My 2005 Vancouver Voting Card
The Municipal Elections are on Saturday the 15th.
You should vote in them.
Why? (this is Aimed at Vancouverites)
- Municipal government affects your life directly and on a regular basis. You will feel its effects.
- The turnout in te last election was about 25%
- The difference between a win and lose in the last council election was 617 votes, and this carried across to Parks and School Board
I present to you My tentative Recommendations, based no the "Voters' Guide" that went to all mailboxes, knowledge of the parties, and a few of the candidates:
(Comment if I'm missing an important piece of information - I probably am.)
Mayor (One Vote)
1st Choice: Joe Hatoum - Great health and environmental platform, but why is he running from Maple Ridge? Needs proofreading.
2nd Choice? Alllllmost First: Betty Krawczyk - A woman who is active in the community and who is willing to go to jail for a protest. Not sure if I agree with her stance on sex work and porn though.
3rd: Angel Jiminez - Clear platform on ensuring police responsibility. But single issue is is not a good thing for a mayor.
4th: Scott Yee - I like his public housing plan, but again, single-issue.
5th: Patrick Britten - He's from the Naked Garden Party
6th : Gregor Robertson - Probably the smart strategic vote, but he's a little too slick for my tastes.
(If Mr. Robertson doesn't the fact that I won't vote strategically, he should consider implementing something other than a first-past-the-post system.)
Dead Last: Peter Ladner - The NPA ran him instead of the current mayor (Sullivan), hoping that we wouldn't notice that they're basically identical politicians - except that Ladner is old-fashioned municipal politics at its finest, and doesn't even pretend to have a clue about disability issues.
Council: (10 Votes)
1. Geri Tramutola: The only candidate to address the end of cheap oil. Up for harm prevention in drug treatment. Supports affordable housing
2. John Boychuck: One of the hard-working (unpaid) directors of this year's Pride. Values the Insite program, and all the usual social equity stuff. He also thinks that parties are stupid.
3. Ellen Woodsworth: She's calm, involved and informed. She is clearly interested for the right reasons. She also gets my dyke vote: she's a senior with dyed hair who shows up to all the Queer events, not to schmooze but to hang out, and when it comes to sex work issues, she pisses off Rape Relief. That's two for two.
4. David Cadman: the only COPE counsellor on council now, he presents level-headed opposition to stupid.
5. Audrey Laferriere: Pissed off about homelessness and while she's in favour of affordable housing, she is the only candidate who is outspoken about being in favour of shelters, as in now. I'm willing to tolerate single-issue candidates for council if their issue is pressing enough. This one is.
6. George Chow: We need campaign finance reform. And he was apparantly liasing with the Musqueum before he ever took office.
7-10? Where's the Vacouver Rhino Party when you need it?
Parks Board: (Seven votes)
1. Anita Romaniuk - Clearly experienced and refreshingly blunt about what she doesn't like. I have her sign on my balcony.
2. Loretta Woodcock: Experienced, and she's a nice person and informed person. Sympathetic to Trans issues - which is relevant to a body who has jurisdiction over washrooms, changerooms, and gendered recreation programs. She is on a sign on my balcony too. Or at least her name is.
3. Laura McDiammid: Off-leash parks, AIDS memorial, works with the Musqueum band. Even though she's NPA, I think I'll vote for her.
4. Peter Haskell - He will convert Crab Park (over the pass just North of Main and Hastings) into a tent zone. This would be awesome even if no-one was homeless. Since many people are, it's smart. The only major problem that the last tent city had was benig turfhd out by the cops.
5. Jamie Lee Hamilton - Interested in Aboriginal, Queer and Sex-worker issues. Got the cops to investigate all those missing prostitutes - which lead to the Pickton trial. But she has poor conflict resolution skills.
6. Ivan Doumenc - Interested in "grow[ing] crops in every available urban space."
7?
School Board: (Nine votes)
1. Al Blakey - Experienced. Wants to fight racism and homophobia. Blunt about objecting to the current board.
2. Ken Clement - Involved in AIDS, Aboroginal and Transition House work.
3. Alvin Singh - Has a record of being competent. Blunt about being unable to proceed due to the current board.
4. Allan Wong - Experieced, informed and calm. Interested in cultural diversity, bicycles and ESL.
5-9? 5-9? I can only find four candidates that I feel confident voting for?
