The Big Three

I'm a contrarian.

Well...no I'm not. Not really.

Not in the usually accepted sense.

Wait; maybe I am.

LOL

For example, I had a conversation with a friend this morning that had her bemoaning the state of affairs regarding media election coverage. (When I say 'media', I'm referring to mainstream media -MSM- but also online outlets...because they're not as inclusive and esoteric as they'd love to believe they are. In fact, I'm mostly referring to The Spec.)

Specifically, that the only 'real' mayoral candidates being covered...being covered 'seriously' are 'The Big Three'. Eisenberger, Di Ianni and Bratina. Take a look at most articles; the majority of column space is taken up by this familiar triumvirate of candidates. Oh, there'll no doubt be some deft sprinkling of the 'other' candidates, especially if there's something noteworthy (read 'controversial') to use as a contrast between them and TBT.

I think what most bothered my friend was that good ideas weren't being examined by the public because so many of those good ideas were being put forward by the 'lesser candidates' and The Spec wasn't providing coverage.

The contrarian in me barging to the fore, I derailed our conversation; I disagreed entirely that this was an issue. Or the real issue.

Which I'm sure she expected, given my other beliefs about effective local governance and everything associated with it.

In a nutshell, as per normal, I believe that it all comes down to the people.

Us.

Look; I think it's reasonable to expect that 90% of the votes cast for Mayor will go to Eisenberger, Di Ianni and Bratini. And I don't believe that 'more coverage' of the other candidates would have changed this truth appreciably...even though I fully understand how people like my friend feel that the 'bias' applied by The Spec (and the online sources) has created such a situation. It's just that a) I don't think it's a particularly good application of angst, and b) it's not the real problem.

Here's a bit of a disclosure for you: mayoral candidate Mahesh P. Butani is an acquaintance of mine. We've had coffee together, we've spoken online regularly over the past few months, I immensely enjoy his company. All of our conversations have been stimulating, I always learn something...and I'm consistently inspired by his viewpoints, his thought processes, how he sees things. He has some prudent, yet innovative approaches to some of our challenges.

That out of the way, here's a question for you: Could enough of the current average voters...you know, some of the 37% of eligible residents who took the time to vote in the last election, 60% of whom purportedly voted according to 'name recognition' alone...have been sufficiently perspicacious to have understood the value of Mahesh's platform and made him into a 'contender' in this election? If The Spec had 'played fair' and provided more candidates with more coverage?

Nope.

Because the current average voter is not a discriminating animal.

To paraphrase Sy Syms, 'Our current customer is not a particularly educated consumer.'

I don't believe that you should have to 'seduce' people into political awareness, engagement, involvement. It's like having to coerce, finagle, bribe your parter into lovemaking. Ugh.

So to me, we're nowhere until people are interested enough in the local governance process on their own and effectively create the coverage by way of demand. You know, like people who are interested in certain sports or activities or hobbies. (And I reject the deflector 'chicken or the egg' discussion outright. So don't bother going there.)

To wit: if we had an engaged citizenry, one that put as much effort into choosing candidates as they do choosing their plasma televisions, then candidates like Mahesh would be given the consideration they're due...and we'd have a far better election season unfolding....with better, more informed choices resulting in better, more informed candidates being elected, creating a better, more informed City Council. (Naturally, if you've been reading my pieces addressing the idea of increasing the 'relationship of engagement' between residents and their Councillors, you'll know that the election is only the beginning.)

So if you really feel the need, go ahead and blame The Spec (and its online 'competition') for creating a very small portion of the electoral stage on which an even smaller spotlight has been shone. But I believe that we're all far more culpable in creating this particular situation than most of us are probably willing to concede.