|
Edited on Sun Jan-08-06 12:22 PM by Pierre Trudeau
This particular election campaign is becoming a prime example of the increasing tendency for Canadians to feel obliged to vote "strategically" to achieve the desired electoral ends. As much as we wish otherwise, we approach voting like a game of Risk, anxious to make the right move, so that the pieces fall into place on the larger board. To be sure, not everyone does this, some people still resolutely vote for the party whose policies they like best, or the local candidate they think will best represent their riding, or the most titillating joke candidate, whatever you will. But for most of us, it's a combination of the above tempered with overwhelming strategic considerations. And sometimes those considerations compel us to cast our vote NOT for our preferred party or candidate, but rather to ensure that an undesirable and competitive candidate does not win.
Has it always been thus? If not, why is this more so the case nowadays?
Some would attribute the phenomenon to the fractured nature of Canada's electoral landscape, which is ultimately attributable to the disintegration of the old PC party in the late 1980s and 90s: first with the emergence of the Reform party in the west, and then with Lucien Bouchard's defection with a bunch of Quebec PC MPs to form the Bloc (which is why the notion of a Conservative-Bloc alliance is not entirely out of the question), and finally the utter destruction of the party after Mulroney slipped into the shadows leaving "silly sister" Kim Campbell holding the bag. Thus began the Chretien era, when majority governments were possible because the Liberals could still command seats in Quebec, and the right was divided between the Reform party (which remained strong) and the old PC party, which sputtered to a final brief resurgence under former PM and "Gentleman Tory" Joe Clark. But since the merger, most conservatives are united with the Calgary-centred CPC which has negligible presence in Quebec. Furthermore, Liberal support has evaporated in Quebec, with a rising Bloc poised to take more seats than ever, at the expense of the Liberals. Long gone are the days when Trudeau could sweep 74 of 75 seats in Quebec like in 1980... AND roundly thump Levesque in the referendum later the same year. In fact, the woes of the federal Liberal party in Quebec seemed to begin with Chretien's lackadaisical handling of another referendum, the near-defeat from which triggered the Sponshorship program and so forth. Ultimately, due to Mulroney and Chretien, the national parties have truly vanished from the map in Quebec, to paraphrase Duceppe. Consequently, the assurance of a minority parliament is foretold, which makes all of us pull out our slide rules and place (or hedge) our bets.
Another factor is that party loyalty is apparently, shall we say "soft" among Canadians. Unlike the fierce partisan loyalties that span generations in the United States, I suspect most of us are a little wary of all the parties, and our support could drift from one to another in a heartbeat. For instance, as my nickname implies, I confess to some Liberal identification, not unusual in someone who grew up in the Trudeau era (and of course, I was clearly relieved -- in fact delighted-- at the 1993 election results). But in practice, more often than not I have voted other than Liberal, say if I think the NDP candidate has a chance (like Olivia Chow in 1997 when I lived in Trinity-Spadina), or I want to make a protest vote or whatever. I have even flirted with voting for the Green party, and sometimes I do vote Liberal... in 2000 I voted for Charles Caccia, a veteran MP and former Trudeau minister who'd held the seat since 1968 and has since retired. I didn't vote for the new guy (Silva) though, choosing instead to go with the NDP which are the second strongest in the riding. They didn't win of course, the riding has been solidly Liberal for forty years at least. Maybe they have a better chance this time: the candidate is well-known local environmental expert Gord Perks, I've noticed a lot of NDP signs in the neighbourhood... inconclusive, but could even Liberal stronghold Davenport be "in play"??
At Ossington subway, Perks has a poster, the main gist of which is: "Scared of the Conservatives? You don't need to be, in Davenport riding. In 2004, the Conservatives only won 9% of the vote". For added emphasis, the poster includes a little pie chart. :) It concludes: "there are only two possible winners. This time, choose the NDP". Or something to that effect, I'm quoting from memory. But it becomes evident that even the parties and candidates themselves are gearing the thrust of their campaigning towards the "strategic voting" tendencies of citizens. The poster said nothing about any policy or anything beyond the fact that it was "safe" to vote for them due to the Cons' being a far-distant third.
