Editor:
It’s been a trend in local politics for candidates to become part of a slate – essentially a grouping of candidates into one unregistered party. In my opinion the slating of candidates is problematic. The slate is hoping they can make the voting decision for you, relieving you of the requirement to examine the merits of individual candidates to determine if they are worthy of your vote. It’s an attempt to sway those voters who don’t want to fully engage. The thinking being that if you like one of the candidates, the rest must be good as well, otherwise they wouldn’t be part of the slate. “If you like me, you’ll like my friends. We are already a team so why look any further. Just vote for the slate and you have a ready-made council that all think alike.”
The problem is that each one on the slate isn’t necessarily the best candidate. Opposing views and a variety of talent may be healthier on a council. Will slate members be as responsive to the electors after they’re in office?
When presented with a slate of candidates who are asking for your vote, I suggest you be skeptical. Look at each candidate on the slate and ask, are they the best choice? Would I vote for that candidate if they weren’t grouped together with these other candidates? Slates are put together to sway voters with the unstated promise that you’re voting for a great team. No further thinking needed. It’s done for you.
Are we really that lazy as voters that we want our councils served up to us like a fixed menu meal or are we capable of choosing our own meal from a buffet? Perhaps you should make your own slate and vote accordingly.
William Baker, Gibsons
