More of our evidence…a Sample of what we were up against

By  | June 20, 2011 | 0 Comments | Filed under: 2010 Municipal Candidates

  This first email came to Thomas back in December 2010 

( Remember, when we filed our Application, the City received all our evidence) I will let you decide if they interfered or not. 

From
To: 
cambridge2010election@live.ca
Subject: Election Misconvenience
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 08:23:33 -0500

– Hello Mr. Vann, 

I have voted in many elections; municipal, provincial and federal for 45 years in Cambridge, Preston.

We have always voted at a nearby school with parking facilities, spacious hallways, large gym, library or other rooms with chairs, short line ups, and plenty of stations (usually five or six) to handle peak time crowds. eg noon, after work and last minute before closing.

 At first, I thought it would be good to help the seniors by having the voting in a local facility (Manor on Bishop, retirement home) We know the election pays for the use  and that would be a logical choice of facility to use. WRONG.

 #1- Very tight parking and same way in and out 

#2- narrow hallways with clutter (useful clutter, but in the way, just the same)

 #3- tiny gathering place (enlargement of a hall or possibly an office)

 #4- lined up through the building and outside

 #5- two posts to get ballots

 #6- three places to stand and mark one’s ballot

 #7- I went at supper time (I’ll be back in ten minutes) and waited way longer than usually, got home to a cold supper (thank goodness for microwaves)

#8- Until I read the article in the times, I didn’t realize the minimalization of resources for tjis election. I don’t think they wanted us to vote, thus 23% turnout proves the point. 

 #9- I always thought polls open before the election were just for folks who would be away, and never thought of doing it ahead of time. 

How were the advanced polls attended? You bet there will be a lot more folks out next time, that is if we are allowed to vote again.

 #10- Judging by the quality and quantity of persons running, as well as general sentiments about the “old guard”, I thought there would be a HUGE turnover, but wrong again.

 #11 This is democracy????? 

Regards,

( name withheld)

************

 

 

From: To: lvann_11@sympatico.ca
Subject: Re: election
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 02:06:13 -0400 

– Hello Mr. Vann,                 Thursday March 17, 2:03 am (between a late arrival and early departure)  

I am afraid that I must declare a conflict of interest in the issue as it now stands.

I have driven city councillors, the mayor and other officials for 18 years and it is one relationship that I do not want to jeopardize.

 There are few enough passengers these days, so I cannot afford to upset a very good part of my business.

I have stated the case as I presented to you, to several of the representatives on council, when driving them and feel that is one avenue for my thoughts to be heard and taken into consideration.

I am sorry that I cannot participate in the suit, but I believe that it is my best interest to back off at the present time.

I believe also that my thoughts on the election logistics were heard with agreement and that the main issues of location and convenience should not arise in the future and were ill-advised in the past election due to lack of research and forethought with respect to some of the venues (seniors homes, etc)

I am still disgusted with a 23% turnout, but there are many reasons for this, not the least of which is, I am afraid, apathy on the part of electors, and lack of personal contact by those running for office.

I will always remember Max Saltsman going door-to-door through several campaigns, and that is one of the main reasons he was so successful, apart from a sincere commitment to the riding and its people.

Regards, and best wishes for success with your efforts,

(withheld).

Facebooktwittergoogle_plus
cwalsh@assisting4u.net'

About 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Archives