Why don’t most people vote?
Because it’s confusing. The whole thing sounds simple enough – show up at a voting station and make a little mark beside names on the ballot. Simple… but not easy. The hardest part seems to be choosing the candidates who best reflect your priorities. But there’s lots of things inside our own heads working against us.

Too many candidates
Municipal elections are perfectly designed for apathy. In most cities, there are at least a dozen candidates. This creates a paradox of choice problem. When faced with lots of options, we tend to feel like we should know them all so we can pick the *best* ones. Which, let’s be honest, almost nobody has the patience to do. There’s all kinds of guilt that comes with the realization that we don’t really pay much attention to government affairs, beyond headlines or cynical social media posts. So, we suffer a sort of decision paralysis. Too many candidates, not enough information, no interest in spending time on such boring issues (yeah yeah, we know they’re important, but important doesn’t make them interesting).

Too much information
This idea that people should be “informed” on the issues before voting is hard to argue against, but sets us up for democratic failure. As any new-school economist will tell you, efforts toward an informed choice is to chase an illusion; there’s no end point. There will always be more to learn, more questions, more perspectives to consider. Condescending comments about people needing to be informed voters are counter-productive. All it does is make people feel like they shouldn’t vote because they don’t really know what’s going on. Please, stop the guilt-tripping.

Ambiguous impact
It’s also common to hear people complain that voting doesn’t make a difference. They might be bitter because a candidate they voted for in the past didn’t win. Understandable, but from my time on council, I found that most people inside city hall listen to the issues promoted by opposing candidates and notice how much support they got. Elections are important for raising issues and advocating for solutions. A candidate’s campaign will still have influence, even if they don’t win.

Cynicism
Some say it doesn’t matter who gets elected, nothing changes… well, that’s a completely and totally fallacious argument, but a topic for different post. Don’t be tempted to follow the idiotic idea that the system sucks, so everyone should stop voting. This is the absolute best way to ensure government does not reflect your priorities. Don’t defeat yourself by pouting and refusing to put your opinion in the ballot box.

How can we overcome this inertia?
Let go of the feeling that you need to be fair to all candidates by getting to know every single one before choosing any.

Stop feeling guilty for having only a couple issues that you pay attention to. Yes, you *should* know more about storm sewers and tactile curb cuts, but let’s get real, almost nobody does. Don’t be embarrassed by the limits of your knowledge. When people pretend they know more than they do, really really bad decisions happen. So, don’t feel guilty for following the advice of someone who knows more about it than you do. It’s ok to defer to expert opinion.

Vote for what’s important to you, not what other people tell you to care about. If you’re indifferent about arts funding, but lots of people you know are angry about it, stay focused on your own priorities. If you don’t don’t even notice how tall the building down the street is, but others are lighting their hair on fire about it, stay focused on your own priorities. Don’t let other people’s passion convince you to vote for people who don’t reflect what’s important to you.

Who should we vote for?
This is a hard question to answer because every city has their own set of candidates. And I don’t know what youre personal priorities are.

Also, municipal issues are different than provincial or federal. At the city level, potholes and leaking pipes don’t really care about ambiguous arguments about economic theories or social justice. The pipes need fixing and everyone has to pay for it. Technical, boring, no philosophical debate. It’s harder to get away with vague, moralistic rhetoric. But this also requires citizens to dive into the details more than they have to during federal or provincial elections. And ugh, nobody really wants to do that. So much easier to just go with the person who matches how we’re feeling and hope they know what they’re doing.

Well, here’s some suggestions on how to pick your candidates.

1. Consider their people skills.
Don’t vote for mean people. That’s not necessarily saying to vote for the nicest people, just avoid the candidates who are telling you that everyone else is stupid and city hall is corrupt. We all know people whose intolerance and distrust best reflects their own inability to empathize or think critically. So steer clear of the haters.

Vote for candidates willing to upset people. You know the best way to end up with a city council that does nothing? Fill it full of people who are scared to upset anyone. If they’re too scared to take a risk, they will be too scared to try new things. Some of the least effective city councils ever have been full of the nicest people. A councillor being too nice is just as bad as being mean. Vote for candidates willing to rock the boat and bring forward new ideas.

