Readers write -- Peter Peto.

As much as I try not to contribute to the Eagle's Blog I find it difficult not to put my opinions and ideas out into the 'blogoshere' in my attempt to influence the Coldstream elite who follow this blog. As you know I am a chronic thinker and analyzer and I use this blog as a means to give my thoughts some outside expression. Since my last blog submission I have been thinking about the elections, not as a candidate councilor or competitor but rather about the election process itself. Let me share my thoughts with you one more time.

1. As I exited some of the all candidate forums I noticed a few people came away still not knowing who to vote for. A daunting task with 18 candidates to choose from, last election there were ten. On issues of policy there was considerable overlap and I would say no single issue candidates are in the running. Most voters feel they have an obligation to select 6 councilors, about 24% of voters in the last election chose less than six, so on average each voter chose about 4.5 candidates. On average only a third of the eligible voters come out to vote in municipal elections in the province, about a quarter in Vernon but nearly a half in Coldstream. Cynics might attribute this to apathy, alienation, etc but it might also be possible because the voters feel overwhelmed by the demands placed on them by the ballot. Voters who take their civic duties seriously and go out to vote make their decisions by

a. seeing and listening to the candidates at public events,

b. follow media advertising,

c. pay attention to candidate signage and mail outs and

d. use the name order or name recognition on the ballot in order to make their choice. [ On that point, 4 of the 6 councilors elected in Vernon in the last election where chosen from names beginning with B and C. In Coldstream 4 out of the first six listed were elected. Moreover the successful candidates were either long time residents and could claim a high public profile, newcomers or low profilers were shunned. As I recall in the last election I had no idea what the candidates stood for because they didn't even make an effort on that score, it was more about who I am and what I have done. I used my intuition to eliminate those I didn't 'like' and I was right in every case!] All of the above begs the question:what can be done to make voting a more rational and meaningful exercise?

2. So to make the choice easier for voters some broad distinctions should be made among the candidates along political and ideological lines, as in the party system. That is, candidates should fall into natural groupings, having shared interests, which allow the voters to contrast and compare their interests with political groupings. This would also enhance cooperation between candidates once elected because they are already aligned before they are put into office. In the present election we have the CRA candidates who are naturally aligned because they support the community charter by their intended actions rather then by spouting empty words when they take their oath of office. They oppose the undeclared business interests of the Corner and Postill pro-growth at any cost, movements. As far as I could tell the pro-growth party may only be represented by Taylor, Cochrane and Malerby[?] this time around so they will be routed from the corridors of power at municipal hall, after 6 years of unimpeded abuse. This brings me to the unfortunate decision by the CRA executive not to endorse a "slate" of CRA approved candidates. Plainly that's because the CRA executive don't want to be seen as a partisan political organization which might lessen their influence and credibility in the future. So they let the candidates who supported the CRA run on their own individual merits and therefore there was no CRA "slate" in spite of Taylor's insistence to the contrary. Perhaps that might have turned out to be a wise choice, time will tell. [ As VP of the CRA and a candidate I stayed away from the issue.] Now that the election is nearly on us I can say that I think Andy Danylu's idea of a CRA endorsed 'slate' was a good one inasmuch as voters sympathetic with the views of the CRA membership would have found their choice of candidates easier to make. Andy quit in protest and I think this is very unfortunate because I think he is, in my opinion,the most experienced and knowledgeable former politician in the Coldstream and he would be a huge political asset if he could be persuaded he was still wanted by the political community. Have you thought about the next mayor after Garlick yet?

I also noticed a general aversion to intra-candidate endorsements, no doubt to the emotional fallout and hard feelings it might provoke among the candidates. So What! It's natural for primates or hominids to make alliances, alignments, etc and unnatural to insist that candidates act solely on rational self interest, to act as a kind of inert political atom that will be forced to make bonds once the electorate have chosen which atoms to throw into the mix and not really knowing what the political compound will do in office. The apolitical untested way of forming councils seems to me like a very dumb way to create a working consensus!

3. Finally, let's take in implications of the socio-economic heterogeneity of the district of Coldstream. The population is not homogeneous and thus Coldstream represents a plurality of interests that cannot be adequately addressed by nonpartisan candidates drawn from the population at random and without regard to local within-district divisions. Is it realistic to expect the rural interests of Lavington to coincide with the suburban interests of Kalview or Middleton Mtn? A political science professor at Simon Fraser, specializing in local politics, says that more municipalities should avail themselves of the "ward system", as it would address the interests of individual wards and make candidate selection ward specific. I can think of five natural wards in the district of Coldstream: Lavington, Coldstream proper, intervening Rural Lands, Middleton Mtn and Kalamalka lake. Many of these wards have conflicting interests and who on council speaks for any of these ward interests and how do you go about reconciling the differences between these wards in the current council system?You don't, the current system is inherently unrepresentative and dysfunctional. The current controversies over the ALR, Kalavista boat launch and the turf wars between the Lavington and Coldstream Fire Departments illustrate my point. Think of how much simpler it would be for the voters to chose candidates from in their ward rather than the whole. However it would not remedy the inevitable inter-ward rivalry which would require compromise and consideration on the part of a ward council to find solutions satisfactory to the aggregate.

Like any innovation there is going to be a lot of resistance to these ideas or proposals but the present imperfect electoral system needs to be reformed and improved if only to get more voter participation, rational candidate selection and policies that address 'special interests' rather than running rough sod over everybody and satisfying no one! Think about it, Coldstreamer elites and future council officers: there are more than a few contentious issues at stake here, its about electoral democracy itself and how it is implemented in Coldstream.

Peter Peto

*************************************************************