In 2004, our county reporter came back to the office with some exciting News. Finally, county council was going to have a real election.
The harp of course for years was that the election of the warden and chairmen for committees was a closed door affair. Other publications had railed against the old way for years, almost making a mockery of the vote. Having distanced ourselves from that line of work, it is maybe a good time to let the proverbial skeleton out of the closet.
Basically, at the end of August, right around golf tournament time, people would make their intentions known for the coming county elections. Between that date and election time there would be the prerequisite lobbying for votes. Unlike federal and provincial counterparts, it wasn’t a case of trading off votes on issues as much as it was asking for support and holding supporters to their word come election day.
Most times, the votes went as said. It was a vote by ballot with only the winner announced. We don’t recall vote counts being rubbed in. Not once in our years at county did we notice a sour face or untoward comment.
Usually the public meeting started a bit later. To meet the legal requirements, nominations would be made, votes would be taken, and winners would be summoned. More often than not, reporters who witness trends noticed the loser almost always nominated the winner. Colourful speeches ensued, and a sense of loyalty and cordiality permeated council. Some in the media and the odd rebel might not have liked it, but it worked just fine and didn’t hurt anybody.
Our trip down to Guelph last week for the warden’s election brought back all these memories. It’s nice to see old friends and peers. The new way of voting did not turn us on much, and we have since heard through the grapevine, some rumbling about the humiliating nature of the present voting method. It might be legally correct, but it is little better to us than a humiliating contest – almost gladiator-style.
It strikes us that the public vote rather than secret ballot draws lines amongst councillors and creates chasms among civic leaders.
The architects and advocates of the glorious new way of voting forgot in their deliberations that it is easy to speak to issues and remain friends. When a standing vote for and against an individual is held however, it becomes very, very personal indeed.