Vote for people who get along well with others. In my experience, some of the most important conversations happen outside the televised meetings. For a member to be effective, they will need to gather information, share it, and explore differences in perspectives. All this is impossible for councillors who rub people the wrong way, are abrasive or cynical. It will be tough for your candidate to influence other members of council if nobody likes them. And from my experience, being likeable is far more important than political party membership.

2. Consider how they approach diversity in opinion.
Avoid anyone who talks about using “common sense.” This is a giant red flag. This term is used to belittle or ignore people who disagree. Not cool. It’s also a sign of intellectual laziness, as if to say they shouldn’t have to explain something that they think is obvious, or that lots of other people want to hear. In council chambers, common sense isn’t good enough.

Vote for people who express an interest in consensus. It’s an impossible goal, but candidates who are always talking about the will of the majority are really saying that, as soon as they get what they want, they stop trying. Truth is, there’s always a way of making things better. A willingness consider and work through opposing opinions toward a better a decision shows that everyone matters. This is a strength, not a weakness. If a candidate can’t handle diversity in opinion, pick someone who can.

3. Consider their vision.
Vote for people with a forward-looking vision. Avoid candidates who dish out nostalgia. Moaning about how things were better in the good old days is a solid sign that a candidate has a really hard time with change. Since change is inevitable, whether intentional or not, vote for candidates who recognize opportunity within change. Be very wary of candidates who talk about “preserving” a way of life. If it seems like they’d rather live in the past than look to the future, move on.

Vote for people who frame issues positively. This is similar to staying away from nastiness. Candidates who can only tell you what’s wrong are really going to struggle to do anything other than complain on council. Of course, every governance chamber needs a critical voice – someone to challenge assumptions and look for alternatives – but if they don’t know how to champion something, they will only be successful at tearing down other people’s ideas. Not cool. Council members need to work through differences in perspectives as a team.

Vote for people who stand for real issues. Don’t vote for candidates who tell you that they’re going to lower your taxes; there’s no better sign that they’re full of… manure. Likewise, stay away from candidates who say empty stuff, like they “listen to you” or “represent all the people” or “stand up for… whomever.” I call bullshit. In my six years as a councillor, I met hundreds, if not thousands of elected representatives. I can count on my fingers and toes the number that I felt didn’t listen to their constituents with genuine compassion and work very hard to advocate on issues affecting their community. If all a candidate offers is that they will listen or work hard for you, move on to others who have something real to say. What are their passions? What are their skills or experiences? What principles or philosophical lens they use to make decisions?

Yeah but, who do I vote for?
Take a few minutes to think about what’s important to you. What do you most enjoy about your community? How do you want to feel over the next four years? Pick candidates who talk about those things and reflect the feeling you want to have. Do they talk about wanting a friendly city, but yet complain a lot about other people? Skip to the candidate who actually models what you want. If finding corruption and being rude to your neighbours is your thing, then vote for candidates who think people in city hall are stupid. If dog parks and friendly neighbourhoods are important to you, pick a candidate who likes dogs and is welcoming to all kinds of different people.

Remember that, although you can vote for many candidates, there’s no minimum. If there’s only one person you feel good about – that’s cool – just vote for one. Don’t water down your choice by voting for people just because you know their name or you met them once and they weren’t a dick. Let your vote reflect your priorities, even if that means there’s only one candidate you know anything about. If they make you feel good about voting, vote for them.

But most importantly, vote.

Unlike Soylent Green, we already know this, yet the inevitable reaction to humanness in government is horror and outrage. There is an obscene expectation that those who are elected suddenly become infallible, more knowledgeable and more intelligent… in their agreement with our own assumptions.

With each passing month, this current city council is becoming the devil they claimed to exorcise from city hall. But did that evil actually exist except in the minds of cynics and pessimists? Similar to Councillor Campbell’s description of misguided protesters in the Peace Arch News today, perhaps those who protested the alleged arrogance and secret agendas of city councillors were themselves unwilling to consider alternate perspectives?

The allegations of corruption and coersion are a result, not of misdeeds within city hall, but of the human condition that leads people to assume that their perspective is more correct than anyone else’s. In attempt to explain why someone with responsibilty would make a decision different than we assume we would make, we make up stories. Newly elected officials who vowed to be different soon find themselves, after carefully considering the information available to them, acting very similar to their predecessors.

