As a candidate for Brampton city council, it might seem illogical to disagree with a longer term of office for municipal politicians. After all, if I am successful in my bid, wouldn't it be easier to campaign every 4 years instead of every 3?

But the reason I am here today is precisely that - because I value the concept of democracy and because I believe that voters should have the right to decide who represents them on their terms, not because it makes life easier for politicians.

When I spoke to a neighbour about this issue, she asked me why I would not support a move that would save money; after all, everyone knows that elections are expensive.

I agree with her that fiscal responsibility should always be top of mind when dealing with taxpayers' money - however, by this logic, we might never have elections!

It seems to me that city politicians should be the most accessible to the public and the most responsive to the day-to-day concerns of the people in their communities. When municipal elections were held every year - back in the 50's - I would imagine that any politician who didn't listen to the concerns of his voters every day would suffer the consequences at the polls.

There is nothing wrong with this scenario because being a politician is not a job in the regular sense of the word. As you know, it is not just be about making a living, but rather a calling to help others. Part of this public service involves going back to one's constituency every so often to ask for their opinion on how well you are doing the job.

Elections should not be held less frequently because it does not give voters the opportunity to judge one's performance. If a councillor has done a terrific job of representing and helping those in her community, she will likely get re-elected. If not, why allow that person another year to continue?

I don't think we are here to make it easier for politicians to get re-elected; in fact, at the municipal level, there is rarely much turnover and one reason for this is that there isn't enough citizen involvement or interest in this level of politics so we tend to re-elect the name on the ballot who is most familiar. This apathy would only become worse if the elections were held less frequently.

In Brampton in 2003, only 24% of the public voted in the municipal election. If the term is lengthened to 4 years, I fear that voters will become even more apathetic, coming to the conclusion: "why bother? The same people get elected every time"

In Brampton, local politicians were gushing over this proposed legislation - one thought it was "terrific" another sited the financial benefit and another stated that the last year of a councillor's 3-year term was spent getting re-elected and so this would ensure the job is getting done for an extra year, instead of campaigning.

What a bizarre notion - that one-third of one's term is taken up by campaigning and that it is somehow at odds with doing one's council work. Perhaps these comments didn't come out as they were intended but I would say that views like this one increase the public's level of cynicism about politics and their role in the democratic process.
 

I believe that voters are already cynical about politics - how many times have we heard "it doesn't matter what I do -they're all the same"? Let's not encourage that attitude by passing this bill. Let's not delay councillors' accountability with voters by one year. Let's tell voters that we are not afraid to put ourselves and our work on line to ask for their approval. If we do that, we'll begin to chip away at that voter's apathy and cynicism.
 

Let's send the right message."