Mandel, Nickel unappreciative of 'crazies' in politics.

This morning while perusing the Edmonton Journal I found this article about a proposed plan to raise the requirements for those wishing to seek a council seat. I was, needless to say, taken aback for numerous reasons. I was both saddened by the proposal, and angered by the rationale given for the decision. The decision was taken apparently to discourage 'crazies' from running. Actually, from the tone of what I heard it's to stop them outright. There are a long list of reasons as to why this is a bad idea.

The move will discourage already underrepresented working class Edmontonians from running for council. To put it in perspective: One in four Canadians earns less than $10 an hour. Now for a candidate running her or his campaign out of pocket, that deposit alone, amounts to at least 10 hours of work to run for council and 50 hours to run for mayor. This is a considerable sum. One that would make a would be candidate think long and hard about a decision to run. Not enough to beggar a candidate, but enough to ensure that those that really cared about the process would run.

However, a deposit of $1000 represents one hundred hours work, $10,000 means one thousand hours. In my case, and in the case of many working Edmontonians, that ten thousand is more than a half a years take-home pay. This is not an amount of money designed to ensure committment, this is an amount of money that demands the support of someone, or some organisation, with ten thousand spare dollars. Joe Devaney, who was a fellow candidate in the 2001 City election, (He in ward one, I for Mayor) spent some five thousand dollars, which he worked countless weekends to raise. This 'reform' in one fell swoop puts the position of Mayor completely out of reach of a lot of working Edmontonians and puts councillor much further as well.

The move won't make these as yet unnamed fringe candidates stop and consider, but they will make other possibly legitimate candidates stop considering. When I have run for office (I've done so three times) I feel it absolutely necessary to secure my campaign deposit, before I begin to ask others for money. Call me crazy, but I don't like asking people for money for a venture that will fail before its started.

An increase in deposit will discourage the cash poor, not the common sense poor. Does anyone recall the spoiler of the 1992 presidential election, H. Ross Perot? There was no amount of money that would have stopped him from unleashing his personal agenda onto the American political scene. Let's not forget that the most ridiculously expensive position to run for in the world is the United States presidency.

But why complain? Someone who can't raise ten thousand dollars surely can't win? There are two reasons whay that arguement is fallacious. First, the large deposit would further slant the race in favour of the biggest spenders. Consider A candidate who raises $4,000 against a candidate who raises $40,000 is at a ten to one disadvantage in terms of money she is able to spend during the campaign. Subtract a thousand dollars from each, (giving us three a nd thirty-nine, respectively) and the advantage becomes 13 to one. When the last election saw three candidates spend more trying to win the mayorality than the job paid for three years, why on earth would we want to exascerbate such a debauchery of the democratic process?

And moreso, what's the difficulty with having candidates running for office that aren't going to be successful? Should Tracy Parsons, (Progressive Canadian Party Leader) Laverne Ahlstrom, (Social Credit Leader) and myself not run, because the smart money wouldn't touch us with a ten-foot pole in the current election? Civic politics has an incredible success rate for incumbents, why should we seek to entrench that further. Sheila McKay ran for council seven times before winning a seat. The Rt. Hon. John Diefenbaker lost eight consecutive elections (one for Mayor of Prince Albert) are these people too much of an inconvienience to the political system to tolerate their presence at election forums?

That of course brings me to the chiefest example given of 'crazies' the election forum. according to the Journal:

Nickel says he has heard many complaints from voters about "frivolous candidates" taking up time at election forums.

I've been to many forums and been on both sides of the mike. And I think that many attendants would agree with me that more time is wasted by a question posed that is two minutes preamble and ten seconds question than is wasted by additional candidates, who were nominated by their fellow Edmontonians, answering those questions.

I don't presume to know who is being referred to when the talk turns to crazies, but my guess is that a good representative would be Buffalo Terminator Tomlinson. Mr. Tomlinson is without a doubt the most eccentric person I have directly observed seeking office. In his 2001 election profile on Shaw they showed him in his rent-controlled one bedroom apartment showing off his collection of political paraphanaelia. I have to assume that this is the typical individual that His Worship and Councillor Nickel refer to. Mr. Tomlinson certainly brought some crazy ideas into the 2001 race. My personal favourite was his idea to build a bridge to Calgary Trail from downtown. Except, three years later, that was part of Robert Noce's platform. So we can conclude one of the following: Robert Noce is a 'crazy' or The Buffalo Terminator brought a new and at least somewhat feasable idea into the debate.

Perhaps I am the proto-typical crazy of which Mr. Nickel speaks. The most radical idea I have ever proposed as a candidate, in my view, was the elimination of the in camera meeting. When I ran for council I spent $337 dollars including the deposit. I was pleased to have an opportunity to take part in the democratic process and address what I felt were burning issues facing the city. It may have inconvienienced Mr. Mandel to have me lecture him about the fallacy of Say's law in the middle of a crisis of commercial vacancy, but democracy is not designed to be convienient, it is designed to be a pure and noble expression of the people's will. A healthy democracy includes both winners and losers and the continuing right of the vanquished to challenge the victors. I am in complete disagreement with Rod Love's axiom: "I don't care if you finish second or tenth, you lost." From a mayor who has stated that tolerance is not enough, these actions demonstrate the absence of even tolerance. A healthy democracy cannot afford to dismiss the also-rans, rather, it must celebrate them.