Government is people.

Yesterday on this website, I elaborated on that statement with a brief critique of each council member. That post has now been removed. Shortly after writing it, I was speaking with City Manager, Peggy Clark. Our conversation reminded me that know what it is like to be in public office and the subject of personal commentary. On reflection afterward, I realized it was unfair and ungracious of me to post judgement on their character in the manner I did. Now in reversed roles, I should practice what I had preached and offer them the dignity and trust I wish I had been given when I was in their chair.

Speculation on whether or not I would be able to work with current councillors is pointless. I accept and respect the electorate’s decision to not elect me in November. My defeat was decisive and unambiguous. The message was clear. I followed the direction provided by voters of White Rock and have moved on. I will not be seeking a return to council in the by-election regardless of the current members’ traits.

I have known Lynne Sinclair for many years. Perhaps if we were both on council our relationship would be more constructive than it has been in the past. Maybe we would complement each other and, while working through differences of opinion and personal style, build on each other’s strengths to accomplish great things for White Rock. I know we both are very concerned about this community being a healthy place for the development of children and the balance of housing types needed support a diverse population.

When Catherine Ferguson and I worked together as councillors, we rarely disagreed on the ultimate goal but had much different ideas on how and when to get there. We were frequently frustrated by each other. Perhaps it would be different now that she is in the mayor’s chair. Perhaps if I were on council she would help me temper my brutally blunt honesty and I could help her advance some languishing issues. I know we are both very concerned about the community’s ability to provide opportunities for people to work close to home and for public decision-making to be a welcoming process.

I have known of Helen Fathers since I was in high school. We ran in the same circles but our paths never seemed to cross. I do know we both share concern for the local ecosystem and the vitality of the community’s culture.

Mary-Wade Anderson and I worked together through some very difficult issues as councillors. Most often, we were able to find common ground and support each other’s efforts toward our shared goals.

The public criticism elected representatives experience reminds me of a scene in a TV show I saw a few years ago. In an episode of CSI, the parents of a murder victim were the suspects. As they dug deeper, investigators found embarrassing evidence of misdeeds, poor judgement, and relationship problems. But in the end, it was discovered that they did not commit the crime. These are the last two lines of that show…

GWEN ANDERSON: You must think that we are awful people — all this stuff that’s come out.

CATHERINE: You’re an average family burdened with a tragedy that put you under a microscope. That close, nobody can look good.

… the same can be said about an average person in public office.

The judge explained that “reliance on public opinion is not a relevant consideration if it is not linked to legitimate factors within the zoning bylaw or the OCP.” Since the six storey height of the building is permitted within the bylaw due to a fluke of how the property is sloped, public opposition to the height is legally irrelevant.

This is incredibly disappointing for three reasons.

First of all, it undermines the discretion that citizens believe City Council has for influencing development in the community. It greatly diminishes the authority I thought I had as a member of city council to direct the look and shape of buildings. In my decision to deny the permit, I believe that the building will not complement the surrounding neighbourhood or fit in with the general feel that is intended for the waterfront. Elected representatives for the community ought to have the authority to interpret public opinion and define the vision for the community’s future. Removing subjectivity from City Council’s judgement neuters its ability to respond to neighbourhood concerns and the community’s evolving vision.

Secondly, while reducing the value of public input, the specificity expected by the court will result in greater bureaucracy and red-tape. There is a trade-off between certainty and flexibility. While many developers prefer detailed instructions on exactly what to build on each property — how high, what shape, which materials — others want the flexibility to be creative and try something new or build something uniquely suited to their property. More rules means more hoops to jump through for people wanting to build on their property.

The Yearsleys argue that councillor and neighbourhood concern about the shape of their building is not their problem since it is positioned the required distance from the property line and is no higher than the maximum permitted in the bylaw. They say that they were not provided with alternative direction for what would be acceptable.

But that is not true. I sent multiple emails and met on multiple occasions with the Yearsleys and their architect to explain precisely what my concerns were and how they could address them. The judge seemed to want those embedded within the OCP and bylaws. While that sounds simple and fair on the surface, it is much more difficult and complex to actually do it.

