By G.D. Maxwell
I think its time to consider electoral reform. And, like all good movements, this one should start locally and spread to the bigger stage of provincial and federal elections.
When I say electoral reform, I dont mean the kind of electoral reform Slash Gordon, our beloved and besotted premier was making noises about before the provincial election earlier this year, which is to say any reform that wouldnt pose a challenge to his continued stranglehold on the reins of power. The single transferable vote, or some other manner of tortured, proportional representation, just isnt bold enough for the kind of change Im envisioning. Besides, since we dont do party politics locally, it would be both difficult to understand and pointless.
And I dont mean the kind of reform where people running for office would have to demonstrate any real penchant for leadership, understanding of issues, listening to voters, playing well with others, knowing the difference between right and wrong, chewing gum and walking at the same time or locomoting themselves by any other means since Im a sensitive, inclusive kind of guy and wouldnt want to start getting nasty letters from anyone with any form of walking challenge whatsoever, honest or a firm grasp of the difference between, oh say, leading the town and duping some tourist whos had one too many Mai Tais into buying a vacation condo. I mean, lets keep it within the realm of possibilities here, folks. This aint science fiction.
Im thinking something more today, more with it, more hip, more media savvy. Im thinking about Survivor: The Political Challenge.
Lets face it, in our increasingly polarized society and I use the word advisedly the gap between you and me is growing ever more vast even as the physical space between us, especially on the ski hill, seems to diminish to almost nothing. Now, I dont mean the literal you, dear reader, and me, esteemed if not entirely believable writer. I mean the figurative, representational, archetypical you and me; the us and them you and me if you get my drift. Heck, you and me? Were still like two sweet peas in a pod, arent we?
But the gaps, the thin, see-through, shiny spots in the social fabric are growing more numerous and noticeable. If we wore this thing out in public wed probably be busted for indecent exposure. Whether its the gap between the educated and uneducated, the digitally hip and digitally clueless, urban and rural, tattooed and untattooed, low-fat or full-fat latte drinkers or Liberal and Conservative whatever those terms mean when you capitalize them the gaps look more like crevasses.
If Whistler were its own province, and whos to say it couldnt be, wed be both a have and have-not province, so wide are the gaps. Our gaps go well beyond the obvious, well beyond the young-old, rich-poor, transient-intransigent, local-wannabe, owner of capital-disposable workerbee, skier-boarder, homeowner-homeless, overhoused-underhoused that were all too familiar with. It is, in fact, a testament to the power of this beautiful place and the unique thrills of sliding down mountains that we can all live together without cutting each others throat or, at a minimum, tagging each others Gore-Tex with indecipherable graffiti.
And theres a widening gap, if you pay attention, between those who see Whistlers salvation as somewhere over the horizon along the path of growth and those who believe following that path will undermine everything weve been working towards and will, quite possibly, lead to ruin or at least to a ho-hum, been there done that kind of sameness, much like the kind of sameness one feels when one thumbs a brochure for different but indistinguishable cruise ships going to different but indistinguishable ports while waiting to see the dentist. Thats you waiting to see the dentist, not the indistinguishable ports, although I can understand your confusion.
These are troubled times in Tiny Town. Many businesses are hanging on through nothing more substantial than pluck and credit card limits. Many long for the good ol days, the days when Whistler was growing like kudzu and there were so many well-heeled tourists that one could do quite well, thank you, fooling only some of the people some of the time.
In troubled times, people eagerly seek solutions, particularly of the quick fix variety. This has been the lifeblood of scoundrels, snake oil salesmen and politicians since the beginning of time. And so it is as we head into our municipal election.
On the one hand, youve got candidates pitching well, actually, nobodys pitching much of anything yet so youll just have to take my word for it until they start to hang some meat on the rattling bones of their candidacy salvation through growth. Lets call it the Amusement Park Model, it sounds so much nicer than the Bend Over and Spread Em Model. Theyll be pitching the idea that Whistlers already a little bit pregnant, already half way down the road to being an amusement park, so why not just grow our way out of this period of relative economic despair, pick up some much needed amenities along the way, expand our girth and influence up and down valley and become the ubiquitous four-season cruise, er, resort we know we can be. In an earlier time, and south of the border, this was the chicken in every pot, car in every driveway pitch.
And, if were lucky, some candidates will come along and pitch the idea of more moderate, more incremental growth. In fact, they might even suggest Whistler is a mature resort and the real road to salvation lies in finding a way to dance on top of the lifecycle curve. Please tell me you remember the lifecycle curve. Id hate to think Im just wasting my time writing this piffle every week.
Its a tough sell telling people theres no quick fix. That there will be tough times and adjustments to be made. That a sludge hockey/community centre or airport or other silver bullet wont make things better right away.
And thats why we need electoral reform. This time around, it might not be enough to vote for a candidate. I think we should have two votes, one for, one against. If theres a candidate who speaks to us, seems to have good ideas, appears honest and trustworthy, we should vote for him or her. But if we also believe theres a candidate who, under no circumstances, should be allowed to hold office, wed get a vote against him or her. One positive; one negative. The person with the most net votes wins. And just to make it interesting, the person with the least net votes has to leave the island.
Hell, we might even get some of our tuned-out, dont really give a damn fellow travelers out to the polls.