This election is different
Genuine three-way race among reasons this will be one for the books
The federal election has yet to begin, and its outcome lies months in the future, but one thing is already clear: this race will make history.
It promises to be the longest campaign since the Confederation era; offer a true, three-way race for prime minister for the first time in generations; and unfold under controversial new rules that could — depending on one’s perspective — either curb fraud or disenfranchise countless voters.
What’s more, it will mark the end of a TV debate system that has operated for decades, and for the first time ever will likely occur on a date mandated by law.
Thanks to a convergence of legislative change, the prime minister’s own contentious choices, and volatile voter preferences, this contest is destined for the record books.
“It’s momentous,” said Robert Young, a political-science professor at Western University. “I think Canadians had better pay attention and think very hard about what they’re doing.”
A common theme runs through this election’s various precedentsetting elements, too. Most have Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s fingerprints on them and arguably could boost his chances of achieving a fourth term, observers say.
“All governments are interested in re-election and all politicians will try to turn an opportunity into something that is good for them,” said Dennis Pilon, a political scientist at Toronto’s York University. “The difference with the Conservatives is that they have gone to great lengths to put institutional rules in place that are not even in their impact.”
Reports suggest Harper is poised to drop the writ as soon as this Sunday. Under a fixed election-date law implemented in 2007, the vote is supposed to occur Oct. 19. The result would be a campaign stretching over 11 weeks.
According to The Canadian Press, that would be the longest since 1872, when party leaders still had to board trains and whistle-stop their way across a vast, sparsely populated land.
Anything can happen in such a drawn-out battle, but it is most likely to aid Harper’s Conservatives for at least a couple of reasons, says Nelson Wiseman, political science professor at the University of Toronto.
First, the governing party has raised way more money than its two main rivals — $20 million for the Conservatives, versus $15 million for the Liberals and $9 million for the NDP.
Second, a small clause in Harper’s Fair Elections Act last year allows parties to exceed the campaign spending limit of $25 million if the race lasts longer than the 37day minimum. For each additional day, they can spend one-37th over the cap, or about $675,000 a day, meaning a party could double the base spending limit.
Strategically, “the Conservatives were absolutely brilliant on that,” said Wiseman.
What first drew opprobrium to the election law, however, were sections that purported to curb voter fraud. Not only do they require people to present identification at polling stations proving their place of residence, but they prohibit previous ways of getting around lack of such ID. That means a bonafide voter can no longer vouch for a person they know, and nor can someone vote based on the card mailed to them by Elections Canada, bearing their name.
Extensive research has shown such identification rules serve only to prevent mobile or marginalized citizens like the poor, students, aboriginal people and senior citizens from casting ballots, says Pilon. That is a net advantage to the Tories, given most of those groups — seniors excepted — tend to vote for left-of-centre parties, he said.
Wiseman, though, questions whether the changes will have much impact, especially if Elections Canada clearly warns people what ID they will need. And he cites a poll that suggested almost 90 per cent of Canadians actually backed the idea of requiring voters to produce ID proving where they live.
Meanwhile, there will be less encouragement for reluctant citizens to vote this time; the legislation barred Elections Canada from encouraging voter turnout.
Also disappearing is a tradition that dates back to the late 1960s: two televised debates among the main party leaders — one in English, one in French — organized by a consortium of TV networks.
The Conservatives announced they would no longer participate in the broadcasters’ events for various reasons, opening the door to more debates, conducted by somewhat more diverse organizations.
The first is slated for Aug. 6, hosted by Maclean’s magazine, with others planned by the Globe and Mail and Google Canada, the Munk Debates, and Quebec’s TVA network. Meanwhile, the traditional TV hosts have vowed to press ahead with their own — with or without Harper.
The traditional two debates focused national attention, and were seen by large chunks of the populace, making a good performance crucial. The new landscape spreads the debate factor more diffusely over several events, some of which may not even be televised, meaning any misstep could get lost in the fog, says Pilon.
Wiseman says it may not be Harper who benefits from that change. For Justin Trudeau, whose debating capacity is often questioned, there is a lot to lose with an expanded number of debates, but also potential opportunity to make up lost ground, he said.
Indeed, this election arguably features something Canadians have rarely seen: a race where three party leaders stand a legitimate chance of winning. Yes, the Liberals are trailing in the polls and the Conservatives are in front currently, but it was not long ago Trudeau’s band were ahead, while the NDP remains a potent force.
“A genuine three-way race is a real novelty,” said Young. “We haven’t seen that for decades.”
The result could well be turmoil on election night if no party wins a majority.
That has led to speculation about a different kind of historic first: A federal Liberal-New Democrat coalition. But if Harper wins a plurality of seats, he could attempt to stay in government, said Young.
What happens then could be even more dramatic. Harper could face an almost-immediate defeat on a no-confidence motion.
“It’s going to be pretty gripping,” Young said.
It is momentous. I think Canadians had better pay attention and think very hard about what they’re doing.