Though my concerns are not explicitly prescribed in the OCP, they are implied. For example, there is reference to elements of the building needing to be “consistent with the pattern along Marine Drive.” This is specified for patios, walkway surfacing, building materials, and articulation of building facades. The OCP also states that “building design should take into consideration the surrounding physical environment and the character, scale and form of other nearby buildings.” Clearly, the intention is that new buildings fit in with others in the area. The following quotes should also make it clear that there is concern for the aesthetic of the building as experienced by the pedestrian.

• “Avoid use of extensive solid walls, reflective glass or other similar material on the ground floor façade of any building facing a street. Use variation in building mass, materials, architectural detailing, or colour to provide articulation to solid walls.”
• For parking, “consider joint or shared access between adjacent developments.” This indicates concern for the impact of having multiple parking lot entrances close together.

I do not believe that a six storey glass tower takes into consideration the character, scale and form of nearby buildings. Nor do I believe that having the front of the building dominated by parkade entrances fits the intended facade character. I believe these character considerations should trump a developer’s desire to achieve the maximum number of apartments theoretically allowed by the bylaw.

The unique context of this specific property ought to supersede general statements about what could possibly be allowed in the area — the surrounding environment should be accepted as imposing limitations on the maximums otherwise permitted by bylaw. In a city where the topography and street patterns change dramatically every few hundred feet, is it possible to having zoning bylaws with the detail expected by the court without creating hundreds of bylaws?

Lastly, what I find extremely frustrating about this decision is that I repeatedly warned Council that the rules needed to be better defined. My concerns were dismissed when I talked about the bylaws being antiquated and out of sync with public opinion. During the OCP debate, I was chastised for wanting to add clarity to the Development Permit Area descriptions. Had councillors been more brave and more forward-thinking, this ruling would have been prevented, and dozens of equally misfitting homes throughout the community would have also been prevented.

It is a relief to read in a press release that City Council intends to review the OCP and bylaws for this purpose (the bylaw review has been planned for years but kept getting delayed due to other projects jumping the queue). I hope they are finally able to create more principled and reasoned development criteria. It was something I desperately wanted to do in my time as a councillor, but never had the opportunity.

… And one more thing, the reasons these rule revisions kept getting pushed back is partly a lack of political will and partly the reality that City staff cannot do everything desired when trying to keep up with a building boom. But it is also the result of so-called council watchdogs siphoning off those limited staff resources to respond to their conspiracy theories and rapid fire information requests that are nothing more than fishing expeditions searching for the axis of evil within White Rock City Hall. If they truly wanted to see better building practices, they would stop flooding City Hall with time-wasting paper-chasing demands and fighting at every move.

If the goal is to get the rules rewritten, this is self-defeating since the time that could be used to embark on such an exercise is instead burned by responding to cynicism. Not only does this sap the productivity of staff, it also makes elected representatives and staff less trusting. Rather than trying to prove their incompetence, it would be much more constructive to tell them what you want to see or what you are wanting to avoid, then listen with an open mind to their response. Attacking City Hall only makes them defensive, distracts them from their primary responsibilities, and makes them apprehensive of public consultation processes.

The council watchdogs demanding accountability should themselves be held accountable for their self-fulfilling prophecies.

The problem with politicians isn’t that they’re dishonest; it’s that they’re human. As such, they have emotions; they can want things to be true that aren’t, making themselves susceptible to self-deception; and they can just simply be wrong because they can’t possibly know everything about all things. So, if an elected official says something at one time then says something different later, is it that they were lying the first time? Or did they learn something new, hear a compelling alternate opinion, or see things from a new perspective? Maybe, after some more careful consideration, they just changed their mind?

In the case of the Coleridge deception, he said things that he knew are not true and then refused to accept responsibility for that lie until forced to do so in Supreme Court. This is an unusual exception. This isn’t a case of him changing his mind or misunderstanding the facts at hand; he told people things even though he knew they were not true.

Ignorance, misunderstanding and naiveté is understandably human and tolerable. Deception is also human, but much less tolerable. But it’s not enough to demand more integrity from politicians. Deceit should be equally unacceptable for all people, not just elected leaders.

