I was in the pub recently chatting with an ex-municipal councillor when the discussion turned, of course, to the upcoming election.
"So, Paul," he asked. "What d'ya know about these people running for council?"
Somewhat sheepishly, I had to admit that I knew almost nothing except what I had learned reading this local rag. In fact, I was hoping he might fill me in. But it seems that although we are both long-time members of the community - and both relatively tuned into what's happening in town - we both find ourselves swamped by the flood of information 23 candidates for six council positions have inundated us with.
Wading through the candidates' positions is an overwhelming task for the average voter. And that's not the only part that's overwhelming.
With 23 candidates vying for six seats on council, there are over 100,000 different council formations possible. (I can assure you, I checked my math. My math colleague assures me there are exactly 100,947 different ways you can choose six from 23.)
So, what is the probability that the six you vote for will end up forming our next council? It's one out of 100,947.
But that's OK. If our biggest problem is that we have an involved and active community, things are pretty good in Squamish. I'd rather have a large and varied pool of people to choose from than one that is anemic - and we've been offered those in the past.
There are some real problems with the large number of candidates, though. With the splitting of votes among so many people, each winning candidate's total number of votes required to win will likely be lower than in past elections. In this scenario, more fringe candidates - those who don't really have a significant constituency - are more likely to be elected.
There are ways voters can help ensure this doesn't happen, and the most powerful way is to vote only for those people you really support. In municipal elections each vote that you make for one candidate acts as a vote against your other choices.
Voters need to know that there is no obligation to vote for six candidates, and choosing only a couple or three people is an effective way to "plump" your vote and to increase the odds that your candidates will win.
Voters can also listen to those people whose opinion they know and value. I think that it's fine to vote for someone based on the recommendation of a trusted friend.
I hope that in our next election Squamish candidates consider joining coalitions or slates. When like-minded people run together, the number of distinct messages voters hear drops significantly. It makes the noise much easier to filter.
This has been done before with some success in Squamish. In 2002, Squamish New Directions managed to get all their candidates elected and in the mid-1990s a coalition of four candidates also used "slate politics" to get voted in. In both those cases, fears that there would be some kind of "party discipline" were unfounded, as evidenced by their voting record.
With only a day left in the campaign, there's not much time to decide, but let's hope for a great voter turnout. Because as they say, "You can't win if you don't play."
