Officials have every right to be concerned about proposed voting changes in the next municipal election. Minto council at least has taken a stand.
The provincial government is seeking feedback on its announcement to allow ranked voting in the next municipal election. Under ranked balloting, a mathematical formula will decide election results, rather than the current format where he or she who gets the most votes is declared the winner. To us the simplicity of today’s system works just fine, as it has for 150 years.
While there are few secrets in local politics about a person’s political leanings, introducing a whiff of party politics to local government is a huge mistake. Most communities have rejected the idea of party politics and or a slate of candidates running to a common end. Rarely do such things happen and with good reason.
Over the years we think the public has done a pretty good job putting together the best team possible from candidates in their community. Everyone needs a champion on council – whether it is someone with a business background, a special interest in Sports, perhaps a desire to see some social efforts or a friend of the arts.
It’s not that complicated.
Other ailments found in larger, more urban centres, include finance reform, third-party advertising and in a general sense for clerks, administering the municipal election act which has grown more difficult over time.
Today the process to get on the ballot may be simpler, but the reporting and banking requirements have become far more complicated – so much so that in neighbouring Woolwich, the seats of two councillors and the mayor were in question based on technicalities associated with their expense filings.
As happens with legislation, the contemplation of the worst case scenario overrides the typical candidate who seeks a seat on council as a community service. Common sense takes a back seat.
This brings to the fore another meeting that was held recently by clerks across Wellington County who had their own concerns with municipal elections. Again, with the good sense found in the countryside, the spectre of long campaign seasons was finally brought into question.
As it stands nominations may be filed in January of an election year. Essentially a 10-month window for campaigning makes for a grueling time for candidates and election officials. Cutting it back to a maximum six-month period as local clerks recommended would help, though three months is more than adequate.
Further recommendations by local clerks – to increase filing fees, eliminate refunds and abandon the requirements of council to ratify voting methods – require more examination.
It is not that long ago that candidates seeking office had to sign up using a nomination form complete with a prescribed number of electors who supported the nominee. The extra step of seeking support from residents should be returned as a way to validate a nomination and sort out who is serious about running, and fees that arguably may be a barrier to entering the race should be eliminated.
With all the provisions and options available for municipal elections we think clerks should embrace councils approving their recommended voting options well in advance of the election. Having an elected body ratify the local rules of engagement in open session keeps the process pure and saves the clerk from being tainted by claims of impropriety if left to make the choices individually.
Elections are a fair bit of work, but they serve as the foundation on which local government flourishes. It’s rewarding to see local leaders understand what is at stake.
