The next provincial election is some time away yet. I have been thinking about the next one and I have something for you to consider; a new voting strategy.
At election time, we always think that it is wise to elect the smartest person possible. After all, they are the kind of people who should make few mistakes and be able to make life better for each of us. They should work to implement programs that benefit the general population and help all prosper.
How is that working out for you? Are the people you send to Regina doing a good job? Do they solve problems and improve life in this province?
Or are they making poor choices and decisions? Do they make a genuine effort to avoid listening to your concerns? Do they stay awake at night scheming and plotting ways to get more of your money?
For instance, what normal elected person would come up with a budget plan to apply the PST to recreation, cultural activities and events, sporting events, memberships, curling fees, hockey games, swimming charges, golfing fees, movies, rodeos and visits to museums and historical sites?
Can you imagine the person you elected tell you that you are going to have to pay the 6% PST when you go the gym or go to a Rider game?
I will break this to you gently. That is the kind of person you DID elect.
Perhaps we need to change our thinking when it comes to electing a MLA representative. Instead of electing smart people, we should consider electing “unsmart people”. Would it be any worse? I doubt it. It would be worth a try.
So when you look at the list of candidates, you could vote for the one who is poorly educated, has no experience in public office, is a screw[1]up in life and is likely to stay away from you and not do harmful things. So when you mark your ballot at the next election, rank the candidates in terms of smartness and mark your X beside the person who has the poorest smartness score.
You have heard this statement before. What do you have to lose?
Jim Stangel
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the position of this publication.
