Support and illumination

David Moscrop laments the role of opinion polls in shaping political events - and there's certainly reason for caution in presuming that immediate polls will have a lasting effect. But I'll argue that at least as politics are now covered, polls in fact serve as an important check on the tendency of campaign coverage to become completely detached from the views of the public.

After all, the same citizens whose votes determine the outcome of a campaign are generally expected to follow that campaign with varying levels of care through media intermediaries. And I discussed the problem with the direct impact of media here, as the most subtle of campaign narratives - whether or not they're generated deliberately or based on facts - can swing enough votes to change the outcome of an election.

It's certainly fair to point out that polls can help to shape those narratives. And the effect can run in both directions: just as they can offer a signal as to which parties are viably positioned to offer an alternative government (as happened for the Alberta NDP in this month's election), they can also offer a warning that the public may wish to reconsider a trend (as arguably happened for the Wildrose Party in 2012).

But that serves only as a side effect of polling rather than a primary purpose. At their core, polls are the basic evidence-based means of measuring public opinion - which seems like rather an important factor in talking about how the public will choose to be governed.

With that in mind, let's ask this question: what's the alternative to paying attention to polls as a means of assessing where parties stand, for the purpose of both strategic voting (as identified by Moscrop) and merely talking about the progress of a campaign?

While it's easy to find elections where polls have come under fire for failing to reflect outcomes (see the UK's recent vote or Alberta's 2012 election), omitting them from election coverage won't stop pundits from offering their own prognostications - which at best reflect an unstated set of personal biases and assumptions, and at worst are downright intended to shape the campaign narrative to favour one party. And this month's Alberta vote reflects an obvious example where the polls told a far more accurate story than the insiders.

Which leads to this question: would Alberta have been better served by not knowing that enough voters were receptive to an NDP government to create the potential for change?

Before answering "yes", it's well worth questioning the alternative of having campaign narratives shaped entirely by the people who are able to spin stories in the absence of evidence - and not at all by the public whose interest is intended to be served by the election.

Of course, one might validly point out that we'd be better off with a radically different form of campaign coverage which focuses far more party platforms and values, and far less on spin from all directions. But until we've taken some giant leaps in that direction, we're best off treating polling as a check to test whether narratives match public opinion - not as a problem to be eradicated in favour of even more air time for evidence-free speculation.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Andrew Jackson argues that contrary to the attempt of the Ecofiscal Commission to impose right-wing values like tax slashing and devolution on any action to deal with climate change, we in fact need the federal government to take a lead role:

While it is sensible in the current political context that provinces not wait for federal leadership, this does not mean those pushing for climate action should lessen our pressure on the federal government to lead. At a minimum, the federal government should be requiring all of the provinces to take some modest first steps to reduce emissions through carbon pricing along the lines set by BC and Quebec, perhaps soon to be followed by Ontario.

The Commission is right to point out that the emissions profiles of the provinces are very different, and that we would be wise to avoid levying carbon taxes in such a way as to set the stage for large transfers of fiscal resources between provinces. But it would be quite possible, as the report notes, to set a national minimum price on carbon that gives the provinces access to most of the revenue to fund their own climate change priorities.

The Commission’s report further notes that it would be “desirable” for the federal government to co-ordinate future provincial carbon pricing policies to ensure that businesses operate on a more or less level playing field. It could have added that there is a need for federal leadership in developing clean technologies and renewable energy generation and conservation programs, all of which have to be funded.

The clear failure of the Harper government to deal with climate change is no reason to give up on federal leadership writ large.

- Meanwhile, Ben Adler points out there's no reason to think that building new pipelines will reduce the risk of train explosions - particularly when the same people pushing for the pipelines are the same ones demanding lax standards for oil-transporting trains. And North Shore News writes that the English Bay fuel spill is as much a black mark on the Cons and the B.C. Libs as on the growing affected area.

- Patrick Caldwell highlights how cuts to tax collection agencies serve to undermine the public good on multiple levels - first by making them more difficult to deal with, then by reducing public revenues. And it's worth pointing out the final step, as the deliberate destruction of a tax collection service can only open the door for profiteers to take over the function of collecting revenue.

- Lynn Vavrick discusses the role of a presidential candidate in shifting votes in the U.S., finding that entrenched party loyalties far outweigh individual candidates. And Geoff Dembicki points out the potential for young voters to radically change Canada's electoral math.

