elections

[sumdumguy]

I thought you had to live in the R.M. To vote?

[mbdog]

local politics can/do have influence/a voice, believe it or not...depending on who gets in tho. Voting in the nice person isn't the way to vote IMO, because these people must "take on"/be able to speak to much tougher, political savvy beurocrats/politicians who will eat you alive and steamroller over you if you allow them to. Politics at all levels is about fighting for what you represent. Sadly to many rural councils are puppets or become so because they are muscled and don't want to be confrontational because they are "nice". Politics is not a nice profession. Local politics can and does have a direct impact on local attitudes.
IMO, What's lacking is strong voices at the grassroots, municipal level....and it is an impediment to local progress/investment.

[oneoff]

In such elections it is possible to guess or even know with almost exact certaintly how each person voted. If advance polls were counted seperately; the 99% confidence level would be so high one could potentially report the list as facts.

Of course that would be an election infraction; just as what Rob Ford did at Toronto polling stations. But when you have hundreds of thousands of voters; no one pays any attention to families; their friends nor the personal links between individuals.

Such is not the case in voting decisions in RM "politics". It matters not what your platform might be; your motivation for the office; nor your personal agenda or how the connections and low scale powers might be used for any benefit.

Additionally; at the rural level; information is disseminated by "rumor".

There are no news outlets covering happenings such as elections. It would be suicidal for any such rogue business to report or speculate on what just happened . Your insurance business might find that municipal vehicles are registered through the office in the next town; the high school yearbook doesn't get a paid advertisement even though the municipalities kids attend that very school and local papers might just not get all the ads that should be inserted through "two or more public notices".

These are actual outcomes I have seen; and some continue to this day. Even excess hotdogs from some municipal event can get diverted from an area that anyone would normally not expect.

So the long and short answer is that some persons; who arguably may or may not make a potentially viable candidate

REALIZE
THAT
NO
MATTER
HOW
MUCH
CAMPAIGNING
OR
QUALIFICATION
THEY
COULD
NEVER
BECOME
THE
ELECTED
DOG CATCHER
under the present circumstances.

But they can document history through such instruments as this Agriville Forum. Those comments will live much longer than the upcoming four year term.

And that is one of the slightly viable alternatives; that in larger settings are covered by information media and population numbers that have an interest and less fear of offending the handfull of like minded elected officials and a very few closely knit family units.

It's "too small potatoes" on may fronts.

It will eventually change; and those handfuls of people won't be happy. But don't worry ... it will be a ways in the future.

[oneoff]

And the fact is that the "landslide" of voters are the one who voted a certain way.

The "handfuls" of votes for the loser are pretty easily identified by support that is shown well prior to the voting procedure.

So results are quite predictable ...in most cases.

Sort of like fixed and committed on all sides; unless the apathethic and disinchanted take some time to get out.

The problem being that in even in the best cases we are still dealing with less than may less than 100 votes in what is considered a great turnout.

[oneoff]

There are actually about (a) to (g) possible qualifications to vote (or run for office for that matter.)

They range from simple residency in the RM (not in villages, towns or cities as a great many don't understand or believe even after being so informed); to chief executive officers; to landowners who may be exempted from taxes; to licenced business and so forth; as well as spouuses of any of above; except CEO's. And no one may vote twice in any election.

Then total assessment comes into account for the division in which one can only cast a vote; and possibly proper notification to change ones voting division (if done in right time frame and under specific circumstances; only if you don't qualify by living within the municipality.

All that applies to an electorate who don't understand a fraction of what is included on the "voters declaration" that they must sign.

Just as that same electorate has not adequately informed themselves (in a great great many cases) about the many issues which might be considered before casting a truly "informed" vote.

But a cynic may well say that democracy doesn't guarantee good governments.

"exelent" and "landslide" may not even be in the dictionary; let alone the definitions of democratic principles

[oneoff]

All leading to asking

Where is the Voter's List?

That would happen if a council simply told the administrator (though a resolution) to create one.

[farmaholic]

All too often "incumbent equals acclaimed".

The situation I described couldn't have been predicted, two new people. And it was nice to see the close results.

R.M. Councillor is a thankless job in many cases

[farmaholic]

The sad part is because of such low voter turnout it is kind of obvious at times where allegiances lie during rural municipal elections.

I do find it odd that voter's lists aren't compiled. Maybe a little onerous but the current system is kind of an archaic honor system. What if a nominee wants a list of eligible voters to campaign with? Does anyone know of a vote that was challenged based on eligibility criteria?

[Oliver88]

Checking/sumdumguy-
In Saskatchewan you must own land or live in an RM to vote for the Reeve.
You must own land in a district or live in the district where councillors are running.
(This is how it was explained to me by an RM)

I am not in RM council but see guys doing a lot of work for minimal pay and appreciation......and a lot of coffee row experts complaining but not willing to put their name forward.

[jamesb]

Actually the election turnout in #3 was quite good. Some people don't have to like the results but democracy has spoken. I have seen elections where almost no one votes, that is a sad state of affairs.
Oneoff I would encourage you to run for council next year. If you have grievances that others agree with, why not run for reeve? If other ratepayers think the same as you, you should step up and run.

[Oliver88]

For voting for councillor you have to live in division or own land in division. not "district" as I wrote.

[oneoff]

Please read what I have previously written before glibbly saying "Run for reeve"

And it isn't good enough to say "I have been told" or "I understand"

The rules are clear if you read "the Local Goverment Elections Act" and the "Municipalities Act".

For instance it makes a world of difference between thinking "highest assessment of a quarter section" and highest total assessment in a division" are not different statements. And you'll quite probably find that in rural municipalities that if you meet the qualifications of a voter; then you have also met the nomination qualifications for a reeve or councillor...and further anyone could potentially legally become the reeve in one municipality; a councillor in another and mayor of a city provided that you did live in the urban municipality.

Thats what I understand and until corrected by the Municpalities Act and Local government Elections Act or an actual court ruling. I am willing to listen to any and all personal legal opinion or any person who has actually read these acts; there is no sense taking those opinions as gospel. There is a very good chance there is something totally inaccurate or wrong when it is secondhand and not based on careful reading, understanding fully, and careful interpretation. Any flaw in fact can fatally flaw the conclusion. Such as living within the boundaries of a town, village or city which happens to be enclosed within the boundaries of a larger municipality. That is apparently not understood by a good many wannabe voters. Some of those persons may indeed qualify to vote; and that is where it would be very helpful to have a voter's list.

Without such a list it ultimately solely up to those who fill out and sign the declaration form to decide if they are entitled to vote. And as such there is every possibility that any person can vote in any election they choose (and not be elegible in any way to have done so. That IS the way voting day is meant to be conducted. Of course; if the outcome is close, and if objections are made by "scrutineers" or "agent representatives; then the results of voting may not be completely final.

But returning officers and candidates representatives nor anyone else can interfere with casting any vote. Further it is not the RO; or DRO or poll clerk; or constable who should be telling anyone they can or can not vote. If asked they should be only saying who is eligble; and that is as thoughtfully as possible; already laid out in the "Local Government Elections Act". The "scrutineers" are the only persons who can cause a moment of reflection on the answers in the declaration; and it comes through the deputy returning officer who can ask the potential voter if they wish to contemplate on any answer on the form.
I could/would refer anyone to a Court of Queen's bench decision pertaining to an RM which sought "direction" (on SARM legal advice) that resulted in a very unexpected (but totally obvious) decision.

Not all people live in basements and have never escaped to the outside real world.

And I don't have the time to confirm and quote exactly the words surrounding the "I object" utter by a scrutineer and any elaboration that is in order that is directed to the DRO.