Fear v. Love

The air has a decidedly warmer feel to it, and despite the often heavy spring rains that April brings, one senses that summer is on its way.


One can smell change everywhere, and the current federal election is no exception.

Yours truly did scrutineer duties at a local advance poll, and even before the news media crowed about high turnout, the phenomenon was noticeable there. Some quipped that election day would be quiet as everyone had gone ahead and voted already.

High voter turnout. In an age of declining attendance, it does stick out like a sore thumb when it happens. The political scientists and aged campaign veterans will tell you that it means only one thing – a concerted will to turf the party in power.

In this world, anything is possible, but there is a difference between possibility and likelihood. Usually high turnout coincides with a series of polls over a period of time that telegraphs a spanking for the governing party. This time, however, the Tories have maintained an 8 to 14 point lead consistently during the campaign. Some polls are better than others (and yours truly follows one particular poll produced by a former colleague and personal friend) but even if the numbers are not identical, the relative position of each party and the overall trend appears to be consistent. The trend ceteris paribus leans to a particular scenario, of a Tory government straddling the 155 mark - a strong minority or a tenuous majority.

That, of course, fits with my earlier prognostication. What does not, however, is the recent positioning of Jack Layton’s New Democrats in the catbird seat.

Some random thoughts on the situation lend themselves to being teased out.

Conventional wisdom would contend that Jack Layton could become anything from Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition to Prime Minister. Clearly the trend, at first blush, left unabated would deliver such results.

Being a natural contrarian, I believe that regardless of what drove the turnout at the advance polls, that surprising result will almost assuredly guarantee a high turnout on May 2nd. Tories are so close to a majority that they can smell it, the New Democrats smell blood in the water, and the Liberals can look to the old adage that “nothing sharpens the mind like a hanging in the morning.”

The NDP support should, however, be taken with an enormous grain of iodine. Overall popular vote does not equal seats. In 1993 the Progressive Conservatives received over 2.1 million votes and got two seats for their trouble. Conversely, the Bloc garnered 54 seats on nearly 400,000 fewer votes. Votes count, but where they lie is just as important. While the NDP is showing growth in all regions, the lion’s share of the phenomenon is in Quebec, and at the expense of the Bloc.

Outside Quebec is more interesting. First, while young voters are excited by Layton and his team, anyone in Ontario or BC over a certain age remembers NDP provincial governments – and not necessarily with great fondness. People in Ontario over 35, politically motivated or not, remember what “Rae Days” were. Secondly, Layton’s commitment to open the Constitution may have put his Quebec candidates in the driver’s seat, but it may have also served to throw Ontario, Western and BC candidates under the bus.

One also has to consider that, like in physics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Surging NDP poll numbers plus record turnout at the advance polls equals a full court press from both Tories and Liberals. The Conservative message is that only a strong majority will act as an insurance policy against an NDP coalition, while the Liberals will argue that upping the NDP vote does nothing but place ridings in the hands of Stephen Harper.

The Liberals are, by the situation, the most disadvantaged. While fighting head-on with the NDP for the liberal-left of the spectrum, they must also convince their right-wing to hold fast and not defect to the Tories in order to guarantee that Jack Layton gets nowhere near the front door of 24 Sussex.

In this instance, we will learn next week what is a stronger phenomenon – the passionate idealism of young NDP supporters disenchanted with the other parties, or the cold-blooded fear of those who lost four years of their lives and property the last time a New Democrat government held sway in their part of the country.

If you believe Machiavelli’s dictum that “it is better to be feared than to be loved,” and you recognize the demographic profile of the likely Canadian voter, then expect the over-35 crowd to line up around the block in order to nullify every ‘vote mob’ organized on every college and university campus in the Dominion.

From the shore of Cole Lake right this moment, it seems likely that the three opposition parties may end up with roughly the same number of seats, and the Tories somewhat short of their majority target.

So, we’ll have a coalition, right?

Uh, no.

The assumption with the coalition scenario was that the Liberals would be the senior partner. Any distribution that makes the Liberals co-captains or second fiddle to the NDP would be DOA – after all, the only thing more important than the temporary leadership of the government would be the permanent leadership of the centre-left. Add to that the fact that the Liberal and NDP caucuses may still not equal the Tory contingent.