- Finally, Tony Burman writes about the desperate lack of CSIS oversight even before it stands to be handed massive new powers under C-51, while Andrew Mitrovica draws a similar conclusion in interviewing CSIS' former inspector-general Eva Plunkett. And Gerald Caplan writes that while Tom Mulcair has been careful to avoid living up to the label his opponents have attempted to slap on him as the NDP's leader, Canadians have every reason to be angry with the Harper Cons.

On full information

Michael Harris' latest is well worth a read in offering a guide to avoiding the worst consequences of election-year spin. But it's worth noting that his most important advice is only presented as an afterthought:

Final note on street-proofing your vote? Inform yourself. Look at what the people who want their power renewed have done with it so far, and at what those who seek power say they will do if they get it.

Above all, don’t cast your ballot out of fear.

While the warnings found earlier in Harris' piece may be helpful as examples of what candidates shouldn't do and what the public may want to avoid, any voter's election-year calculus should be based on one core question: which candidate and government will best represent the interests of one's self and one's fellow citizens?

The combination of horse-race talk, partisan spin and one-way messaging which we know all too well is then problematic precisely because it's designed to push voters down self-serving shortcuts in answering the core question. But by focusing more on avoiding the former than addressing the latter (as Harris seems to suggest as his order of priorities), voters may well leave themselves vulnerable to different forms of manipulation.

The inevitable end result of each elections is that somebody will be elected to represent each riding. While parties and candidates will have their own ideas as to how people should decide who that will be, it's the civic duty of each voter to decide what matters most, compare the parties' and candidates' positions, and cast a ballot accordingly. And shutting out the spin is only a small part of that process.

On alternate options

Following up on this week's column, here's a quick update on the planned voting processes in the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race.

Contrary to what I'd theorized, there apparently won't be a paper-based system at convention itself. However, the same-day voting may be carried out either online or by telephone - meaning that if any issues arise with one of those systems, there will still be another outlet for members to vote (whether at the convention or from elsewhere).

Meanwhile, the time frames for advance voting have also been designed to ensure that voters have time to submit a ballot by mail if they so choose.

Which is to say that while the party isn't using exactly the means I'd expected, it still looks to have nicely planned to make sure there are multiple options for voters.

Monday Morning Links

Assorted content to start your week.

- Erin nicely challenges Brad Wall's efforts to tilt the playing field against poorer provinces when it comes to Employment Insurance and equalization.

- But I'm not sure we can expect much change to EI in any event. After all, as Dr. Dawg notes, the current Harper-created financing board may be the ultimate non-functioning public agency to reflect the Cons' inclination toward ineffective government.

- Philip Boffey points out that the source of the U.S.' disproportionate health-care costs is precisely its reliance on market pricing that so many are eager to introduce in Canada. And Tom Tomorrow rightly notes that the U.S. health-care system isn't lacking for Wall-style innovation.

- David Akin points out a striking correlation between voting locations and outcomes.

- Finally, Daniel Lick theorizes that Canada spends roughly twice as much on corporate welfare as direct social welfare.

On mandates

Following up on this post, here's another interesting tidbit from Angus Reid's post-election polling:

In addition, almost two out of three Canadians (and British Columbians) favour "mandatory voting" like in Australia.

Which makes for a striking finding, considering that somewhat less than two-thirds of Canadians actually voted in the absence of an obligation to do so. But it also suggests that the mandatory debate happening elsewhere may have some resonance with the general public - and also suggests that despite the Cons' efforts to paint even minimal compulsory contributions like the long-form census as being beyond the pale, the current public mood may in fact support greater government action to ensure public involvement in shaping our country's direction.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted material for your weekend reading.

- It's looked for some time like the NDP has an opportunity to make some serious inroads in Quebec. And the NDP's plan looks well designed to differentiate the party from the Bloc without disturbing the Gilles Duceppe's efforts to paint the other national parties as one and the same:

The NDP is taking another route, lashing out at planned corporate tax cuts, but also trying to present a new face on sustainable development in the province.

NDP MP Thomas Mulcair said his party has been working with opponents of the ongoing exploration for shale gas in Quebec, and that its new candidate in Manicouagan, Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, was a key player in the fight against uranium development in the province’s north.

Mr. Mulcair added that unlike the Bloc, the NDP not only expresses its opposition to the oil industry in the West, but can do something about it with MPs all over the country.

“The Bloc can only talk about the tar sands in Quebec,” Mr. Mulcair said, comparing that party to a hockey team made up entirely of defencemen. “That’s the difference with the NDP, which is a social-democratic, pan-Canadian party, with a strong track record that is attracting more and more people in Quebec.”

