The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

6- The Oakville Beaver Weekend, Saturday October 6, 2007 www.oakvillebeaver.com The Oakville Beaver 467 Speers Rd., Oakville Ont. L6K 3S4 (905) 845-3824 Fax: 337-5567 Classified Advertising: 845-3824, ext. 224 Circulation: 845-9742 The Oakville Beaver is a member of the Ontario Press Council. The council is located at 80 Gould St., Suite 206, Toronto, Ont., M5B 2M7. Phone (416) 340-1981. Advertising is accepted on the condition that, in the event of a typographical error, that portion of advertising space occupied by the erroneous item, together with a reasonable allowance for signature, will not be charged for, but the balance of the advertisement will be paid for at the applicable rate.The publisher reserves the right to categorize advertisements or decline. Editorial and advertising content of the Oakville Beaver is protected by copyright. Unauthorized use is prohibited. Commentary Guest Columnist NEIL OLIVER Publisher JILL DAVIS Editor in Chief ROD JERRED Managing Editor DANIEL BAIRD Advertising Director RIZIERO VERTOLLI Photography Director SANDY PARE Business Manager MARK DILLS Director of Production Metroland Media Group Ltd. includes: Ajax/Pickering News Advertiser, Alliston Herald/Courier, Arthur Enterprise News, Barrie Advance, Caledon Enterprise, Brampton Guardian, Burlington Post, Burlington Shopping News, City Parent, Collingwood/Wasaga Connection, East York Mirror, Erin Advocate/Country Routes, Etobicoke Guardian, Flamborough Review, Georgetown Independent/Acton Free Press, Harriston Review, Huronia Business Times, Lindsay This Week, Markham Economist & Sun, Midland/Penetanguishine Mirror, Milton Canadian Champion, Milton Shopping News, MANUEL GARCIA Production Manager CHARLENE HALL Director of Distribution ALEXANDRIA CALHOUN Circ. Manager WEBSITE oakvillebeaver.com The Oakville Beaver is a division of IAN OLIVER Group Publisher How do you meet 39 candidates? Rod Jerred Rod Jerred, Oakville Beaver Managing Editor Media Group Ltd. Mississauga Business Times, Mississauga News, Napanee Guide, Newmarket/Aurora Era-Banner, Northumberland News, North York Mirror, Oakville Beaver, Oakville Shopping News, Oldtimers Hockey News, Orillia Today, Oshawa/Whitby/Clarington Port Perry This Week, Owen Sound Tribune, Palmerston Observer, Peterborough This Week, Picton County Guide, Richmond Hill/Thornhill/Vaughan Liberal, Scarborough Mirror, Stouffville/Uxbridge Tribune, Forever Young, City of York Guardian RECOGNIZED FOR EXCELLENCE BY: Ontario Community Newspapers Association Canadian Community Newspapers Association Suburban Newspapers of America THE OAKVILLE BEAVER IS PROUD OFFICIAL MEDIA SPONSOR FOR: F United Way of Oakville TV AUCTION irst Past the Post or Mixed Member Proportion (MMP)? It's a question many people will be asking themselves when they cast their ballots on election day, Wednesday, Oct. 10. Over the past few weeks, I have been reading several articles and letters about the pros and cons of both systems, but I have read very little about how the next election would be run, if we did opt for MMP. I am not talking about how the 39 listed members would be selected by their respective parties -- each party will have to decide whether it will pick the candidates at a convention or have the party leader prepare a list -- but what happens afterwards. Granted a convention could generate some interest in the 39 listed candidates from each party -- assuming the party has enough members to hold a convention and field 39 candidates. How do we -- the electorate -- get to meet these 39 listed candidates to judge them? How do we determine their abilities, integrity, intelligence, compassion and whatever else voters look for in a candidate before casting their ballots on election night? Or are we just supposed to base the second vote for the party on the party platform regardless of who that winds up putting in office? Will the top four or five list candidates campaign around the province from riding to riding in a bus similar to the various party leaders during the election? It hardly seems necessary for all 39 list candidates to hop on the bus, since no one has seriously suggested a scenario where all 39 listed candidates would be selected from the party vote. For all its pitfalls and shortcomings, one thing about the current voting system is individual voters have many opportunities to meet the individual candidates and judge their character for themselves. The candidates want to meet as many voters as possible and do so through several methods, including knocking on doors. In addition, voters have several opportunities to see the candidates in action