How would you know…?

…that the BC Liberals (and NDP) parties are allowing those under the age of 18 to vote for the leader of the Party?

Could the first clue be the fact that the leadership candidates are suggesting, or jumping on the bandwagon, that the voting age be lowered to 16?

Talk about putting a whole new spin on the tradition of kissing babies for votes…

We have graduated drivers licensing for young drivers, those under 18 (the current voting age) are not allowed to purchase alcohol and the legal age of majority is 18.

So are the leadership candidates saying that voting is a less important or requires less judgment and maturity than driving a vehicle, buying alcohol or being considered to be legally an adult?

“Liberal leadership contender Mike de Jong says he wants to lower the voting age in B.C. from 18 to 16 in a bid to attract more voters to polls.”

Since the polls are in schools it would certainly be easy and convenient for students to vote which may well lead to a higher turnout percentage among this new group of voters – at least as long as they are in school and it is easy and convenient – artificially inflating the voter turnout numbers.

If the goal is simply to increase voter turnout why don’t we move the polls to more convenient locations? Malls, grocery stores, bars etc. Making the polls more conveniently located so that people do not have to make an effort to go and vote will also raise voter turnout.

Of course moving the polls out of the schools, thus reducing the ease and convenience for the new voters to vote will undoubtedly significantly reduce turnout among the proposed new voters to levels more in keeping with the turnout in the rest of the population.

Besides, does not a ‘fair’ election require that no group of voters have a significant advantage in the opportunity to vote? In the interest of fairness and not conferring an advantage should not voting be equally inconvenient for all voting populations?

If someone cannot go 5 or 10 minutes out of their way to vote – do we really want them voting?

If the goal is to increase voter turnout might I make a suggestion? Instead of lowering the voting age or moving polls to convenient locations we might want to try a truly radical solution – giving voters something (someone) to vote for.

I keep myself informed on what is happening in BC, Canada and around the world; keep informed on what the issues are and the events effecting the issues; give thought to what information experience/history provides on the issues; think about the future and what actions we need to take.

I am a person engaged and prepared to give informed consent on how I want the city. the province and the country to be governed.

Unfortunately (for the province, country and world) I also have nothing and/or no one I want to cast my vote for.

Being interested and engaged in the issues of government and governance I often ‘talk politics’ with others who keep themselves informed who complain of being in the same position – being informed and engaged they also find they to have no one they consider deserving of their vote.

Those among this group who feel they have to vote, having nothing and no one to vote for, find themselves condemned to holding their noses and voting for the lesser of evils. Political discussion on the ‘Net and comments made to the media by voters suggest that a significant percentage of those who do vote in provincial or federal elections are confronted by the dilemma that if/when they vote they are not voting for the direction or the policies they want the province or country to be pursuing but either 1) voting to prevent something (i.e. a Conservative majority government) or 2) voting for the lesser of evils (i.e. a minority government).

I am old enough that I can remember when elections were about issues, not about spin, mudslinging, saying as little as possible and telling the voting public what it wants to hear.

On the flipside I can remember a time when voters applied thought to the policies and politicians they voted for – not just whether they hear (or think they hear) what they want to hear.

While giving the above collection of voters something to vote for would help to stop the decline in the percentage of voters, in order to significantly increase the number of voters it is necessary to re-enfranchise the more than 50% of voters who are currently disenfranchised.

Disenfranchised? What else would you call it when the votes of these voters have no effect on government behaviours and policies that impact their lives. When voting is pointless – you have seen that your vote makes no difference to what happens to you – why would you bother to vote?

Since the number of disenfranchised voters continues to grow every election, basic mathematics tells you that voter turnout will continue to decline every election.

Governments, politicians and pundits prefer to use the term apathy to explain the decrease in voter turnout. As in ‘the voters don’t vote because they are apathetic’, an explanation politicians, pundits and the public find more palatable than the harsh truth: that the majority of voters don’t vote because nobody speaks or will speak for them.

If you are wealthy, well to do, a businessman, a corporation etcetera – the BC Liberal party (Conservatives federally) will act to advance your interests.

If you are big labour/union or one of a number of special interest organizations/groups that contribute to the political interests of the NDP, the BC NDP (federal NDP) will act to advance your interests.

[The federal Liberals, due to a lack of leadership and ideas, have become the: ‘I don’t want a Conservative government; I don’t want a NDP government; that leaves the Liberals’ party.]

The majority of Canadians and BC residents have no party, no politician or candidate for office that will advance their interests.

