Jump to content

      



























Photo

Geoff Young | Victoria | Council - VV Endorsed


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,155 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 09:12 PM

Please discuss this candidates campaign in this thread.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#2 Lover Fighter

Lover Fighter
  • Member
  • 653 posts

Posted 18 November 2008 - 10:34 AM

There was a letter in the TC today from Young regarding stricter candidate entry regulations. I agree with the first part (25+ signatures) but I'm not sure about the 'deposit' regulation. Under Young's suggestion, only this election's top five of the 'losing' candidates wouldn't lose their 300$ deposit.

Toughen candidate entry rules
Published: Tuesday, November 18, 2008


The guy who wore the clown nose to the City of Victoria local election meetings pretty much summed up the attitude of many of his fellow candidates -- that it was a big joke.

These people found at least two voters to sign their nomination papers and were now "candidates," invited to make speeches to respectful community gatherings and to see their pictures in the newspaper.

Some call this democracy, but in fact it's the opposite. Meetings don't have the time, and newspapers don't have the space, for serious new candidates to discuss the issues.

The result, as we saw, is that incumbents are almost assured of re-election.

I suggested a solution early last term. Office-seekers would be required to produce 20 or 30 voters' signatures on their nomination papers, not two, and to post a deposit of, say, $300 to be refunded if they receive at least half the votes of the lowest-tallying candidate elected.

We would be doing a favour to any candidate who thinks $300 (about one-quarter of one per cent of the stipend they would earn over the term) is a lot to gamble.

It's hard to run a serious independent campaign for 10 times that amount.


Geoff Young
councillor



#3 Coreyburger

Coreyburger
  • Member
  • 2,864 posts

Posted 18 November 2008 - 04:28 PM

$300 and returning only part of it would require a change in the Local Government Act:
http://www.qp.gov.bc...htm#section72.1
specifically: (2) The amount of a required nomination deposit may be different for the different offices referred to in subsection (1), but must not be greater than $100.

I do support raising the number of signatures to 25 and 100 for council and mayor respectively.

#4 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,155 posts

Posted 18 November 2008 - 04:32 PM

Why stop at 25? Make it 50. If you can't find 50 voters to sign your application, chances are you shouldn't be in the running.

Putting up with candidates who held little or no respect for the public throughout this campaign was aggravating. From Jones, who disturbed meetings, to Dodds, who spraypainted signs, this campaign was straight out of Air Farce.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#5 Sue Woods

Sue Woods
  • Member
  • 621 posts

Posted 18 November 2008 - 04:36 PM

I am so glad Geoff wrote that. Instead of the deposit for everyone tho' perhaps a rule that if you run twice and do not get at least 1000 votes you must place a hefty deposit the third time - to be forfeited if you don't at least double your previous vote count.

No one wants to deter candidates but some take all the oxygen (press coverage/ all candidate meetings/ messing with others signs etc) and make the ballot dauntingly long and confusing for voters. They do not bother to campaign - do not show respect to their counterparts - and treat it like a joke/ playground for media attention.

Time to set some boundaries. I hope Geoff can bring about that change at the council table and let us know which incumbants vote against it.

#6 Caramia

Caramia
  • Member
  • 3,835 posts

Posted 18 November 2008 - 04:39 PM

I think $100 is plenty. To be honest I doubt that any reasonable measures are going to deter candidates whose purpose is to disrupt the democratic process. These are activists. Their goal is to get attention, and they have supporters and resources who will be happy to help them jump any hurdle. The only way to stop people from hijacking the democratic process and making it harder for voters to understand candidate positions is to crack down on conduct.

The problem isn't poor candidates, it is single issue activists manipulating the system for cheap media exposure. If a homeless person is willing to run a respectful campaign, that shouldn't be a problem. The problem starts where the respect ends.
Nowadays most people die of a sort of creeping common sense, and discover when it is too late that the only things one never regrets are one's mistakes.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891

#7 Sue Woods

Sue Woods
  • Member
  • 621 posts

Posted 18 November 2008 - 04:50 PM

The problem starts where the respect ends.


