The Electoral Process

---

A Reflection on the Electoral Process

By Ian Gartshore, candidate

It has been nearly three weeks since the recent municipal by-election was wrapped up. I have had some time to reflect on the process.

This is the second time I have run for political office, the first being a run for a provincial seat. What I appreciated the most about running municipally is that the usual mud-slinging and bickering was nil due to the absence of party politicking. As far as I can tell of the candidates treated each other with respect and avoided taking pot-shots at one another. While this made for less exciting journalism, it was way more pleasant.

Apart from this, virtually all else was the same or very similar. Groups and individuals contacted me around specific issues –this time in areas such as cell phone towers, “wet housing”, ways to improve South-end Nanaimo, and the lack of sewer hook-up for Green Lake residents.

There was an all candidates’ meeting; this one was televised. Perhaps the lack of cameras is why fewer and fewer candidates turned up for the all candidates’ meetings in the last provincial election. It appears that campaigns are increasingly being made or squashed according to how a candidate presents on T.V.

The diminishing numbers of those who actually vote has introduced another dynamic to the process, one that was most clearly seen in this election: campaigns that get their own people out to vote, do better. This is especially beneficial to campaigns being supported by the labour movement or corporate organisations. Not only do these campaigns receive more funds they utilise their networks to get the vote out for their favourite candidate.

Another disturbing trend emerged in this election: those candidates that said the least about their relative positions tended to do the best. They didn’t alienate anyone, I suppose. They were mostly voted by either their supporters or networks or because of how they presented themselves. Judging on their websites and statements most candidates had not thought through what it takes to create and sustain an excellent city. Whether the winning candidates make the best representatives is an open question.

Lastly, apart from incumbents, the best-funded campaigns are almost always the ones that garner the most votes. I suspect this will prove true in the last election. More and bigger signs, leaflets to every door, advertising and hiring staff/phone callers all cost money. Lots of it. Because campaigns can be supported by companies and unions, and only they are able to write these donations off of their taxes at the municipal level –unless a candidate is well-off or has lots of friends who give generously, many votes are often essentially “bought” by special interest organisations.

Is it any wonder, then, why the general public feels ignored or disempowered?

What needs to change? No democratic election should allow corporate or union donations. Campaigns must have expense ceilings that allow an average income-earner to compete. Dates and locations of voting booths must be mailed to all residents (this is one reason the turn-out was so dismal; many didn’t know the date or place to vote!). And campaign organisers must connect with a broader segment of our society, especially the disenfranchised youth.

Ian Gartshore ran in the March 2011 Nanaimo by-election