- Rick Salutin points out how the Cons' governing philosophy is based on trying to break down public trust in democratic institutions:

There are people who don’t just have trouble trusting others, they don’t even seem to trust trust when they see it in action. They cringe at the sight. I think of Stephen Harper in this category. It’s not just his attempt to control what others say, or the flow of information. He couldn’t wait to cancel the national child-care program and replace it with small grants to families. You’ll never accomplish a lot that way but you avoid anxiety and disappointment over how a large national program might work out. Ask yourself this: Can you imagine the Harper government (as they now say) bringing in medicare?

What of Harper’s claim that this election shouldn’t be over “distractions” like trust, but about the economy? I’d say an economy is all about trust and distrust. Next Tuesday’s budget will focus on taxes, which are the concrete form of political trust. If we trust our leaders to use our taxes to do things we can’t achieve on our own, then we pay — not happily but willingly. If we don’t trust them, then we’d rather not pay and we choose leaders who will do less. The whole Harper economic program has been to lower taxes incessantly, starting with the GST, so there’s less money to do things and less reason to take a chance on the kind of public trust required to deal with large problems.

Nothing is more fragile and easier to lose than public trust, especially in the area of taxes. When bankers took tax money as bailouts and then used it for further bonuses, they hammered that trust, justifying Harperian distrust.

- Greg is on a roll in pointing out why there's every reason to be wary of the Harper Cons' motives in trying to push for military action in Libya.

- Finally, it seems to have completely escaped any mention by the media, but NDP MP Don Davies has introduced a private member's bill to lower Canada's voting age to 16. Of course the odds of such a bill passing in the near future seem low (and I still suspect that the ideal would be to go somewhat further), but it's still a huge plus to see at least one party working to ensure that more Canadians are able to have a say in the country's electoral system.

Sunday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your weekend reading.

- It remains to be seen whether Canadians Against 41 in 41 will get noticed by many who aren't already fully engaged in Canada's political system. But I'll fully endorse its reasons why Canadians should make the effort to vote, particularly this one:

Reason to vote #3: You deserve to be represented. If you don't cast a ballot, your values and beliefs will not be heard. The best way to make sure the things you care about are actually reflected in society is by actually supporting those things at the polling station. If you don't vote for what you believe in, no one else will do it for you.

- Darwin makes a great point as to how the Cons' refusal to follow Parliament's orders may have resulted in a precedent which will strengthen the hand of MPs in dealing with recalcitrant executives in the future (emphasis added):

Because constitutional conventions is the source of both cabinet confidentially and Parliament’s right to demand documents it wasn’t clear to me which would take precedence. I suspected that the Speaker would rule that Parliament could not demand documents that where subject to cabinet confidentiality but these documents could be demanded because cabinet confidentially does not extend to supporting documents for a decisions that had already been made. Because the cabinet had decided to move forward with these crime bills the supporting documentation, like the cost estimates, where no longer confidential.

Instead in his ruling he seemed to suggest that there is no limit to what Parliament can demand, not even cabinet confidentiality. He quoted House of Commons Procedure and Practice:

The Standing Orders do not delimit the power to order the production of papers and records. The result is a broad, absolute power that on the surface appears to be without restriction. There is no limit on the type of papers likely to be requested, the only prerequisite is that the papers exist—in hard copy or electronic format—and that they are located in Canada….

No statute or practice diminishes the fullness of the power rooted in the House privileges unless there is an explicit legal provision to that effect, or unless the House adopts a specific resolution limiting the power. The House has never set a limit on its power to order the production of papers and records.

Cabinet Confidentiality isn’t completely dead. It has been just lowered in status to the level of other documents that are not publicly available by access to information requests, like military secrets and personal information, but is available to parliament if requested.

- Meanwhile, Stephen notes that the Uncut movement is starting to develop in Canada - even if you may never know it if your news intake is limited to mainstream sources.

- And finally, Rachel Maddow points out yet another U.S. state facing an all-out Republican assault on less-connected people, as Michigan's governor has launched attacks on both the financial and democratic fronts:



But Maddow's initial riff is particularly striking given that two of Canada's largest provinces have just gone through a similar shift in their tax systems to privilege corporate activity at the expense of mere citizens, even while exacerbating the deficits that are supposedly the impetus for change.

[Update: fixed link.]

