Sir: As a newcomer to this community (2012), I am finding it very difficult to make a decision in the coming municipal election.
Until last week in The Voice, local newspapers had been simply printing lists of the candidates. I hope prior to the election there will be some serious analysis of all of them in all local media.
Chatham seems desperate for business and industry. Opening a new business these days is difficult, and companies are selective. That is why I am puzzled at Chatham-Kent’s municipal electoral system. Six candidates elected at-large in a city? Take a look at other places that are far more successful than here in attracting business. One thing most of them offer, as a basic, is a modern, electoral system.
Chatham should be divided into six wards – a system used in Toronto, Hamilton, Windsor, London, Guelph, Waterloo and other progressive places. I suspect the current system was put in place by provincial bureaucrats at amalgamation so as to not alarm the populace too much – as was done in other amalgamations. The big difference between those places and Chatham-Kent is, after a few years, other places changed their systems to make them more responsive to democracy.
The at-large electoral system used here dates to over a century ago and is the first “small” indicator to potential business owners that Chatham is anything but a progressive community. That will not be the only factor for businesses deciding to set up shop, but does the city need an automatic strike one, given today’s competitive business climate and the city’s needs?
From what I can gather there are more than 20 candidates for six seats in Chatham. One result is multi-sign pollution all over the city. Just look the boulevards.
More importantly, the at-large system makes it nearly impossible to make an intelligent decision about whom to support with a vote. Studies of at-large systems also show incumbents have an incredible advantage. People will likely vote for one or two new, vibrant candidates, and then fill in their ballots with names they recognize. The result is that dead wood incumbents continually get re-elected based on name recognition alone, and they cannot be blasted from their seats with dynamite.
When the system changes and they face real scrutiny, they often disappear from public life. In the current system, people’s fifth and sixth choices often top the polls – while those dynamic newcomers that were many people’s first choices finish well out of the running.
It cannot be that difficult to create a ward system for Chatham. That would allow people in each area of the city to focus on a single councillor’s performance, and make it easier to throw the bum out for poor or non-performance.
The argument of, “What if there are two good people running?” is a non starter. Isn’t that what we want in elections?
A difficult choice? That might increase voter turnout and public interest more than gimmicky electoral voting ploys and experimental systems dreamed up by municipal staff to generate interest by voters.
It might be worthwhile to ask any candidates that come knocking on your door if they would support reforming the electoral system.
It was good to see some candidates’ ads in The Voice last week, too. A sign on a boulevard tells me nothing, even if it includes a website. Memorizing that address could be considered distracted driving. An ad could at the least cite qualifications and political positions to aid those who cannot attend candidates’ meetings.
As for me, I have been visited by only one candidate to date, and talked to another quite by accident. Unless there are more candidates calling, or I can attend an all candidates’ meeting and see who else is worth supporting, I will cast a ballot for only two people – those who made sense in our conversations. I will not vote for four unknown other people simply because the rules allow it.
David Meyer
Chatham
