Incumbents in the upcoming municipal election should be feeling pretty comfortable.
Incumbency is usually an advantage, particularly in the municipal realm, unless, of course, you have done something to anger large swaths of the electorate.
That does not appear to be the case for the current mayor and council. In fact, aside from the mayor, and the few times councillors take their turns filling in for the mayor at public events, they tend to keep a pretty low profile.
Even council meetings do not provide much of an opportunity to see the group currently ensconced at City Hall in action, not that the public ever shows up anyway. These veterans do their homework and make full use (some would say too much use) of in-camera sessions, so actual debate during council meetings is rare.
Another reason incumbents might be uneasy is if there is simply a change sentiment afoot. All governments, no matter how popular they may have been at one time, eventually wear out their welcomes. This one—albeit with the mayor’s seat having been a bit of musical chair—has been around a long time.
The overflowing slate of candidates, four for mayor, and 24 for six councillor positions would seem to indicate there is an appetite for change, at least among the segment of the citizenry disposed to running for office.
If there is a broader desire for change, this ballot is unlikely to accomplish it. The number of candidates is simply overwhelming. There are four times the number of hopefuls as there are positions to fill. There is an argument to be made for the party system here.
Political parties have the advantage of narrowing the field by selecting (ostensibly) the best candidate from among relatively like-minded wannabes. As an aside, even though we do not practice party politics at the municipal level, candidates should have to disclose political affiliations (past or present). That could be something for the new council to consider.
Be that as it may, we are left with what we have, a lot of people to consider in a short amount of time and that favours the incumbents.
Even a very conscientious voter is going to have a difficult time parsing the choices. Just getting enough information on all the candidates to make an informed choice is fraught with roadblocks.
Start with the media. We try to be fair and balanced in our coverage. For broadcasters that means equal time, but there is a finite time slot. If it is an hour, ten candidates would get six minutes each. For 24 candidates, it would only be 2.5 minutes.
For newspapers it is a space issue. There are only so many pages and even if we designate a larger hole during the election, it will be far from comprehensive coverage.
The Chamber of Commerce has scheduled public debates. Just putting 24 candidates on stage is a logistical nightmare. A lot of voices are going to get lost in that crowd.
There is a considerable amount of research that suggests when faced with too much choice people reach for the familiar. Certainly that must favour either incumbents or famous people. When voters look down a list of 24 names, it is going to be tempting to tick the boxes next to recognizable ones even for people who have done their research.
For a lot of voters, particularly the last-minute kind, it may come down to the mini-profiles on the City’s website. And those are pretty meager to say the least, long on community spirit and short on policy.
A few of the hopefuls have set up websites or Facebook pages that are linked on the City candidate profiles. Those, if they are good and active may give a candidate a leg up.
Door-knocking, lawn signs, campaign barbecues, any little thing could make a huge difference in a field as big as the 2016 one is. Name recognition is going to be key.
Ultimately, though, with so many new faces to split the change vote, things are not likely to change much. That is unfortunate because probably the best thing for the City right now would be a nice balance of experience and new blood.