On habit forming

Elections Canada is looking for ways to target younger voters in order to get them participating when they have the chance. But I have to wonder whether the obvious answer is one which involves actually making the political scene accessible sooner:

While young voters are more likely to vote as they get older, “They are beginning at such a low level of participation that overall turnout can only be expected to decline,” says a 2009 paper commissioned by Elections Canada, the agency that conducts federal elections and referendums.

“That’s a major concern,” says Elections Canada spokesman John Enright. “Surveys are showing us that if we don’t capture them and get them interested and engaged at their first opportunity to vote, we’ve likely lost them forever. They’re going to remain disengaged throughout their lives."

Of course, as matters stand the voting age coincides with an age where it figures to be most difficult to reach young Canadians through any centralized messaging effort. In contrast, the few years before the current voting window make for what's probably the best time to introduce new voters through a consistent process, as for the vast majority of teens it combines at least some level of awareness and education about politics with a handy common voting location.

Which isn't to say that lowering the voting age to allow for an election cycle before voters turn 18 will necessarily help population-wide voting percentages. But if a major part of the current issue is that young Canadians aren't getting in the habit of voting, then wouldn't it make sense to set a voting age where it's easier to help establish some positive habits instead?

On public interests

Reiko Aoki's idea to provide electoral weight to children while allowing a child's parents to exercise the right looks to have one major problem on its face (which I'll deal with in a later post). But for now, it is worth using Aoki's concern about weighting the interests of different groups as a starting point to point out the real value of a vote - and in particular the reason why most citizens should want to emphasize the power of a vote rather than being cynical about the prospect of one vote deciding an election.

As things stand now, most mainstream political discussion takes place through the lens of parties which have their own reasons for keeping a relatively narrow focus on tranches of marginal voters. Yes, any party would love to win a substantial share of the 40% of disaffected voters into its own camp - but since that's seen as a remote possibility at best, more effort gets put toward influencing the much smaller number of voters who are seen as far more likely to be able to tilt the results of the next election. And that may make for a rational short-term choice from the perspective of a political strategist.

But what makes that strategy rational is the assumption that a large and increasing number of voters won't show up - or at least, not based on the actions of any political party. And that latter point is key, as a message from a perceived outsider to a citizen or community whose members hold and reinforce a sense of being uninterested in the political sphere figures to have little impact.

So the real question looks to me to be this: how can we convince the 40% of citizens who don't bother to vote that their votes do matter, even when the parties' rational strategy doesn't seek to engage them all that closely?

Fortunately, there seems to be a relatively simple answer.

No matter how idealistic or cynical a view one wants to take, there doesn't seem to be much room for dispute that governmental authority as determined through electoral politics is one of many interconnected sources of power in society at large. And importantly, the electoral arena is the only one where that power is allotted equally among individuals, rather than being subject to concentration which excludes most of the public.

So for anybody outside the genuinely elite few which are able to exercise disproportionate influence in other spheres, the ability to have decisions made based on collective interests and preferences is a solution, not a problem. And the most obvious course of action for any individual who perceives a need for change in society at large is to emphasize the system that allows for the shared interests of the many to be reflected in the law of the land - rather than abandoning it to those who already have so much clout through other means.

But of course, the idea of using the radically equal system of one person, one vote only works for somebody who perceives both a need and a likelihood of actually making changes. So what about those who simply don't think it's worth bothering?

I'd hope that the answer to the first question would change a few minds on its own. But it's also worth asking rhetorically whether it's possible to fully disengage.

There, it's easy enough to make the seemingly uncontroversial point that government both directly (through its own actions) and indirectly (through its authority to regulate other actors in the interests of whoever is seen as worth catering to) impacts the lives of everybody under its jurisdiction. Perhaps more importantly, though, the real cynicism which so many people apparently hold would seem to reflect some acknowledgment that there's a gap between what is and what ought to be. And the recognition that something better is possible should at least serve as reason enough to look for opportunities to get there - even if such opportunities aren't seen as obvious among one's current political choices.

Of course, no one post or argument is likely to make a great deal of difference on its own. But I'll suggest to those who see the need to achieve better societal outcomes that the first step is to start talking positively about the value of democratic decision-making as the best means for most citizens to have their interests taken into account. And the more that message spreads among Canadians who are disengaged from the party system, the more incentive Canada's political parties will have to pick it up for themselves.

Alternative explanations

Chrystal rightly points out that the drop in Canadian voter turnout in 2008 looks to have been largely centred in the 45-74 age range, signalling unusual disengagement by a set of voters which would normally be relatively active. But while I agree with her view that a more proportional system would be a plus generally, I'm not sure we can blame the same electoral system that a voter would have been familiar with for upwards of half of his or her life for a sudden dropoff in that age range.

