I'm just curious...

There's a process that we go all through when looking for a mate.

I'm not talking about 'hooking up', one-night-stands or any of that. I'm talking about getting coupled, finding your partner, searching for the person you want to marry, to have children with, to build a world alongside, to create a life with.

If you take a good look at it, it's effectively a long interview process.

You examine attraction, commonalities, differences...you develop an increasing sense of whether the person 'fits' your needs, whether or not they'd be a good parent, if your goals are similar...if the match is worth pursuing. After all, there's a lot on the line...even if you don't throw your lot in with the notion of 'marriage is forever'.

Why is it that we don't subject our political candidates to a similar process?

We're talking about people who directly affect the lives we live.

We're talking about people who have our welfare, our happiness, our day-to-days on their 'To Do' lists.

And we're talking about people who -and I don't think I'm exaggerating much here- leave us feeling disappointed and betrayed in almost all instances at the conclusion of a term.

And yet here are some truths:

-The Municipal election in 2006 saw only 37% of eligible voters in Hamilton casting ballots. Isn't this akin to most of you not really paying attention when you're 'interviewing' your potential spouse?

-Most constituents of any given ward do not delve deeply into prospective Councillors' 'qualifications'. Or more importantly, perform due diligence in ensuring they have a handle on each candidate.

-Better yet, most constituents of any given ward do not delve into the performance of the incumbents. (Cursory article reading does not qualify, here.)

Now, many might feel the comparison between sussing out a future Life-partner and vetting your next Councillor is an egregious one. That people can't possibly be expected to put in that much time and effort...

...into something they really don't give a damn about.

(Naturally, this raises some questions about what the default is regarding residents' expectations about their roles in local governance.)

So let's shift the analogy to the process for finding the best candidate for a position in a company. Filling an opening.

Um... I still think that how we currently do things is flawed, because in comparison to how much time they'd spend hiring someone, the average person doesn't spend a corresponding amount of time in choosing their next Councillor, their next Mayor.

OK.

So if neither of these two side-by-sides work...then what's an equitable analogy?

The investment of effort in finding a home you want to set up house in?

No.

The amount of time spent deliberating which car to buy?

Nope.

The amount of time spent examining which package vacation to spend a couple of grand on?

Uh-uh.

How about...deciding on which movie to see, which showing to head to, what to get from the Snack Bar...where to sit...?

Actually, if we're being honest, I think that the energies involved in the average Hamiltonian choosing who they're going to vote for (developing their version of a 'qualified opinion') is almost assuredly dwarfed by that last suggestion. (A more apt one might be 'choosing the food we put in our mouths'...but I'm not sure which process comes out the worse for wear in this comparison.)

And yet we wonder why we invariably find ourselves lost in the land of Bitchin'-and-Complainin' at the end of every municipal term.

Seriously?!?