Searching for info on “Radu Popescu” proved rather difficult. Though I found a LinkedIn page of a Radu Daniel Popescu in Toronto, and his business RDP Sports Management, finding any info connecting RDP to a mayoralty candidacy proved impossible. Still, according to preliminary results, (1767 polls out of 1637 and 838802 votes,) Radu Popescu received 213 vs Michael Nicula’s 126 – almost two times more! 213 is probably the Romanian vote – people who will vote with any candidate who sounds Romanian and it’s probably close to the maximum any Romanian name will get [if it’s the only one].
Michael Nicula, on the other hand, had a more or less clever website, a Twitter account, a Facebook page, 3 phone numbers and listed even his regular address, but gave up just before the election, announcing he would not be voting. The Romanian expression is “he drowned like the Gypsy on the shore.”
To run in the election for Mayor, one has only to register with $200 and complete a form. Michael Nicula went a few steps further: apart from his aforementioned strong social media presence, he went to a few debates and gave a few interviews (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). He wasn’t a complete novice either: he had founded a Federal party, PACT. Yet he either underestimated the effort that must go into getting elected (financial and otherwise) or got cold feet along the way. This is more embarrassing than not running at all.
I have Masters degree in Architecture and Urban Planning, and Executive MBA, and I am a Chartered Professional Accountant. I own a small business specialized in Human Resources Information Systems, familiar with Public Sector Unions and compensation issues. I made an effort to put together a Platform that addresses the main issues of the election in a very serious manner. I requested most debate organizers to include me in their list but I was denied in most cases.
Most importantly, Mr Nicula failed to understand that the “rags to riches” way of getting elected as a Mayor of Toronto is to have been a City Councillor (“alderman”) first.
I happen to share his contempt for campaign financing rules, yet his solutions are bizarre and logically inconsistent.
I do understand the reasons why some candidates are being excluded from debates. Many of them are not serious; they don't have a platform, tend to create disturbances, present themselves poorly or in an erratic manner. I wish there was a selection process for candidates something that would not be undemocratic, but unfortunately those candidates who don't have media connections or a million dollars to spend but have the qualifications and a coherent platform to present, are treated the same way Sketchy the Clown is treated.
His good bye message is grammatically challenged (my emphasis added).
The only thing I can do is to abstain from the vote. I refuse to legitimize this undemocratic system by participating in it. I am doing this as a form of protest. Recently people of Hong Kong took the streets to protest against an undemocratic process. If anyone tries to protest in the streets here in Canada, would be considered a foul. We Canadians believe we have the best electoral system and democracy there is - and maybe we do, but it has it's own major flaws.
The most likely winner at this time, John Tory, has been trying for decades to get elected, always failing. He spent millions of his own money on his attempts and it’s the first time he managed to cross the finish line [victoriously]. Nicula’s ambition was empty and sadly, his solutions to the problem of the poor, unknown but “educated” candidate isare idiosyncratic.
LE: Mr Nicula commented on this article, but his comment didn't make it in Disqus, making it, unfortunately, invisible on the main site. Here it is:
Merci pt 'atentie'. Am explicat in Huffington Post de ce am renuntat:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/michael-d-nicula/ontario-election_b_6051702.html
Citat celebru: democratia e un mecanism care asigura ca oamenii sa aiba liderii pe care ii merita. Timp de 4 ani l-am avut primar pe un individ care abia a terminat liceul si s-a comportat ca un vagabond de cartier. Urmeaza John Tory pe care l-am intilnit personal in mai multe ocazii (la citeva dezbateri low-key unde am fost invitat si eu) si pot sa spun ca va fi mai rau.. Tory are o gramada de 'donatii' de platit 'indarat'.
Am atasat poze cu scrisori de refuz, asa de amuzament.
(citeva poze nu s-au incarcat din cauza marimii cred).
Hai la multi ani.
Posted by Michael Nicula, CPA, MBA on Monday, 27 October 2014 23:55:00 GMT-4
In all fairness, some small spelling mistakes at the end of a frustrating campaign that took quite a bit of resources are understandable – I just corrected a few of my own. His website does indeed have highlighted cut-outs from rejection letters of debate organizers; my criticism is that these were to be expected and his suggestion for an “exam” for candidates is unworkable. I wrote more on this in Liberté, Égalité, Vaseline.