at all-candidates debates during the election campaign. In Oakville, for instance, numerous groups from the Chamber of Commerce to Sexual Assault & Violence Intervention Services of Halton (SAVIS) have organized debates. These have allowed voters to see their candidates in action, in person and have provided opportunities to meet with them afterwards. If voters missed the meetings, media organizations such as ourselves have provided accounts of these meetings. If voters make the effort, they should be able to meet the individual candidates prior to casting their ballots on election day. To me, this is important. So how would I personally meet the 39 listed candidates of each party under an MMP system? Is it even possible? Would I be asking myself, "Who are these people?" That's something everyone should ask themselves before voting on the referendum on Wednesday. All that's hyped, hapless and hilarious on the tube this season E ach year around this time readers instinctively turn to me to guide them through the maze of oftentimes unoriginal, idiotic and inane offerings that is the new fall television schedule because (a) they believe me to be an arbiter and an expert on all things television (b) they think that I have no life. And, of course, only someone with no life could possibly take the time to sift through this massive rubble, and resist the temptation to turn off the TV and pick up a good book. Now, I'm not claiming to have watched every new show. That would be sad and pathetic. But I have viewed more than my fair share. And what do I make of the current crop? Way too many oysters and not nearly enough pearls. Here's the lowdown. Two of the season's most hyped shows ­ Gossip Girl and Chuck -- spring from the same source: Josh Schwartz, the wunderkind creator of The OC. Chuck is a one-hour I-don't-know-what. It features a bit of drama, a bit of comedy, some sci-fi, and cool car chases and martial arts fight scenes. The basic convoluted premise is that computer-geek Chuck unwittingly downloads government secrets into his brain and is thereafter the target of every whacko desirous of such secrets. When it works, Chuck is solid entertainment. When it doesn't, as one critic noted, it "feels like the A-Team", and "that's not a good thing, even if you're retro." Gossip Girl, conversely, always works. This show is decadent. It's an hour of escapism. It's east-coast OC, set in a private school in Manhattan, in a teen-world of affluence, self-absorption and angst. And because Schwartz is the creator, it has a great soundtrack. Pushing Daisies is another show critics are falling over. It's weird and whacky. Andy Juniper The lead character can bring dead people back to life with his touch (although a second touch makes them dead again, this time for good). Imaginative, beautifully filmed with enticingly and quirky characters, Pushing Daisies -- like Friday Night Lights-- is too good for TV. I give it a month before the plug gets pulled. Dirty Sexy Money is a mediocre show that might morph into a very good show if ABC gives it time to find its legs. It's about family and money and morality and has a notable cast that includes Donald Sutherland, Jilly Clayburgh, William Baldwin and Peter Krause (Six Feet Under), for whom my wife would walk barefoot over shards of glass and hot coals just to see! As close to a "sure thing" as there can be on network televi- sion, Back to You sees the return of Kelsey Grammer (Frasier) and Patricia Heaton (Everybody Loves Raymond) to sitcom land in a show with pedigree; it's directed by James Burrows, one of the creators of Cheers. It ain't innovative, but it is funny. Speaking of pedigree, Private Practice is a spin-off of the wildly successful Grey's Anatomy. From my armchair, both shows are in grave danger: not of being axed, but, worse, of becoming incurably lame. Grey's has devolved into one-hour close-ups of Meredith Grey's long, sad face. And Private Practice is one long hour of trying to decipher a lead character who routinely wavers between being a neonatal surgeon and a neonatal nut. For my money, the best show on the tube remains Denis Leary's Rescue Me, with Friday Night Lights a close second. My pick for worst show is up for grabs with innumerable shows in contention. Every so often I turn on the TV and am instantly engaged, occasionally even blown away. Then there are times when I sit distracted with a Groucho Marx riff repeating in my head: "I find television very educating -- every time somebody turns on the set, I go into the other room and read a book." Andy Juniper can be visited at his Web site, www.strangledeggs.com, or contacted at ajuniper@strangledeggs.com.