People who step up to serve as leaders in our community should not be set up for ridicule with unrealistic expectations that, upon being elected, they should suddenly become smarter and less susceptible to self-deception than everyone else in the community. The best way to raise the standard for politicians is to raise the standard within the whole community.

There are some things we are pre-wired for. From birth, we know how to eat and have a fear of falling — nobody has to teach us. Our brain structure is set up in such a way that emotions can easily take command of our reaction to something before we’re even consciously aware of it. Even smiling is thought to be evolutionary because it seems there is no culture or society, no matter how isolated, that does not understand what a smile means. These shared traits were established within our neural circuitry before groups of Homo sapiens struck out on their own (which was relatively recently) to discover new lands, eventually forming new races and developing unique cultures.

Unfortunately, it seems we also share a less constructive human condition. We have a tendency to form assumptions based on almost no information and to try to escape responsibility for things that go wrong. It seems more important to have a complete explanation than for the story to actually be true. So, when faced with a lot of unknowns, we just fill in the blanks ourselves. Likewise, impulsively at least, figuring out whether a mistake was made isn’t as important as avoiding responsibility for it. This is witnessed frequently, daily.

Consider for example, an everyday scene for driving commuters in which a truck driver switches lanes and cuts off the car behind him. The car driver reacts with anger to the danger. Immediately, assumptions are made about the truck driver’s intelligence, disrespect, lack of compassion, etc. — perhaps muttered or shouted with hand gestures. There could be an endless list of reasons that would explain the truck driver’s actions, but instead, a story is created questioning his morality or cognitive capacity. And without considering any possibility that he could have prevented the situation himself, (are his headlights on? was his travel speed consistent?) blame is assigned to the other driver thereby rejecting any responsibility.

There are also endless examples of this kind of behaviour in public decision making. When confused by a public official’s decision, many people decide they are victims of selfish power fiends with vested interests, compromised morals, and questionable intellectual potential. In my experience, just a few pieces of new information and a moment of rational thought is usually all that is required to disprove this cynical knee-jerk response.

In reacting this way, a person is lying both themselves and the people around them; it is deception and self-deception.

It seems curious to think that we could all have a default setting to lie. It might be that the feeling of unknowingness (fear of the unknown) is worse than any dissatisfaction from a bad-case scenario. And maybe the toxic emotion of anger is easier to throw at someone else than to accept the self-inflicted guilt or disappointment that would come with accepting responsibility for a mistake. It could have been that those mired in endless analysis, self-doubt, or depression simply were not as successful at survival in the primeval world.

So then, how can we trust each another enough to make better decisions as a community now?

We need to look beyond our righteous liar-witch hunts. There’s really no point to proving that anyone is or isn’t a liar. We need to accept that some degree of deception is inherently human, as explained in the previous post, we’re all liars. Instead, we need to focus on integrity. A lie is not necessarily abhorrent simply because it exists, but a lie without integrity certainly is.

This might not have been nearly as important when our ancestors were living short lives in very small groups in a hostile eat-or-be-eaten world. While a tendency for self-deception might have made it easier for some Homo sapiens to face each new the day and stay motivated to survive in primeval times, it now threatens not only our modern civil society but the health of the planet. To live in peace and make good decisions as a community — despite our primal deceptive tendencies — we must each act with integrity.

Integrity demands that our instincts or ignorance not be used as an excuse for harming other people; that we think about the impact of our choices and take responsibility for them. To ensure the survival of the integritous, we each must make a conscious effort to recognize and overcome our deceptive instincts. No one is exempted in a modern civil society.

As noted in previous posts, particularly we’re all liars from just last week, Homo sapiens are not perfectly honest creatures. We lie to ourselves and each other frequently, daily. Anyone who says he doesn’t lie just proved himself a liar. I am just as human as you are. I have lied. I remained human when I held an elected office. I lied there too. Given the realities of human nature, is the issue of honesty black and white? Is it realistic to expect someone seeking public office to suddenly shed their humanness to become the most honest person in their community?