Disenfranchise: 1. to deprive of the right to vote or other rights of citizenship 2. to deprive of the right to send representatives to an elected body 3. to deprive of some privilege or right 4. to deprive of any franchise or right.

Represent:: 1. to stand or act in the place of, as a substitute, proxy, or agent does; 2. to act for or in behalf of (a constituency) by deputed right in exercising a voice in legislation or government.

Politicians, pundits and the enfranchised public will no doubt deny this uncomfortable reality as the current state of affairs is to their advantage. Especially in light of the fact that if those who are currently disenfranchised and do not vote were to found a party and recruit candidates to represent them, the politicians, pundits and currently enfranchised public would suddenly find themselves suffering the consequences of their interests and needs being disregarded.

Clearly a situation politicians. pundits and the enfranchised public have no desire to find themselves in.

Think about it: when experienced politicians in the BC Liberal party addressed the question of increasing voter turnout they avoided addressing increasing turnout by re-engaging the non-voting voters and turned to finding new voters and that the NDP have shown no interest in addressing voter turnout.

The disenfranchised majority needs leadership and representation to emerge and give voice to their best interests.

For years I have watched as businesses, organizations and other assemblages in Abbotsford, some of which one would have expected more character or compassionate behaviour from, have erected fences and gates on doorways, stairways, walkways, overhangs or other locations were the homeless had sought shelter from the relentless rain of our rainforest/rain-coast weather.

I have listened as governments, politicians, businessmen, unions, churches and people have all spoken about the need to do something about homelessness and poverty – or more accurately the need for SOMEONE ELSE to do something; pointing fingers and declaring it was not their responsibility.

Listened as people and assemblages evoked ‘undeserving’ and other such rationalizations as excuses for turning away from the need for action; ignoring the truth that action or inaction is not about the people in need but about us – our character, the essences of our souls/spirituality, the very nature of the society we have chosen to build.

Watched Abbotsford politicians scramble to say the right words, utter the proper catch phrases and language, while failing to provide leadership on housing – all the while managing NOT to have any affordable rental housing built or even break ground while the communities around Abbotsford have been building affordable rental housing.

Heard ad nauseum from Abbotsford’s politicians that they have no money to invest in housing that poor and homeless citizens can afford to rent; yet these same politicians have $millions$ to spend to buy a professional hockey team for a local hotelier and other wealthy (and housed) citizens.

Watched the gnashing and gnarring of teeth as people, politicians et al wring their hands and denounce society as defective, deficient. As thought the ills of society have no connection to or do not result from the choices made, actions taken (and untaken) of people. Our society did not, does not, spring from a void or the choices and actions of some mysterious group of ‘others’.

Society is the consequence of the additive effect of the choices and actions we all make and or take. Leaving one pondering whether people will ever understand that our society will not improve until we as individuals begin to ‘Let it begin with me’.

Pondering whether poverty and homelessness and other social ills will continue to grow and worsen as people, politicians, businesses, organizations, other assemblages seek to blame others and avoid taking personal responsibility for their choices and actions and the consequences of those and actions – and inactions.

Still, today …

B is one of the homeless living on the streets of Abbotsford. He had been taking shelter under the overhang at a warehouse that had remained empty since it was completed, but which had recently been leased.

As part of managing the move into this new location P had become aware that B was living sheltered by the building and had spoken with B about his situation, the realities of B’s life.

There were no demands that B leave the shelter provided him by the building; no fences or gates to deny B access to the shelter provided by the building; no calls to city hall demanding the city, the police, remove B.

Instead P provided a home for B. Looking at it most people would see a garden shed; unless they looked through B’s eyes or the eyes of those who are or have been homeless. There is drainage, a solid floor, a roof and walls proof against wind, rain and snow that will keep bedding, clothing, other belongings as well as a body dry.

There was no declaration that it was not his responsibility; no screaming about the need for SOMEONE ELSE to do something; no pointing of fingers to assign blame; no wringing of hands about the need for a ‘solution’. P simply took action and provided shelter for B.

Homelessness, addiction, mental illness are people problems and as such they are complex and troublesome issues without fast, easy solutions; looking for a miracle, arguing about who is responsible – someone else – and waiting for someone else to do something allow these problems to grow.

There are numerous best practices that we know work to address various aspects of these social issues; we know that we can, over time, reduce the numbers of homeless, addicts and mentally ill on our streets.

If we commit to addressing these issues, commit to doing what it takes for however long it takes, we can deal with these issues.

The key is, as P did, not to dither but to act.