Sources / More info: li-popescu, torontoist-results, mayor4.to
Merci pt 'atentie'. Am explicat in Huffington Post de ce am renuntat:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/michael-d-nicula/ontario-election_b_6051702.html
Citat celebru: democratia e un mecanism care asigura ca oamenii sa aiba liderii pe care ii merita. Timp de 4 ani l-am avut primar pe un individ care abia a terminat liceul si s-a comportat ca un vagabond de cartier. Urmeaza John Tory pe care l-am intilnit personal in mai multe ocazii (la citeva dezbateri low-key unde am fost invitat si eu) si pot sa spun ca va fi mai rau.. Tory are o gramada de 'donatii' de platit 'indarat'.
Am atasat poze cu scrisori de refuz, asa de amuzament.
(citeva poze nu s-au incarcat din cauza marimii cred).
Hai la multi ani.
Ouch.. I can take criticism - thanks for making an effort to read.
ReplyDeleteAnd thanks for the corrections; you caught some (foul - fool; it's - its) but missed others (donors' base). I wrote the entire article in 15 minutes and I don't think it's too bad. Huff Post has a spelling check function but not a grammar check one. Not to mention that Huff Post editors proofread draft posts and they did not catch these ones either.
Since you brought it up; if I were you I would mind my own writing before criticizing others'. City Counsellor? Mr. Necula? Is my last name so hard that even my compatriots have to misspell it? I've changed my first name 'Mihai' - 'Michael' (just for the political scene) but some Anglophones keep spelling it 'Micheal'. Arrgghh.
There aren't 3 phone numbers listed in my Candidate profile; it's the same number. Your translation of 'ca tiganul la mal' as 'like a Gipsy on the shore' might not be entirely correct.. I'd say 'at the shore'. You get my point; if you live in a glass house, don't throw stones.
I did not propose an exam for Candidates - not sure where you got that idea. I said 'I wish there was something that wasn't undemocratic'. An exam would be undemocratic, elitist.. I did not propose a solution to the candidate selection issue, because I don't have one. I suggested a few times that media and debate organizers should consider those ~10 candidates who made an effort to put together a platform - I believe they earned their right to be heard, as opposed to those who just put their name on the ballot.
As it stands, the system is democratic when it comes to entering an electoral race, but it quickly becomes very undemocratic. That's all.
I spent countless hours writing e-mails, calling media and debate organizers, researching and writing platform ideas. I wrote more than Tory, Chow and Ford together (they have armies of paid and unpaid volunteers who write their stuff).
You saw the rejection letters (and those are just a few). It was only a logical conclusion that the society has made its mind and decided to ignore all candidates but the top 3. So what was I supposed to do? I also have to make a living, unlike the top candidates who had nothing else to do.
Now let me ask you: what have you done for this election? Can you name 5 candidates other than the top 3? Can you tell their platforms' highlights?
Then you've cast an informed vote - congrats. I chose to abstain as a form of protest - it is my democratic right. I am not lazy; I would have voted otherwise.
Regards,
Mihai Nicula
The point of this article was not to criticize you or your article, so there's no need to get defensive. Also, I had already mentioned in the closing of my article, before you commented again, that your own mistakes are understandable. I am trying to understand what were your goals and expectations when you started to run and I still cannot figure it out. Still, thank you for pointing out my mistakes.
ReplyDelete1. "Necula" - you're right, out of 8 or so occurrences, 2 were spelled wrong. I corrected it as a courtesy to your sensibilities, since the wrong spelling might reoccur in the future during searches.
2. Counsellor - corrected
3. "on" instead of "at" was intentional. Even though not a word-by-word translation, the expression is more evocative to me this way.
Thank you for clarifying what you meant with "I wish there was a selection process for candidates" but I still don't see that working. This is the conversation I would rather have with you on this blog, especially from the point of view of the upcoming Romanian elections.
Other questions of relevance:
a) What would you do differently (if anything) if you were to run again?
b) Were your original goals to simply gain exposure for your business or federal party, or did you actually think you have a shot?
c) Why do you think candidates who put far less effort into their candidacy got more votes?
d) Of other "long-shot candidates", were you impressed by any other in particular?
e) Do you have any other ideas for improving the campaign rules?
f) What are your thoughts on campaign finance reform (not just for Mayoralty, but for other elections as well)?
We can talk about what I have done for the Toronto elections at t.zamo.ca - that's my Toronto blog (sadly, even less updated than this one).
The comment was previously "lost" to the moderation queue due to the link inside; I approved it when I found it.
ReplyDelete