The queasiness began just after Thanksgiving weekend. I knew that it wasn't the turkey (my partner had made, just for the record, the best turkey dinner ever), nor was it that I got a premature start on cannabis legalization. No, I had been over-indulging in something else, something far more mundane, yet far more dangerous: politics.
Having sat through two all-candidates meetings, watched countless videos, and read reams of questionnaires from candidates, I was, pretty much, absolutely, stuffed with all things political. And yet, I still felt oddly unsatisfied.
This election had puzzled me. Normally, I can sort out whom I want to support pretty quickly, but this time I waffled more than usual. There was no defining issue this time around, and it seemed that all the candidates were hedging their bets—careful not to make a mistake.
With five [before Tess Linsley dropped out] mayoral candidates and 22 for council, it was hard for voters to distinguish between candidates and for candidates to stand out from the pack. We heard a lot about sustainability, job growth, and affordable housing. Everyone agreed that he or she was going to consult and listen. But what about character or personality? How would these people work with others? The format the all-candidates took meant that we saw little opportunity for unscripted answers.
I have to wonder if this is the best way to elect our local representatives. Perhaps we should start to look at something like a ward system in Squamish. Why not have the town broken into six distinct zones and have people choose someone to represent each section. I live in Brackendale, so I'd vote only for the mayor and a Brackendale representative.
I remember living in Valleycliffe during the 90s when there was no representation for that neighborhood. It seemed somehow unfair that people from other parts of the town were making decisions that impacted my neighborhood, my community.
A ward system of some sort might do two things. It might allow neighborhood representation at Council to ensure that all areas are well-represented. And it would also limit the number of people running in any one area. With three or four candidates in each ward or zone, voters could get a real sense of who these people are.
I have no idea about what the Community Charter says about how we have to run elections. I don't know if it's even possible, but I do know that something needs to change.
There's another way to help define people a little more, maybe, and candidates can accomplish this without any changes to the way elections are run: run on a slate or coalition, of some sort. I know that this is anathema to some, but on the two occasions when Squamish ran an identified slate of candidates (in 1996 and 2002), all those running on the slate won. Why? I think it was because these people offered a unified vision for the town. The kind of sharing of resources and cooperation that is possible when campaigning as a group allows candidates to stand out from the pack.
I'm of the mind, though, that slates should dissolve after the election. There's no need for caucusing or party structures in a small community like ours, but to articulate a clear vision during the election, slates can be helpful.
If choosing candidates to vote for was difficult, it's nothing compared to the work that the new council will have over the next four years. All of the candidates deserve our appreciation for putting their names forward, and the new council deserves our patience as they grow into the job.
