 |
| From successful Barack Obama/Joe Biden campaign of 2008 |
Surprise! Parties use GOTV electoral weapon to
confound polls and strategic voters
Bill Tieleman’s 24
Hours Vancouver / The
Tyee column
Tuesday October
6, 2015
By Bill Tieleman
"GOTV
is a crucial part of winning close campaigns, and some campaigns do it better
than others."
-
Aaron Strauss,
U.S. political analyst
Forget
the polls. And ignore the noise on "strategic voting" -- which rarely
has any impact on election results.
How
do New Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals actually win ridings when they
usually take under 50 per cent of the votes?
With
a little-understood electoral weapon called GOTV: get out the vote.
First,
you need to know that we don't have one election -- we have 338 separate
elections to select the Member of Parliament in each riding.
The
party that wins the most seats in an election forms the government -- so it's
the MPs elected to Parliament that actually count, not national polls that
don't reflect local reality.
That's
why throughout this endless 11-week election, political parties have been
canvassing at the door, by telephone, online and direct mail with two goals:
persuade voters to support their party and track those results.
On
election day -- and during advance polls -- that data goes to work. Each party
has teams of supporters and paid staff all struggling to get out the vote.
Each
party has its "marks" -- a numbers rating system on each voter
contacted, indicating if they support their candidate and how strongly.
And
that's why even a significant five per cent or more lead in the polls can mean
nothing on E-day.
E-day
surprise
Here's
an example of how in a close race, any party with serious support can win the
seat with a "GOTV surprise."
Let's
say the Conservatives are polling 40 per cent of the vote NDP 35 per cent and
the Liberals 25 per cent for simplicity's sake, with 100,000 eligible voters in
the riding.
With
40 per cent, the Conservatives should have the most votes and win -- but wait.
If
the NDP gets 50 per cent of its voters to the polls and the Conservatives and
Liberals only 33 per cent, the NDP will have 17,500 votes versus the
Conservatives' 13,200 and the Liberals' 8,250 -- and win the riding easily.
That's the "GOTV surprise."
If
every party had the same GOTV effort, money, number of volunteers and paid
staff, phone banks, data and ability to utilize it, then the polling would
dictate who wins -- but politics doesn't work like that.
In
B.C., the Conservatives and NDP generally have the best "on the
ground" GOTV campaigns because in 2011 those two parties won 21 and 12
seats respectively of B.C.'s then-36 seats, while the Liberals won two and the
Greens one.
Why
is GOTV particularly important in this election? Because to defeat the Conservatives
and form a minority government with the most seats in Parliament, the NDP needs
to win 35 more seats
than they hold now nationally, while the Liberals need to win 100.
That
means the Liberals task is almost three times harder -- not impossible but much
more challenging.
Short
of a disastrous drop in Quebec for the NDP with the Liberals the main
beneficiary, it's hard to see where the Liberals could pick up 100 seats across
the country.
Here
in B.C., the NDP came in second in 18 of the Conservative seats, the Liberals
in just 3 and the Greens in none.
This
means, notwithstanding polls and voters changing party preference in 2015, that
the Conservatives and NDP have demonstrated they have the two best GOTV efforts
and are the most likely to be competing against each other in the overwhelming
majority of B.C.'s now-42 ridings.
The
third place party, the Liberals in this example, would need to get a 70 per
cent turnout to match the NDP's 17,500 votes -- and a bit more than that to
win.
Fourth
past the post
What
about the Green Party or other candidates? Unless they are polling in
percentages similar to the other parties in our example, they have no chance to
win.
But
they can impact the possibility of the non-Conservative parties losing to the
Conservative candidate if enough votes that might have allowed the NDP or
Liberal to win instead go to a Green or other candidate.
That's
not an anti-Green comment, it's a straightforward political analysis of the
challenge facing any fourth or fifth party anywhere in the world. And Greens
can potentially make the same argument against the NDP and Liberals in leader
Elizabeth May's Saanich Gulf Islands riding, presuming she polls higher than
the others.
Some
will undoubtedly argue that this example under our first-past-the-post or
single plurality electoral system illustrates the need for a proportional
representation electoral system.
Fair
enough argument, although every electoral system depends heavily on GOTV
efforts to maximize seats won.
And
under the mixed member proportional system used in many European countries and rejected
by Ontario voters in 2007's binding referendum, this example would still result
in the same candidate winning the local riding.
