It did occur to me, actually, that requiring candidates to be accountable—excuse me: contactable; same thing, I guess, at a certain level—is in the interest of the candidate themselves. An example might be that if a candidates sign appears to breach local bylaws and they could be challenged on that, they might be given the opportunity, if they can be contacted, to make it compliant in some way—perhaps move it a bit down the road—rather than having it knocked down or removed by the council, let alone people who think that it's a good idea to damage and deface signs. I don't think we should have any sympathy with that kind of lawlessness, vigilante action, etc. I don't have much patience with the idea that electors need the information about where a person lives because an accountable candidate is one who has nothing to hide. I think we've got to be careful about equating accountability with the idea that that means that some person's got to somehow be out there and be available for abuse of a physical or other nature. 