I’m hoping my petition spurs a public dialogue on the shades of grey of honesty. At what point does an innocent white lie, intended to make a better story or prevent unnecessary insult, become a black lie of unacceptable deception or unfair characterization? I think it depends on who you’re lying to and what you’re lying about. I’m not suggesting that lying is ok, and certainly not attempting to justify dishonesty, my own or anyone else’s. However, I think everyone could agree that the severity of a lie depends on the context.

The scale of dishonesty tolerance, especially for public officials, should include that person’s willingness to accept responsibility for their choice to be less than purely honest. Public trust depends heavily on accountability. Accepting the fact that all people are liars should not be a free pass for politicians to lie, but at the same time, the threshold needs to be realistic. Rather than discredit all politicians as liars, we should be enforcing boundaries on dishonesty while also holding ourselves to the same standard.

We do ourselves a disservice when we talk about lying as a yes or no question, black or white issue. Integrity is about more than being purely honest. Integrity requires trust. For a politician to be successful, that trust needs to be reciprocated. Unfortunately, the cynicism focused on politicians results in perpetual disappointment for both citizens and their elected representatives.

In the case of my petition, part of Coleridge’s defence seems to be to portray me as a hypocrite – if I’m a liar, I shouldn’t criticize his lies. This, of course, ignores the realities of human nature, considers all lies to be of equal weight, and doesn’t consider accountability. I am human, therefore, I am a liar. There’s no debate there. We should not be demonizing politicians for being just as human as the rest of their species. What is different about Coleridge’s lies is that they were hurtful to other people; they created an unfair characterization of other election candidates; and when he was confronted on his lies, he told more lies to cover his tracks, then more lies to cover those lies.

When I realized I made a mistake or provided incorrect information, I apologized and set the record straight. That’s the difference between any mistruths I told during my time on city council and those from Coleridge during the campaign. His were intended to harm the reputations of other candidates and he refused to accept responsibility for his lies until it was in BC Supreme Court. That’s not just crossing the threshold from human to immoral (that’s the adjective used by Coleridge’s own lawyer to describe his client’s behaviour), but I believe he also broke the law.

I agree that civil society is enabled by accepting that there are times when inconsequential truths are best hidden for the sake of being nice. But when the threat of offending others intimidates accountability on issues more important than simple social graces, should manners continue to hide honesty? I usually refuse to yield to that social code.

Unfortunately, this instinct is simultaneously a strength and a weakness. It has enabled me to achieve goals that others had considered impossible. But in some people, it also generated a negative emotional reaction strong enough to remain long after the memory of exactly what I had said was lost. In the end, many people appreciate the outcome but harbour resentment toward me for making them feel so uncomfortable at the outset.

A perfect example is my work on smoke-free public spaces. When I started talking about the issue in 2006, there was near consensus that my suggestions were ridiculous and an embarrassment to City Council. However, as public dialogue progressed, public opinion reversed. Many of the people who now claim they were in support of smoke-free spaces all along are not shy in discrediting my judgement as a leader. The memory of the discomfort they felt when I first raised the issue remains as a stain on their perception of me even though they now agree with what I had said.

I have yet to learn how to navigate society’s expectations of manners so I can achieve positive change without a negative emotional residue.

I was warned by the citizens of White Rock that, if tall buildings are built, they would act as a beacon to all the homeless people in the region. Clearly the trend shows that the new buildings are already attracting more and more homeless people to White Rock.

This got me thinking… Have any of their other dire prophecies come true?

Here are ways Bosa’s development has led to the ruination of White Rock…

• loss of one low rent home
• loss of a large surface parking lot
• loss of the Town Centre Hall
• clearcutting of street trees
• loss of a tree in Bryant Park
• loss of familiar red brick sidewalk
• loss of access to the mid-block crosswalk for a few months
• loss of a familiar stripmall
• loss of expensive streetlamps

Many people have explained that this has resulted in…

• poor people being pushed out of White Rock
• paradise paved to the detriment of the ecosystem
• seniors activities forced out of the town centre
• fewer trees
• desecration of rare, valuable parkland
• walking routes that are difficult for people with mobility challenges
• a change in character bringing the West End of Vancouver to White Rock
• a crime spree invited by dark streets

