As much as I'd like to opine this week on the Canadian Association of Journalists' Code of Silence award to the RMOW, I'm taking a pass. Not being a bona fide journalist, I don't know what the CAJ is, exactly, but I don't think it brought its 'A' game with it over the weekend. This is not to let the RMOW and their "communication" policy — perhaps more accurately symbolized by the Cone of Silence — off the hook. It's a ham-fisted policy that isn't doing this town or this council any favours. It is the proverbial meat axe attempting to do a scalpel's job.
Be that as it may, there's a provincial election and the advanced polls opened yesterday. I voted for the best candidate, the only one I know will keep election promises. The one who listened to my concerns, told the truth, seemed knowledgeable about the issues and genuinely cared. I voted for the candidate who had the best answers, who I feel will defend my rights and push for the kind of open, honest and transparent government I believe we all deserve.
The candidate I voted for doesn't just care about the environment, my candidate will protect the environment and stand up to businesses that want to make a fast buck and palm off the unfortunate externalities on successive generations. I voted for someone who will work hard to help B.C. develop alternative energy sources and not squander money on things like hydrogen busses.
I voted for the candidate I believe will help the poor help themselves, who will find jobs for the unemployed who are willing to work and bring the dependent along the road to independence.
I voted for Nobody because Nobody is the best candidate in this election.
I'll probably vote for Nobody again today and again tomorrow and Saturday.
Unfortunately, when the unadvanced polls open Tuesday, I'll feel obliged to vote for somebody and, quite frankly, it's a choice I'm not looking forward to making.
I sought enlightenment Monday evening at the source of all enlightenment, the library. I walked away more confused than ever.
It wasn't only the confusion about why exactly Jon Johnson was bothering to clog up the ballot with a half-hearted run as an independent, although I did find that confusing. Apparently Mr. Johnson is concerned about the "lack of choice." People he meets tell him no one running really represents them. He wants to be the guy who listens to the voters, whatever that means.
I'll readily admit to being a choice-challenged guy. Drag me into a store and present me with two, maybe three choices and chances are I'll make a purchase. Give me six or more of the same thing with slight variations — colours of shirts, say — and I'll leave empty-handed and confused. Now, I agree with Mr. Johnson; there is a lack of choice in this election. But the lack is one of good choices and that lack isn't made any better by presenting us with another bad choice.