Hold your head up and vote for me

Rick Salutin starts off by asking a very important question:

One of the abiding mysteries of Canadian politics is how the NDP manages not to succeed. I say this because it seems to me they represent exactly what mainstream Canadian political culture has come to be about. What is that? It's mild social democracy — a strong central government with a positive role in social programs, balancing regional and other inequities etc. — all the things Paul Martin proclaims as his vision when he's running for office, and which the NDP can only make him deliver under the severe duress of a minority Parliament...

(W)hat I don't see is why voters were...reluctant to move toward Jack Layton's NDP. The NDP has always whined about how the Liberals stole its program and its rightful place in the political landscape. With the Liberals largely nullifying themselves, why couldn't the NDP reclaim that place? Why don't voters move toward them, at least in part?

Unfortunately, to the extent that Salutin tries to answer the question, he couldn't be any further from the mark:

Is a big part of the problem Jack Layton's leadership? Sure. Even as a new face, with lots of media slack cut for him, he couldn't bring the party up to the low level required to form a coalition with the Liberals and make some demands. He probably acted as a drag and cost seats. He made some real gains for Canadians when he struck his budget deal with Paul Martin. Then he opted to help bring down the government, perhaps losing whatever credits he acquired for actually acting to improve our society...

What would I like to hear Jack Layton say when he sums up at the end of next week's debates? How about: Hold your nose and vote for me.

Needless to say, Salutin couldn't be much further off base - both in blaming the NDP's problems on Canada's most trusted leader, and in claiming the party should change its message to one that makes the Dippers sound no more principled than the Libs or Cons. But let's go back to the initial question for a moment.

By any objective standard, the NDP's campaign so far should be a roaring success. The NDP is the only major federal party to have avoided both major gaffes and internal controversies during the campaign. The party has stayed on message and released a solid platform which has never really been questioned. The NDP was the source of the campaign's most-acclaimed ad, and also contributed the best humourous addition so far. And when asked about the New Democrats, voters see the party both as deserving of more seats, and as no less viable as a government than the Cons or the Libs.

So what's missing? The obvious problem is a lack of exposure during the campaign as a whole. While the NDP has done well when it's managed to get its voice heard, there's been a strong tendency for the media to report on the NDP as at best an afterthought. When the NDP gets a relatively equal stage (such as during the days surrounding the debates), its poll numbers rise; when the race gets pitched as Lib versus Con for weeks at a time, the numbers drop.

That's not so much an issue for those actively seeking out content, as the dedicated election pages have generally covered the parties fairly equally. But looking at a typical polling headline, would a Canadian voter have the slightest clue whether the NDP was gaining or losing ground at any point during the election? Or even that the NDP was running?

In turn, the lack of coverage naturally leads voters to worry about the danger of "wasting" a vote on the NDP compared to the Libs or Cons. I'll cover the different ways in which a principled vote is anything but a waste even if it doesn't elect a candidate later on. But for now, suffice it to say that strategic voting is obviously alive and well, and that there's far too much danger of a 2004-like stampede at the end of the campaign.

So what can be done? To briefly agree once again with Salutin, there most certainly isn't an easy answer as to how to change things - particularly from the NDP's standpoint, since so many of the factors shaping the race (particularly the media's coverage and the other parties' angles) are inherently out of the Dippers' hands. Part of the answer must be for Layton to make sure his voice gets heard in the campaign...which may necessitate a few more attacks and a few less policy announcements. (Sadly, it does sell...and if it's going to happen, better to be able to have the trust of the voters onside when they have to decide which attacks to believe.)

But the bigger issue has to be to highlight the gap between what Canadians think and how the race has been covered...and to point out that it's only by proving wrong the media's perception of a two-horse race that voters can actually cause meaningful change in the long term.

Voters know they can support the NDP without having to hold their noses, and Layton most certainly shouldn't do anything to change that fact. The key instead is to make sure voters know that the most pleasant choice at the ballot box will also lead to a better-smelling political scene in the long run - based on both a voter's own choice, and based on the number of voters willing to turn a stampede the NDP's way if the polls reflect the desire for a cleaner system.