Instead, I'd think there are two more obvious explanations as to how it's that group in particular that decided not to vote.

First off, there's the issue of partisan attachments in the context of a woefully weak Liberal campaign. For younger voters turned off by Stephane Dion's frailties and the lack of party support behind him, the lack of a long-term voting pattern would seem to make it comparatively easier to look to an alternative. But those who had been voting Liberal for decades may have been more likely to stay home rather than supporting the NDP or the Greens - and all indications are that Libs supporters did so in droves.

But that isn't a full explanation either since turnout was down for all parties but the Greens. And that leaves the possible effect of the new voter identification rules imposed by the Cons, Libs and Bloc.

My first impression would have been that the voters most affected would likely be found in the oldest and youngest cohorts where they'd be less likely to have all of the required ID. But that doesn't seem to have been a problem for voters 75+, who actually made up the lone group which increased its turnout from 2006. So could it be that the greatest effect of the new ID requirements was to restrict the turnout among older working Canadians who may have figured that it wasn't worth the trouble to go to the polls?

(Edit: fixed typo.)

Time to decide

I'm not sure that Angus Reid's polling to the effect that 54% of voters had already made their minds up before the start of the election campaign should come as too much of a shock, as the number at least roughly approximates the parties' base support levels. (Though the number does offer a strong indication as to why the parties can't afford to wait until the start of a campaign to make a serious push to win support.)

What strikes me as more interesting, though, are the numbers within the campaign itself. There, roughly equal numbers of voters made their decisions before the debates (15%), following the debates (12%), and on election day (15%).

I'd tend to figure that for a voter who hadn't yet decided anything by the start of the election period, there would be little reason to finalize any voting decisions before all the information from the campaign is in. But it appears that a remarkable number of voters tuned in from the start of the campaign, then made a fairly quick decision as to who to support.

Now, it could be that the dynamic in 2008 was based mostly on the diverging campaign fortunes of the two parties mentioned most often in the media's horse-race narrative, such that the same pattern might not hold in other campaigns. But if the distribution does reflect how undecided voters will generally reach their decision, then it would seem that parties may be best served focusing more of their resources on the beginning of the campaign (when there are at least as many voters to be won, as well as an opportunity to shape a public narrative for later) than on a closing push. And that could lead to a significantly different campaign shape than what we saw this year.

Duty calling

Andrew Potter has put up a few posts dealing with voter turnout over the past week. But one of the columns mentioned by Potter looks like one worth considering in greater detail both as a matter of general interest, and an area which political parties may want to focus in on.

Here's Don Butler on why citizens generally do vote even where it might not be an obviously rational choice:

A survey done for Elections Canada after the 2006 election found 94 per cent of Canadians agree it's a civic duty to vote. Mind you, nearly nine in 10 also said they voted in the election, so perhaps we should take the findings with a shaker or two of salt.

"Once somebody gets this sense of duty to vote," says the University of British Columbia's Fred Cutler, a voting expert, "it's hard to move. They tend to feel badly, and think others will think badly of them, if they don't vote."

I'll leave aside for now the later discussion of a study as to how social influences may promote voting, though that may certainly be worth some future commentary. Instead, I'm curious as to whether or not the current trend toward retail politics may both depress turnout and serve as a suboptimal means of motivating voter choices.

After all, if the main reason why people vote is because of a perceived public duty, then it would seem at least possible that the question of how people vote could be strongly influenced by an appeal to much the same principle - or at least that parties might see the most benefit by making their messages appeal to the desired answer for both questions.

And likewise, it might make sense that to the extent politics are seen as more a matter of choosing from cynically-targeted policies based on one's personal advantage, citizens can be expected a more skeptical look at whether or not to vote in the first place.

So what does that mean for Canada's political parties? At the moment, the Cons are likely the only party which can be said to have a policy message that's largely tied in with its desired level of voter motivation: it seems generally well-accepted that low turnout plays to their strengths in having a motivated base accompanied by a fairly strict ceiling of support, and the Cons' retail politics surely help on both counts.

In contrast, it seems to me to be worth asking whether the opposition parties would be best served tying their messages to the idea of a duty to be a part of something greater. If successful, that could counteract not only the Cons' ideology, but also their efforts to soften public interest in voting. And that can only help to ensure that some Canadians who have been turned off by the current level of cynicism see themselves as having reason to cast a vote which can help end the Cons' me-first model of government.