Make nice with the Bloc? Not likely. Kiss of death for federalists, and the Bloc would be hard pressed to play nice with a party that had just dropkicked half their MP’s to the unemployment line.

So, while yours truly is feeling punchy, let’s throw out something really off the wall. Lets assume that the Tories are a half-dozen short of a majority, and the NDP have taken over the number two spot. The Liberals will no doubt be reduced in many ways – in representation in the House, in hard cash, and most likely a leader. What remains of the Liberal caucus may be caught in a squeeze. Some left-leaning Grit MP’s might consider a move to the NDP. Conversely, some “Paul Martin” Liberals may decide that crossing the floor to shake hands with Stephen Harper is a small price to pay to stop a socialist future. What if ten Liberal MPs – who may be fiscally conservative, or pro-life, or anti-gun registry – decide to make that trip? What starts out as a minority could very well become a majority before the House adjourns for the summer.

Life, by its very character, is unpredictable. As much as politics excites and motivates, your truly can only tolerate the sudden twists and turns knowing that some things never change – like the lapping waves and cooling breezes by the shore of the lake.

Strategic Voting, or chopping down trees to save a forest?

When you live in a rural area, there is much relief from the vicissitudes of modern life. It allows you, when the moment comes, to become reflective. Far too often, we are busy dealing with the vagaries of now to pay attention to the longer term.


As we enter the home stretch of the election season, we hear the word ‘strategy’ batted about, in all number of occasions. Of course, there is the general strategy of running campaigns – either in targeting particular ridings and polls, and the finer nuances of messaging and communicating to the public.

Inevitably, though, the word gets used in a particular context – that of voting intentions.

Strategic voting, for those not in the know, is the conscious decision among voters to cast their ballot for their second choice candidate and party, all in the attempt to block the party and candidate that they really do not want.

It come from a judgment that your preferred choice doesn’t stand a ghost of winning, and that by voting for a less palatable alternative, you can help prevent an even more objectionable candidate from winning. The old ‘lesser of two evils’ paradigm.

It is a tactic, and a tool that, under the right circumstances, can give the desired result. For example, a Tory wins a riding by only a handful of votes over their Liberal rival. A group of NDP supporters switch their support to the Grits, and said Tory gets unseated. In a controlled environment, this experiment works somewhat well.

The problem with strategic voting is that it is a strategy borne of desperation – much like the Muslim commander Tariq ibn Ziyad who, once his forces landed in Spain, promptly put the torch to his own boats. No way back – only forward. The British and American armies used this tactic in the War of 1812 with squads called “forlorn hope”. They were cautioned that the chances of returning alive were negligible, and that the desperation of the moment dictated the strategy.

In many ways, strategic voting is the political equivalent of this. It is a move of desperation that carries as much risk as it does reward. It is the “Hail Mary” pass of political campaigning.

First, it only works if the numbers are right. What if Liberal plus NDP cannot equal victory? The serene shores of Cole Lake reside in a riding where, for the last three elections, the constituency has been carried with more than half the total ballots cast. Adding independents and folks from the Marijuana Party ain’t gonna turn the tide on that one.

Second, how do you coordinate it? Party members and campaign staff aside, over 95% of voters do not belong to a political party. How do you tell them that you want to do a pile-on? Will enough of them do it to make a difference? Perhaps too many do it, and your campaign is not weakened but outright obliterated.

Thirdly, how do you put out the message that you are prepared to lose on purpose? If you thought enough to field a candidate, but literature and print signs, then why wouldn’t you care enough to win? Voters would be right to ask why you are wasting their time if you were not serious to begin with.

Beyond that, even if the strategy accomplishes its stated goals, it comes with a heavy price.

One, local campaigns get rebated the lion’s share of their campaign expenses if, and only if, they attain at least 15% of the popular vote. What if, in pursuit of hobbling a potential winner, you ‘lend’ enough votes to another challenger to place your own campaign below the threshhold. You, my friend, will then suffer the indignity of being the only one not getting a cheque from Elections Canada that has four zeroes on it. Rest assured, come the next election, when you decide to play for keeps, you will understand what you sacrificed in order to achieve a short-term result.

