got turned off at the
discrepancies.
Some suggestions for future elections:
1. Treat each candidate with respect, especially the first-timers, who have to learn the ropes.
2. Cut down their numbers.
3. Arrange it so that future public meetings for candidates can be more spontaneous.
4. Eliminate forever the draconian one-minute response.
5. Eliminate all pre-arranged questions
6. Allow audience to question candidates, who must be able to think on their feet.
7. Arrange for this year's candidates to get together to suggest changes to the present voting system.
8. Arrange various public debates for anyone interested in participating, utilizing an experienced moderator, who will keep the debate moving and on topic.
To sum up, until such time as these and/or similar criteria are met, this municipality (and every other municipality in the province) is not even close to meeting the definition of a democratic entity.
Marilyn Juds,
PGSWC, Prince George Safe Water Coalition