The
MMP would somewhat balance that with a second ballot indicating party
preference and then add elected members from each parties' list of candidates
to roughly equal the national vote percentages of each party.
Nonetheless,
and notwithstanding promises from the NDP, Liberals and Greens to introduce
proportional representation, the 2015 election is not being fought with that
system.
Sorry
strategic voters
Strategic
voting has been heavily promoted by Leadnow and other groups but as I have previously
detailed in The Tyee, the facts are it rarely affects elections.
The
problems are many and significant: to work strategic voting requires accurate
and detailed riding level polling in many areas; a serious advertising and
communications budget to get the word out to voters in multiple ridings;
convincing up to 60 per cent of NDP or Liberal voters to support the party they
have consistently opposed
in the past; and overcoming strong campaigns and GOTV efforts by both parties
-- who obviously completely oppose strategic voting.
And
it's GOTV that will likely prove decisive in this election barring a sudden
voter stampede to one party that would rival the surprising NDP victory in
Alberta earlier this year -- when Rachel Notley's crew saw their vote quadruple
over the previous election. That kind of movement happens extremely rarely.
But
in this election, the main factor will be what Aaron Strauss observed: "Some
campaigns do it better than others" -- and those campaigns will win seats
on October 19.
.
1 comment:
I agree GOTV is the most effective electoral tool; it's also why the Liberals and NDP, for example, could not in any practical way announce a coalition before the votes are counted: every party depends on heightened dedication and high morale amongst their volunteers, the ones who actually do the door-knocking, and morale is best maintained by undiluted partisanship.
SV has no real GOTV machinery, because SV is ostensibly non-partisan. A conspicuous number of people I meet are genuinely interested in SV; they feel strongly enough about ditching Harper to GTOVO (get-their-own-vote-out). Granted, self motivation isn't as reliable as partisan motivation, but a few factors argue for decisive strategic voting.
The Cons have been so bad, many voters are being attracted to SV like never before. Granted, multiplying a tiny traditional number by double or treble is still a small number, but the number of strategic votes needed is relatively small compared to the numbers party-GOTV drives are dealing with---just enough to tip the balance away from the Cons, which, in tight races, is probably a smallish number of votes. SV hasn't figured much in previous elections, but this one is different, sure to attract anti-Harper voters, and the numbers don't need to be so big to make a difference. SV will always be the smaller contribution.
There's another attractive element to SV: it addresses the common complaint that one's vote doesn't count for much in the big picture; but it's easy for even the dullest voter to understand votes weighing in around the tipping point are very potent---certainly more so than throwing one's vote onto a pile that has already big enough to win, or onto a pile that has virtually no hope of winning (it would be mischievous to note that Green votes, almost everywhere committed to a losing candidate, are a type of SV that wins Cons seats). Everyone knows someone who's hostile to politics, as thoughtless and lazy-minded as that might be, often attempting to hide light-thinking on this or that policy with expressions like,"they're all a bunch of crooks," or, "what good does my vote do?" and usually manifest in not voting at all. SV is a two-for-one relief for such anxieties and antipathies in the sense that it is fundamentally negative, it is simple (understanding of particular policy planks needn't be great), and, as mentioned, it provides a stronger sense of accomplishment to the vindictive election avoider because it's relatively potent.
SV provides opportunity for first-time voters who previously avoided electoral participation (usually due to a general, unexamined antipathy to politics), meaning SV may contribute to an increase in turnout which we know doesn't favour the Cons.
Greens have an additional strategy to consider: any outcome that isn't a Con win increases the chance of getting electoral reform, both big opposition parties having endorsed it; Greens, who have traditionally split the vote in the Cons' favour, can significantly advance toward their goal---and existential need---of proportional representation by availing of SV. Indeed, Greens will probably make up the bulk of strategic voters because they get, in effect, two highly desirable benefits. Of course, Harper gets re-elected, no electoral reform anytime soon, and quite likely some hard feelings against the fledgling party it could well do without.
Naturally the SV nut to crack is accurate polling needed to discern, in tight races, who exactly the SV choice is. This is SV's biggest weakness; however, a good number of ridings have a clear enough spread to easily decide who's the SV candidate.
It almost goes without saying that partisan GOTV efforts are absolutely essential for partisan success. Yet SV will contribute in its small but important way.
Post a Comment