No doubt, the fact the Richmond News had to turn people away from the all-candidates meeting we hosted because the room was packed to the rafters was a problem.
But, from the perspective of community engagement, it’s a great problem to have.
Richmond has a reputation for political apathy. (We have among the lowest voter turnout for elections at all levels of government. Our last civic election saw a 24 per cent voter turnout.)
But there was no apathy to be found at the cultural center on Friday night. People crammed themselves in, listened attentively and asked pointed questions.
The evening began with the Richmond News asking all 32 council and mayoral candidates to vote yes or no to 20 questions we had posed to them earlier. Candidates were then given two minutes to expand on any one or two of the questions.
Prior to the meeting, many of the candidates grumbled about not liking the format. Perhaps they didn’t like being put on the spot or perhaps a yes or no answer oversimplified the issues.
Fair enough.
The format did put them on the spot, and it did simplify the issues, but it was a genuine attempt to get past the platitudes and platforms. We know when it comes to an election everyone cares about environmental protection; everyone supports a strong, local economy; everyone supports affordable housing and community engagement.
But the fact remains, there are politics at city hall and how councillors consistently vote on a number of specific issues does tell us where they sit on the spectrum. With so many contestants, and most not aligned with a familiar political party, our 20 questions exercise was a way to distinguish candidates and help voters see which candidates best line up with their values and their priorities.
Moreover, candidates did have two minutes to explain their answers or expand on issues they saw as critical, What questions they chose to address was revealing in itself.
But regardless of what candidates thought, nearly all of them participated, answering the 20 questions, then going into detail on one or two.
I take my hat off to them all for that.
I also take my hat off to members of the audience who asked thoughtful and pointed questions.
Unfortunately, the evening ended abruptly when we were just half way through the audience questions segment. (A gentleman fainted and thankfully after medical attention was able to walk away.)
As a result, a number of candidates didn’t get a chance to respond.
That was unfortunate. Clearly, there was an imbalance regarding who got to answer what questions, and it would have been corrected had the process continued. But, on the plus side, audience members were invited to come down and speak directly to candidates — and speak they did. Forty minutes later, we were having to push people out the door.
The take away here is that Richmond residents do care, but we have to be creative in how we include them in the process so as to be meaningful.
Our format was far from perfect. We already have a list of things we’d do differently next time — a bigger room for one, but it’s a start.
The second take away is that an all-candidates meeting can only give people a glimpse of the political hopefuls.
Time is just too short.
What I hope our meeting did is light a fire among some voters and spur them on to finding out more.
Our website has a ton of election news — and that’s only one resource. This is our city, this is our vote. Let’s make it count.
