Changes to Election Rules Worthwhile

(Aired on July 9, 2010)

New election rules that could be in effect for next year's civic election will provide a bit of a conundrum for people wanting to run for City Council.
There are two issues that are involved here. One is a spending limit for potential candidates. I'm kind of ambivalent but it seems to me there should be some sort of limit on spending to prevent a person from getting elected just because he or she is richer than someone who may be far more qualified but not as well off financially.

The more controversial issue might be the length of terms for a councillor. There seems to be an indication that terms could go to four years from the current three. Councillors we talked to have mixed feelings about it. Those in favour feel it gives councillors more time to get accustomed to their duties and put their ideas into effect.

Councillor Pat Wallace, who's been doing this about as long as anyone in the province, says she always sees a different attitude as we get close to an election, because councillors want to put their best face forward getting close to a vote. Those opposed to longer terms wonder who can make a commitment to four years if they're still working at another job. Would it then limit potential councillors to retirees, those not working or those who have understanding and civic-minded bosses?

The other thought of course is-if we get a turkey in there, and we've been known to have one or two, do we have to put up with their incompetence for four years? Although I guess we already face that in provincial or federal politics too.

The issues aren't as black and white as they might seem. But there are some obviously good changes in the wind. One will make political spending transparent. Anonymous donations would be eliminated. And that's definitely a good thing. While some of the issues are debatable, there's no question that campaign funding is one of the biggest things to be cleared up. And that alone makes the changes worthwhile.