Good ways of losing points on my voting card:
1. - No tangible platform. Listing related experience alone is appropriate when you are applying for a job where other people tell you what to do every day. But when you're a leader, you get to call the shots, and I want to know what those "shots" are.
2. - Kittens and puppies platform. There is more to a Parks board commissioner than "believing that parks are important," and more to a School board commission than "ensuring resourecs are used to get students best possible education." There are so many of these platforms-mumbles that I would be willing to vote for "Pave the Parks and Send the Kids to the Mines" just for a little variety.
3. - Great ideas but how will you affect them? Cut taxes and increase spending? Are we going to get a piece of the drug trade?
4. - Being from the NPA. You start a political party called "The Non-Partisan Assocation." Why? It's a product of the ill-considered anarcho-capitalist stance of "We're not talking about contraversial things like 'politics,' just obvious things like 'business.'" (Plus the NPA has not done anything with a shred of imagination or guts in the last three years of running the show.)
5. - Being a realtor. Every time I hear "realtor," I think "ze's hear to network." Also: slick. Also: surprisingly eager to leave a lucrative job. This is fine if ze wants time off and prefers community work to the bahamas, but if ze plans to return to work if not elected, I sense a deeper financial motivation.
6. - Devoting too much profile space to your marriage and your children. I do not care about them. I am not electing them. All "I have a spouse (usually a wife) and kids" means is that I know who is going to be missing you for the next three years.
Addendum: You may notice that ther are a lot of COPE people on this ticket - as in I'm voting for the majority of the COPE candidates, but only a few Vision candidates. There are three reasons for this:
1 - I interned for COPE in 2005, so I know them
2 - COPE candidates tend to stay on my card because most are imaginative and frank (which is not a good way to make big parties happy).
3 - COPE's deal with Visions saw COPE prune down their candidate pool to a minority of the total seats, while Vision wanted a majority. This means that COPE had to weed through their candidates and pick only their best while Vision padded their list out. When you pick your best, the average quality rises. When you pad, it falls.
You should vote in them.
Why? (this is Aimed at Vancouverites)
- Municipal government affects your life directly and on a regular basis. You will feel its effects.
- The turnout in te last election was about 25%
- The difference between a win and lose in the last council election was 617 votes, and this carried across to Parks and School Board
I present to you My tentative Recommendations, based no the "Voters' Guide" that went to all mailboxes, knowledge of the parties, and a few of the candidates:
(Comment if I'm missing an important piece of information - I probably am.)
Mayor (One Vote)
1st Choice: Joe Hatoum - Great health and environmental platform, but why is he running from Maple Ridge? Needs proofreading.
2nd Choice? Alllllmost First: Betty Krawczyk - A woman who is active in the community and who is willing to go to jail for a protest. Not sure if I agree with her stance on sex work and porn though.
3rd: Angel Jiminez - Clear platform on ensuring police responsibility. But single issue is is not a good thing for a mayor.
4th: Scott Yee - I like his public housing plan, but again, single-issue.
5th: Patrick Britten - He's from the Naked Garden Party
6th : Gregor Robertson - Probably the smart strategic vote, but he's a little too slick for my tastes.
(If Mr. Robertson doesn't the fact that I won't vote strategically, he should consider implementing something other than a first-past-the-post system.)
Dead Last: Peter Ladner - The NPA ran him instead of the current mayor (Sullivan), hoping that we wouldn't notice that they're basically identical politicians - except that Ladner is old-fashioned municipal politics at its finest, and doesn't even pretend to have a clue about disability issues.
Council: (10 Votes)
1. Geri Tramutola: The only candidate to address the end of cheap oil. Up for harm prevention in drug treatment. Supports affordable housing
2. John Boychuck: One of the hard-working (unpaid) directors of this year's Pride. Values the Insite program, and all the usual social equity stuff. He also thinks that parties are stupid.
3. Ellen Woodsworth: She's calm, involved and informed. She is clearly interested for the right reasons. She also gets my dyke vote: she's a senior with dyed hair who shows up to all the Queer events, not to schmooze but to hang out, and when it comes to sex work issues, she pisses off Rape Relief. That's two for two.
