Honouring Canada’s veterans, one vote at a time

Veterans'-Memorial-Park-Langford

Veterans' Memorial Park in Langford, at Goldstream Avenue and Veterans' Memorial Parkway. Photo © by VibrantVictoria.ca.

Remembrance Day is a time to remember the horrors of war, and also a time to reflect on the freedoms that were secured for us in those times of strife. A total of 1.8 million Canadian soldiers served in the two world wars, and thousands more in more recent conflicts, so many of us have personal connections to them.

My great grandfather served in the military in the first World War, my grandfather in the second. As a child I heard stories about my Great Grandfather being decorated for valour for his role as an army medic in WWI in horrific battles such as Passchendaele , and my Grandfather being injured while working in the engine room of one of Canada’s two WWII aircraft carriers when a pipe burst in his face.  Knowing that they went through these horrors so that we could be free, I believe that we should do all we can to make the most of the freedom we have. In a very real sense, the ball is now in our court.

At the risk of asking a rhetorical question, what honours our veterans the most: Veterans’ Memorial Park in Langford, Save-On-Foods Memorial Arena in Victoria, or taking the freedom they secured for us and making our democracy all it can be? What kind of freedom was most on the mind of Canada’s soldiers, freedom of people to see major sporting and concert events at the “Memorial” arena or freedom from tyranny?

As voting participation declined at the provincial level, the Citizen’s Assembly on Electoral Reform was commissioned to see if elections could be conducted better.  The (much maligned on other issues) Charlottetown Accord looked at senate reform to address voter concerns.  But at the local level, where the politicians are the closest to the voters, what has been done as voter participation has dropped below 30% in many municipal elections in the region?  The City of Victoria made a few tepid moves in that direction in 2008 (such as sending out voter cards as is done for provincial and federal elections), but most local governments don’t even seem to have the issue on their radar.  Where are the public hearings on how to improve voter participation?  Where are the local politicians asking local residents what kind of electoral reform they should be advocating for with the provincial government to address the problems of “block voting” that plague our current system?  Why do most municipalities not do something as simple as a sticker on the lapel of voters leaving the polls saying “I voted,” to remind others to do the same?  Instead, we generally get the opposite perspective, such as when Langford Mayor Stew Young indicated low voter turnout is the sign of a government doing a good job, as voters will come out when they’re angry.  I believe we should aspire to more than an election where voters are so deliriously happy that no one bothers to show up other than the candidates themselves.

Some claim democracy isn’t efficient enough, but it’s important to understand that it never was meant to be; it was meant to be just. The democratic process isn’t the most efficient, nor should it be, but it is the fairest to the largest number of people, the largest percentage of the time. I think anything we can do as citizens that works towards making our community, and our nation, more democratic honours the Canadians who served this country more profoundly than anything else ever could.

To discuss the issue of voter apathy, refer to VibrantVictoria.ca’s Voter apathy thread in the discussion forum.

Steven Hurdle is the author of Inside Langford, a blog covering politics and civic events in the municipality of Langford.

Copyright © 2009 by VibrantVictoria.ca.  All rights reserved.



Responses to this Headline or Article

The five most recent replies to VibrantVictoria.ca's discussion forum's Voter apathy thread, the most relevant thread to the above headline or article:

kenjh

Jun 06, 2010 at 8:47 am

I truly do not see any progress after voting . but I will so I can say at least I tried ,I listen to what is put forth and have nearly always be disapointed afterwards..I do not understand politics or the need for them ,too many levels with no interaction or responsabilaty between governments .why do they have closed door sessions , they are supposed to work for us .. why do they hide ?? yes apathy is rampant we are taught not to believe in what they do along with car salesmen and lawyers ,,,,none to be trusted...

Bingo

Jun 06, 2010 at 10:28 am

The city may be counting on votor apathy when the referendum on the Johnson Street Bridge is held. Just because the people who supported the petition that brought the referendum on have been somewhat quiet lately, does'nt mean they will not rally again.

Barra

Jun 06, 2010 at 11:40 am

I realize that often the decisions that elected officials make are disappointing, irritating, or irresponsible. Nevertheless, it is our responsibility to vote for people that we believe will act in an ethical way and represent our point of view, or these people will never get elected. Also, you might consider those elected politicians that you DO support, when they are on the losing side of a debate - its a difficult role for them to be in, and a word (or email) of support will keep them going.
As far as the secret meeting, there are certain issues that must be discussed and debated in secret - these are called "in camera" meetings. This protocol exists not only for government representatives, but also at meetings of non-profit boards of directors, strata councils etc. There are specific and limited issues that referred to 'in camera' meetings and these are personnel issues and financial issues - esp. where they involve negotiating a contract. After the 'in camera' meetings, any decisions that are made must be made public, but not the details of the discussion. I'm sure that you can imagine, for example, a discussion on disciplining a staff member, reducing staff or terminating a staff member - this is a private matter that can be embarrassing and stressful to the person(s) involved. There may also be legal constraints around releasing information - terminations of senior staff usually involve a negotiated settlement that includes a confidentiality clause.

The problem with secret, or in-camera meetings is when issues are referred inappropriately, or if matters (reports etc.) are deemed to be confidential and they maybe should be made public. Then we have to rely on the ethical members of the group to pipe up and say - no this should be dealt with in public. It can be a difficult position to be in, and it takes a lot of guts for someone like Geoff Young to come out and say that Victoria Council has gone to far in suppressing information about the Johnson St. bridge re-hab.

Hotel Mike

Jun 06, 2010 at 11:58 am

Quote: The city may be counting on votor apathy when the referendum on the Johnson Street Bridge is held. Just because the people who supported the petition that brought the referendum on have been somewhat quiet lately, does'nt mean they will not rally again.


Rally again to do what, Bingo? Seems the City did what was being asked...take another look at both options, seek public input, and hold a borrowing referendum. What do you propose?

Bingo

Jun 06, 2010 at 12:47 pm

Quote: Rally again to do what, Bingo? Seems the City did what was being asked...take another look at both options, seek public input, and hold a borrowing referendum. What do you propose?


An Ipsos Reid poll of 800 is hardly public input, but I am suggesting that the people who signed the petition will "rally" to vote at the referendum.

View the full threadRegister to comment