A warning against the “spoiler vote”

Dear editor:

Many of us are excited with the activity and turnout of new candidates for the coming election. The talk is change and I think a lot of us want this and will vote for it, goodness knows we need it.

I share the same excitement in the hopes that some new councillors around the table may help bring some change and perhaps make those tough decisions for the better of the community instead of sitting idly.

I do also have concerns though, concerns about the coming mayoral race.

Most of us are aware that we have three Mayoral candidates — McKee, Raven and Brooks-Hill. I watched the mayoral forum online and was impressed with the “change” candidates and their passion for the community. Brooks-Hill was humorous and obviously passionate about our great town and its future. As much as Mr Brooks-Hill seems very likable and well intentioned the question is whether he can win as Mayor this time around?

His presentation made me think it would be great if he opted to run for councilor, being early in his political career. I think he would have some great input around that table and a likelihood of making an impact as well as a good chance of winning a seat.

As much as I appreciated his light approach to politics and some of his positions on subjects, I think he needs more experience to be our mayor; the council experience would be a great first step.

Here is the issue with Mr. Brooks-Hill running for mayor. It could do the exact opposite to what most of want, it could go against change and thus cement the status quo for yet another 4 years.

It is very important we all understand the impact of a Spoiler Vote Candidate. With no disrespect to Mr Brooks-Hill I don’t think he can win, not yet. I do believe the Mr. Raven has his followers and supporters and Mr. McKee with his past success as mayor has his as well. The mayoral race could be close between these two gentlemen. The problem lies with some votes going to Mr Brooks-Hill when they could perhaps go to another candidate. If those who want change decide they like Mr. Brooks-Hill, and see that he wants change as well then perhaps they will vote for him, vote for change?

Here is the problem, IF the vote is for change then you seemingly have two choices, McKee or Brooks-Hill.

But if 15% of the change vote goes to Brooks-Hill and McKee gets 40% of that change vote then Raven will end up with 45% of the votes. So potentially, the minority of the voting population will have voted for Raven, however he will still take the mayoral seat.

This, of course, will create the exact opposite outcome that the majority wanted and thus reinstate the status quo. Our change vote loses even though the majority voted for that change.

Again, I mean no disrespect to Mr. Brooks-Hill but those who are looking for change have to consider the best and most likely way to achieve it.

Brydon Roe
Revelstoke, BC