[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I already tried engaging but then some old guys who complain about people dogpiling decided they would do the exact same thing and pretend it was different.

That said, I’m not sure I understand your question. You want me to explain why they should review something without talking about the benefits of making the change they would be reviewing? lol.

I guess the easiest answer is that, far beyond this issue, the people we elect to government should always be reviewing things and looking at ways to improve and protect our lives and our democracy. They don’t need justification for doing so, that should literally be the expectation. I’m not electing someone because I want them to be the best at sending emails, nor do I want them to wait until a problem is out of control before they do anything. Politicians should be proactively looking at ways to improve life for everyone. You disagree and think they need more justification for reviewing or exploring something that some other countries/cities/whatever do better? Cool, then we agree to disagree.

On a municipal level especially, there’s really justification for leaving it the way it is outside of “that’s the way it is,” and the justification for at least exploring it is that these people live here like the rest of us and should have representation, too. I don’t believe there’s any value in putting these people in a lower class. They’d be helping elect a city councillor in the city they live and pay property taxes in, not the Prime Minister. We have a councillor who plays golf all day and another that assaulted a girl, and we’re pretending there’s anything special and Canadian about the people that voted them in? lol.

This isn't the correct group of politicians to be looking at this though.