The Irrelevant Candidate
This blog is written mostly tongue in cheek. There may be something informative for you however. Please provide your feedback.
If you suffer from self-irrelevancy, please seek professional advice.
Hello. Well, my friend was not elected Monday. I was led to believe it was a 2-horse race, with my friend being one of the horses. However, my friend finished 4th, and the other "horse" finished 2nd out of 13 candidates. None of the 13 candidates was the incumbent, so it was a truly wide open ward.
My friend got over 1,000 votes, which I consider relevant. The question is, how low can a candidate's vote total be before a candidate can be considered irrelevant? As mentioned yesterday, a vote for someone is a vote against someone else. If a candidate gets even one vote, that voter is saying the candidate best represents what the voter wants to see in the next government. The candidate should get some deal of satisfaction from that result.
What if a candidate gets no votes? Is that candidate irrelevant? The person is never irrelevant, but the vision probably is this time. Again, maybe the vision is ahead of or behind its time. Many people thought the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth 600 years ago. Of course, those "old" answers have been proven incorrect.
All candidates should be looking at their results today and analyzing them indepth, especially the runaway winners. Then the elected ones should find out how they can get "Hazel McCallion numbers", and the defeated candidates should see where to go from here. If the defeated candidates are like me, they have learned a lot so far, and now have a priceless batch of new stats to look over.
Congrats to all candidates who ran in this election! And all the best in finding the relevant answers you're looking for.
Regards,
Irrelevant
If you suffer from self-irrelevancy, please seek professional advice.
Hello. Well, my friend was not elected Monday. I was led to believe it was a 2-horse race, with my friend being one of the horses. However, my friend finished 4th, and the other "horse" finished 2nd out of 13 candidates. None of the 13 candidates was the incumbent, so it was a truly wide open ward.
My friend got over 1,000 votes, which I consider relevant. The question is, how low can a candidate's vote total be before a candidate can be considered irrelevant? As mentioned yesterday, a vote for someone is a vote against someone else. If a candidate gets even one vote, that voter is saying the candidate best represents what the voter wants to see in the next government. The candidate should get some deal of satisfaction from that result.
What if a candidate gets no votes? Is that candidate irrelevant? The person is never irrelevant, but the vision probably is this time. Again, maybe the vision is ahead of or behind its time. Many people thought the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth 600 years ago. Of course, those "old" answers have been proven incorrect.
All candidates should be looking at their results today and analyzing them indepth, especially the runaway winners. Then the elected ones should find out how they can get "Hazel McCallion numbers", and the defeated candidates should see where to go from here. If the defeated candidates are like me, they have learned a lot so far, and now have a priceless batch of new stats to look over.
Congrats to all candidates who ran in this election! And all the best in finding the relevant answers you're looking for.
Regards,
Irrelevant
posted by Irrelevant at 1:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home