I agree. So a 'code of conduct' letter to accompany the candidates package - and if there is one breech you are removed from the campaign and cannot run for two terms. No messing with signs, no chasing candidates, no pressuring candidates to donate their income to your favourite charity, no yelling, no heckling, no sitting on the floor, and you need to be quiet when another candidate is answering a voter's question. And last but not least - no clown noses within 300 meters of an all-candidates meeting or polling station!

My kids had to sign stuff like that in kindergarden - but it had more to do with sticking bubble gum under their desks and taking off their wet boots.

#8 Jacques Cadé

Jacques Cadé
  • Member
  • 932 posts

Posted 18 November 2008 - 05:12 PM

A code of conduct is not a bad idea, but who's going to enforce it? I'd argue that wearing a clown nose is a political statement that doesn't harm democracy, but shouting down other candidates does. In any case, city staff are not going to wade into these events and decide who violated the code and who didn't.

Far as the minimum number of nominators is concerned, as I mentioned previously here, provincial law seems to set it at 2, 10, or 25 in the case of larger municipalities. Theoretically Victoria could go higher than this, but I don't know if any municipality has done so.

A deposit of hundreds of dollars may be too great a limitation for some people. Instead, I suggest that Victoria do what Saanich does, and publish the nomination papers online. Also, put a notice in bold type just below where the nominators are supposed to sign, telling them that the papers will appear on the city's website for all to see. Then anyone who's thinking of signing the papers just to make the annoying would-be candidate go away will think twice about it.

#9 Chris J

Chris J
  • Member
  • 215 posts

Posted 18 November 2008 - 05:15 PM

Susan's suggestions seem to be the most reasonable, and Caramia has made the point that so many here and amongst the candidates failed to make; even the most ridiculous among us knows 100 people who can sign their name.

1000 signatures? Tavis could have gotten that. $300. No problem.
The code of conduct is a much better idea.
Banning clown noses is a bad idea though.

#10 Chris J

Chris J
  • Member
  • 215 posts

Posted 18 November 2008 - 05:21 PM

Part of Tavis's statement, (and I am not defending all his actions) was that the process is undemocratic, and even if he and Georgia-Anne were not in the race, we as a public are not well enough informed about the candidates.
I hear what people are saying about the number of candidates limiting what each candidate was able to say, but I also think that other processes should be in place to help people decide.
And I defend Georgia-Anne even less, but if you were not able to tell the difference between Reid and Fortin at the meetings, you should have given them a call or email or drop by the office. Don't rely on these meetings to bythe sole factor in your decision. The same should apply to any council candidate, although 35 is a lot of people to call.
But anyway, that's sort of off-topic.
On-topic, why should Geoff Young be complaining that only the incumbants got in? He should be thanking the 'not serious' candidates if that's the case.

#11 Caramia

Caramia
  • Member
  • 3,835 posts

Posted 18 November 2008 - 05:32 PM

Geoff Young has a habit of standing up for causes that don't benefit him. It's a little weird, but integrity is a good thing in an elected official.

I agree that clown noses are fine. The rest of the list of behaviours should carry a penalty.

I disagree that all-candidates meetings are not the right format to distinguish between candidates. I think that is what they are intended for. I also think it is perfectly reasonable for any group within the community to invite only the candidates they think are interesting to talk at a meeting, just as long as they are TOTALLY transparent and up-front that this is not an all-candidates meeting.

Making it hard for voters to hear their candidates in order to point out that it is hard to get informed about candidates just doesn't make sense.
:P
Nowadays most people die of a sort of creeping common sense, and discover when it is too late that the only things one never regrets are one's mistakes.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891

#12 Mixed365

Mixed365
  • Member
  • 1,042 posts

Posted 15 September 2014 - 09:10 PM

Im gonna give Geoff a good ol' :banana: for Nov. 15.


“To understand cities, we have to deal outright with combinations or mixtures of uses, not separate uses, as the essential phenomena.”
- Jane Jacobs 


#13 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,155 posts

Posted 15 September 2014 - 09:20 PM

Just a reminder this is the 2008 election thread :)

 

Please feel free to make a 2014 thread in the 2014 sub-forum.


Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users