The problem with those conclusions is that the following facts must be ignored…

• The taxes that the new homes contribute is dramatically more than what was previously collected but they use City resources much more efficiently than most White Rock homes — they give more but use less.
• There is now less asphalt and concrete on the property than there was before — there is a greater proportion of permeable surfaces — which is good for the storm water system and for water quality in the bay.
• The Town Centre Hall has been replaced by the new Community Centre which can accommodate a much greater range and number of activities.
• The previous street trees were replaced with a variety that will be healthier as they are better suited to the growing conditions.
• More trees will be planted in Bryant Park and the park area is actually larger than it was previously.
• The new sidewalk is wider and flat — free of lifts from tree roots — which makes it safer and more convenient for people with mobility challenges.
• The new crosswalk is more narrow and designed to make pedestrians more visible to approaching drivers.
• Aside from the height of the buildings, there are few characteristics that would typify the development as being from the West End — there is much more to the character of White Rock than height of its buildings.
• The police noted that there were robberies in other areas of the city at the same time, and there is an operating street light directly in front of the business that claimed it was a victim because of darkness, therefore, the logic fails — there has been no increase in crime due to the development.

In the heat of passion, rhetoric is far more potent than logic. Powerful passion is invoked by fear, and fear is often triggered by change or anticipated change.

Anyone not reacting emotionally to the dramatic visual change can see clearly that the community is already benefiting from great improvements as a result of this development project.

• Both had very low voter turnout;
• Both resulted in a mandate to resist change;
• Both were laden with empty-calorie rhetoric;
• Both had undercurrent debates about the meaning of democracy;
• Both illustrated a high degree of ignorance among citizens on how government functions.

low participation
Whether from confusion or ignorance or distrust, or a combination thereof, most people chose to not participate. This, despite a seemingly universal belief that the elections were important and would decide very significant issues.

change to reject change
Although the election messaging was all about change, the winning political parties campaigned on change that was actually more concerned with the rate of change — slowing down or reversing changes that were already happening.

winner takes all
Federally, it seems there is a groundswell of public sentiment that democracy means the winner takes all, even if the winner does not represent the majority of voters — even if they collectively represent the majority of Canadians, the losers are expected to stay out of the way of the winner. And while citizens revile the pettiness of partisan politics, they are reacting with stinging cynicism to an attempt by the NDP and Liberals to cooperate and find points of consensus.

ignoring ignorance
In White Rock, there was much talk of accountability, transparency and listening — the implication being that this was not the practice previously. Countless times, I was told that my responsibility was to do as instructed by the majority of citizens. But that is an argument of convenience. It doesn’t take much thought to start listing decisions in which citizens simply do not understand the problem because they don’t have the interest to learn about the subject, or that samelack of interest translates into the elected representative getting no instruction from citizens — hence the very reason for “representative” government.

polling vs. thinking
Does “democracy” mean nothing matters except the majority opinion and all minority opinions must conform? If that were the case, why have elected representatives at all? Why not just have a polling company running a constant cycle of surveys to advise the City Manager?

For some White Rock citizens to imply that city councillors should not think for themselves is counter-productive to the diverse, independent thought necessary for intelligent public decisions.

dictatorship vs. cooperation
This idea that the majority rules is what was relied upon in White Rock to elect a slate opposed to tall buildings, but what happens when that same principle is applied federally? The opposition parties are the majority. Should they not be provided the opportunity to form government?

If the goal is good governance, it’s counter-productive for people to suggest that it’s anti-democratic for federal political parties to be civil and mature enough to make cooperative decisions.

federal government is formed, not elected
Before anyone writes a comment saying that the NDP and Liberals were not elected as a coalition, please remember, the government itself is not elected, it is formed by the members of parliament. Forming a coalition government is something that happens after an election, not before. The only difference between this coalition and the Conservatives relying on the Bloc support for so many years is that the NDP and Liberals were upfront and open about it — put it in writing — while the Conservatives secured their support in backroom deals.

separatists are a legitimate part of our democracy
And for all those people arguing for democracy then saying that the government of Canada should not be formed with a separatist party… were they not elected democratically? Do they not represent a large proportion of Canadians? Should the representatives of those Canadians be excluded from participating in government? How democratic is that?