Nana AndohHere in Canada, polling stations have traditionally been somewhat difficult to get to. I, like so many others, almost always go to the early polls, both due to line length and ease of finding them. Elections Canada has a webpage dedicated to teaching people how to vote, and that somewhat mitigates the problem — but what about when finding your poll station isn’t the only issue?
Though voter turnout rates have been steadily increasing, disadvantaged and impoverished people are far more likely to be unable to vote due to an inability to get to the polls, book off work, find a babysitter, or any number of other reasons.
This brings us to our main issue: Edmonton City Council voted “no” to providing free public transit on the election date. Twitter account Aaron Paquette and other users live tweeted the incident with disappointment and outrage:
Paquette, who is a city councillor, proposed the free fares last week after a similar model used by Lethbridge. If Lethbridge can afford to provide free transit, why can’t Edmonton?
The potential cost of one lost day of revenue is $146,500. To give you an idea of the kinds of things the city would rather spend money on, they have spent over $2000 this year alone on refreshments for budget meetings. Additionally, the mayor receives over $1200 per month just in vehicle expenses, on top of his $200 thousand salary.
Of course, these aren’t the only instances of frivolous spending, but I can’t help but wonder why council is so okay with spending $2000 on pop while they almost unanimously reject an investment into our voters, and as such, into our future.
The city should have been able to give up one day of transit service to the public, especially for something as momentous as a federal election. There should’ve been no question as to what they would do when Paquette proposed the fares — but there was. Once again, money has trumped logic.
This is not to say that there weren’t members of council voting in favour of free transit, but Paquette was one of only three.
Evidently, the ability of poor people to vote was not prevalent in the councillors’ minds when they made this decision. People who can’t afford to pay for transit should still be able to vote. And this rejection will only affect poor people; middle and upper class voters will have either their own car, or the means to pay for public transportation regardless.
Free transit on election day should be standard. It’s ridiculous that it was even debated, let alone rejected by city council. This vote disproportionately affects the impoverished, and is neither democratic nor just. If the city council wants to demonstrate how much they care about their constituents, they should reverse this vote, and provide everyone with equal opportunity to exercise their right to vote.