Beyond that, there is also the matter of the $2.00 per vote per year that a party gets as a result of the support you give. This is the money that goes to party headquarters, to buy commercials, to rent planes, busses and hotel rooms, to hire staffers and run the cross-Canada ground game. Assuming that 1000 NDP’ers have decided to hold their nose and vote Liberal to stymie the Tories, over a four-year period, that equates to a loss of $8000 to the Federal NDP to fight the next campaign. Worse still, it is $8000 that goes to a party you don’t support, and only voted for in order to put the kybosh on the neo-Cons – which may, or may not actually work…You’re welcome.

Having said all of that, strategic voting is, like any strategy, a perfectly valid tactic and, under the right circumstances and in the right measure, have an impact. It is, however, a very tricky piece of equipment to operate. Not enough and nothing happens, while too much is tantamount to political hiri-kiri. You are guaranteed a certain degree of loss, and it is not always clear that what you gain will be adequate compensation for what you sacrifice.

There is, of course, the question of how committed a person is to a party, a platform, and a leader if they are prepared to throw them under the bus just for one desperate chance to be the fly in the ointment, but je degress.

Life, and nature, are eternal. The trees that border the lake have many rings. Some are wide and mark years of growth, while others narrow and show lean and challenging times. Nevertheless, the tree continues to exist while it has life and a purpose for being. Maybe some politicians should stop staring at forests and look at the trees within them.

Irresistable Force? Meet Immovable Object...

The farm has been sans hot water for a couple of days, and yours truly has been busy trying to recify the problem. The situation occupied the time from stepping in the front door to about 30 minutes into the Leaders' Debate.

Luckily, five minutes into my television viewing, and I was relieved to see that nothing of major import happened in my absence. Of course, nothing of major import happened in my presence either.

In my previous submission, I observed that political campaigns are not won with the seminal knockout flourish that gets chronicled in the textbooks for years to come. Rather, it is about 'skating a clean program' and not letting your derriere hit the ice. Clearly, three of the men at the podiums last night took this to heart, while the fourth, sensing that le debat en francais was the bigger deal essentially acted like a black hole - consuming both space and time and leaving nothing in its stead but empty darkness.

Harper skated a clean program. So did Ignatieff, and so did Layton. All played it safe and to the chest because, despite what they needed to gain, all recognized their vulnerabilities and what they stood to lose. It was the rhetorical equivalent of a reflexive grabbing of the privates when one sees a low flying pitch in the basement of the strike zone.

Of course, this does not mean that there could have been a winner. Unfortunately, the recipe for winning a debate is to have someone lose. Again, you can't guarantee a win by skating clean - you have to skate clean and hope that your opponent's toe pick turns a graceful pirouette into a death spiral worthy of a dogfight scene in a World War II biopic. Winning is not about being the best. It is about being the least worst.

Consider, then, three skaters all doing a safe program, and nobody falling down. The irresistable object meets the immovable force. The smoke clears and nothing changes.

Michael Ignatieff did what he had to do, but to complete the deal he needed Stephen Harper to screw up. Didn't happen.

Harper was 'Prime Ministerial', but he needed to show up Ignatieff. Also didn't happen.

Jack Layton, despite his bravado about becoming Prime Minister, was out to best Michael Ignatieff. Here we have the closest to what would be considered a success. Two barbs - one on attendance, and the other about the Liberals being a figurative 'crutch' to the government, while brandishing his cane (a far better use of onstage props than the piece of paper Stockwell Day used back in the 1990's). Unfortunately, saving your ammo for the last five minutes of a two hour debate might leave some lasting impressions, but it came too late in the game to count substantively.

In the end, if this debate were a horserace, the folks at Woodbine would still be reviewing the finish line photo.

So, what's the result of this?

If you leaned Tory before the debate, you are probably ready to consumate the deal. Ditto if you leaned Liberal or NDP. I suspect that the poll numbers will not have changed much. Indeed, the consequence of this whole performance is that the three are largely locked in. They have entered a part of the track too narrow for anyone to pass.

Between now and election day, only two things can alter the trajectory of the race not finishing as it stands today - the french language debate, and the final week of the campaign when undecideds typically make a commitment to fish or cut bait.

The Holy Grail for the Tories is 155. I predicted either 3 over or 3 short of this number. Nothing thus far has changed my mind.

Now, if you will excuse me, I need to boil some water.