The 2004 election was really shaped by the shifting currents of "strategic voting" trends. When the fear arose that a Conservative majority looked possible, hordes of votes flowed back to the Liberals which otherwise may have gone to other parties. There is a difference about the 2006 election, though, which is that everyone feels confident of a minority parliament outcome (in fact it's the one thing everyone can agree on). And when majorities are not an option, the calculations and voting intentions shift accordingly. The parties themselves are beginning to respond to this more: have you noticed the Conservatives recently seeding the idea of a Conservative-NDP coalition? They have explicitly (and warmly I might add) spoken of being happy to "work with" Jack and the NDP should they win, and thus, by extension, admitting that they can only expect to win a minority and are thus attuning their campaign to reflect that. No matter how much Layton attempts to dash cold water on this phastasm, the Cons lose nothing by gently repeating this meme. After all, such an unholy union seems somehow less incredulous than before. The Cons, loathe as I am to admit, have been very smart in this campaign (those doughnut-shop commercials aside), and subtly running for a minority could work in their favour for swing voters especially. Reminds me of that old Apple campaign, "Test-Drive a Harper Minority". I suspect a few eyebrows are being raised now, and the prospect of a Conservative-NDP partnership might tickle some of our fellow citizens in that uniquely-Canadian-perverse-sense-of-humour way.
It doesn't end there. While the CP can't personally encourage people to vote for other parties, their outside allies might "strategically" step in to float the concept. A note in yesterday's Globe & Mail Election Notebook marked "Strategic voting" as "hot" (as opposed to "not"). After a brief nod to Buzz Hargrove's unexpected pitch for the Liberals, it relates the remarkable news that Tasha Kheiriddin of the right-wing Canadian Taxpayer's Federation plans to vote for the NDP's Olivia Chow to unseat the Liberals in Trinity-Spadina. (!)
In other words, the Conservatives would be happy for everyone to vote NDP in those ridings they (the Cons) have no hope of winning, because every Liberal seat lost is a potential gain for them in the overall seat count. AND any NDP gains don't really hurt them either, since more and more they see Jack Layton as their patsy -- sorry did I say patsy? I meant potential partner in a future minority government. Not as a strange a choice as it seems: the Conservatives can hardly work with the Bloc, they wouldn't last too long, the "optics" are bad (though it's still possible, not to contradict what I said earlier); and a coalition with the Liberals, while also possible, would be embarrassing for Harper after his daily condemnation of them as the "evil" party. This leaves him with the NDP, which can at least be considered a national party (unlike the Bloc), and the need to collaborate with them to govern absolves Harper from having to kowtow too much to the social conservatives in his party, leaving him to focus on an economic agenda, restructuring confederation, or whatever other dastardly (or boring) plans he might harbour. Therefore, the campaign is beginning to dangle the previously unimaginable spectre of a magical minority left-right coalition that will result in a centrist government without the Liberals.
Too far-fetched, you say? Then tell me this: what do you envision if Harper does win the election, even by a sliver? He'll have to work with the others somehow, even just to get a budget passed. What are the ramifications of a conservative minority in the current political landscape?
None of this, I regret to add, is likely to benefit the NDP much. Even if they do pick up some seats, they're stuck with an uglier dance partner as a result. More likely, frightened at the prospect of a Conservative bounce, thousands of votes suddenly shift to the Liberal column, as in the days of yore. In which case, erm, I guess we're back where we started?
As a disclaimer, I am an expert at nothing. I just wanted to organize my musings about this matter of strategic voting, as it also seems to be on a lot of other people's minds, so feel free to add your thoughts on the matter here. G'day!
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(206 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
