Yup.

"That government, no matter what its failures are in the past, and in times to come for that matter, that government can be a place where people come together and where no one gets left behind."

Not to flog a dead horse (honestly, that'll never happen here), but if local governance is a place where 'people come together', 'where no one gets left behind', then I have to ask what that process currently involves. 

By 'coming together', are we talking about something more than casting a ballot? Are we talking about having someone on Council who represents your ward? Are we talking about your Councillor being available for consult, for commiseration, for kvetching at the other end of the phone line, or via an email or letter? Do any of these possibilities seem reasonable variations on 'coming together'?

And by 'where no one gets left behind', can we offer up the same notions? 

I agree with the quote at the beginning of this editorial. But I'm just not so sure that in the main, we're executing democracy in a way that fully manifests its potential here in Hamilton. 

I believe that 'coming together' means more than voting, that it means more than somewhat-access to your representative. I believe that it means to have congress outside the legislative processs, with neighbours, with people from the same community, with fellow ward residents and most of all, with your Councillor...because without consultation, without collaboration with the very people Councillors are paid to represent, how can they effectively serve the public good?

Properly held town hall meetings provide the opportunities that allow for this 'coming together', that allow for 'no one to be left behind'. 

Shouldn't we be doing what we can to make things work as well as they can?