Over the past few days, I have been stewing over decisions made by people holding office that were elected to represent me.
The following reasoning is the result of that stew. The outcome (rational decision) on any subject made by two or more people will be the same given the following:
1. Each person possesses the grey matter required to make a rational decision.
2. The information on the subject, each person has is the same.
3. The value system, each person holds is the same. So when a person holding elected office makes a decision that I would not have made, one or more of the conditions above is not satisfied.
Given that I have No. 1 satisfied; when I am voting, it is my responsibility to ensure that the candidate I vote for also has No. 1 satisfied. A little probing to check on “behavior patterns” and “decision processes” of the candidate is warranted.
It is also my responsibility to ensure that the candidate I vote for has No. 3 satisfied. Direct conversation with the candidate and platform checks should be done.
No. 2 is more of a shared responsibility; but, it is expected that the candidate will “come clean” with the information they hold when asked, or better still offer up what they know on controversial topics.
Doesn’t it make you wonder “what’s up” when an elected councillor says he would side with “water slides” in Skaha Park. If there is information he has that would make me change my opposite stance (rational decision) let’s hear it. If not, I don’t care if he is failing in No 1 or No. 3, he won’t get my vote next election.