4. David Cadman: the only COPE counsellor on council now, he presents level-headed opposition to stupid.
5. Audrey Laferriere: Pissed off about homelessness and while she's in favour of affordable housing, she is the only candidate who is outspoken about being in favour of shelters, as in now. I'm willing to tolerate single-issue candidates for council if their issue is pressing enough. This one is.
6. George Chow: We need campaign finance reform. And he was apparantly liasing with the Musqueum before he ever took office.
7-10? Where's the Vacouver Rhino Party when you need it?
Parks Board: (Seven votes)
1. Anita Romaniuk - Clearly experienced and refreshingly blunt about what she doesn't like. I have her sign on my balcony.
2. Loretta Woodcock: Experienced, and she's a nice person and informed person. Sympathetic to Trans issues - which is relevant to a body who has jurisdiction over washrooms, changerooms, and gendered recreation programs. She is on a sign on my balcony too. Or at least her name is.
3. Laura McDiammid: Off-leash parks, AIDS memorial, works with the Musqueum band. Even though she's NPA, I think I'll vote for her.
4. Peter Haskell - He will convert Crab Park (over the pass just North of Main and Hastings) into a tent zone. This would be awesome even if no-one was homeless. Since many people are, it's smart. The only major problem that the last tent city had was benig turfhd out by the cops.
5. Jamie Lee Hamilton - Interested in Aboriginal, Queer and Sex-worker issues. Got the cops to investigate all those missing prostitutes - which lead to the Pickton trial. But she has poor conflict resolution skills.
6. Ivan Doumenc - Interested in "grow[ing] crops in every available urban space."
7?
School Board: (Nine votes)
1. Al Blakey - Experienced. Wants to fight racism and homophobia. Blunt about objecting to the current board.
2. Ken Clement - Involved in AIDS, Aboroginal and Transition House work.
3. Alvin Singh - Has a record of being competent. Blunt about being unable to proceed due to the current board.
4. Allan Wong - Experieced, informed and calm. Interested in cultural diversity, bicycles and ESL.
5-9? 5-9? I can only find four candidates that I feel confident voting for?
Good ways of losing points on my voting card:
1. - No tangible platform. Listing related experience alone is appropriate when you are applying for a job where other people tell you what to do every day. But when you're a leader, you get to call the shots, and I want to know what those "shots" are.
2. - Kittens and puppies platform. There is more to a Parks board commissioner than "believing that parks are important," and more to a School board commission than "ensuring resourecs are used to get students best possible education." There are so many of these platforms-mumbles that I would be willing to vote for "Pave the Parks and Send the Kids to the Mines" just for a little variety.
3. - Great ideas but how will you affect them? Cut taxes and increase spending? Are we going to get a piece of the drug trade?
4. - Being from the NPA. You start a political party called "The Non-Partisan Assocation." Why? It's a product of the ill-considered anarcho-capitalist stance of "We're not talking about contraversial things like 'politics,' just obvious things like 'business.'" (Plus the NPA has not done anything with a shred of imagination or guts in the last three years of running the show.)
5. - Being a realtor. Every time I hear "realtor," I think "ze's hear to network." Also: slick. Also: surprisingly eager to leave a lucrative job. This is fine if ze wants time off and prefers community work to the bahamas, but if ze plans to return to work if not elected, I sense a deeper financial motivation.
6. - Devoting too much profile space to your marriage and your children. I do not care about them. I am not electing them. All "I have a spouse (usually a wife) and kids" means is that I know who is going to be missing you for the next three years.
Addendum: You may notice that ther are a lot of COPE people on this ticket - as in I'm voting for the majority of the COPE candidates, but only a few Vision candidates. There are three reasons for this:
1 - I interned for COPE in 2005, so I know them
2 - COPE candidates tend to stay on my card because most are imaginative and frank (which is not a good way to make big parties happy).
3 - COPE's deal with Visions saw COPE prune down their candidate pool to a minority of the total seats, while Vision wanted a majority. This means that COPE had to weed through their candidates and pick only their best while Vision padded their list out. When you pick your best, the average quality rises. When you pad, it falls.