‘FEAR’ ADS ENTER CAMPAIGN
Voting referendum gets cranked up
The anti-proportional representation campaign has launched a provocative advertisement in the first week of referendum voting, saying a vote for proportional representation is a vote for extremism and neo-Nazis.
British Columbians are being asked whether they want to keep the existing first-past-the-post voting system, where majority governments usually rule with less than 50 per cent of the popular vote, or switch to a proportional system, where parties get seats in proportion to the popular vote and usually results in minority governments.
The pro-proportional representation side has used similar negative tactics, with a social-media ad that says first-past-the-post produces extreme governments such as the Doug Ford-Progressive Conservative government in Ontario that holds majority power.
The charged ads are an example of the cranked-up rhetoric British Columbians will have to wade through in deciding how to vote, said Simon Fraser University professor emeritus Lindsay Meredith.
Voters have until Nov. 30 to get their ballot to Elections B.C. and can also answer which of three alternate pro-rep systems they prefer: mixed member, dual member or urban-rural.
Meredith said “fear” advertising, regrettably, does work. “It’s not nice, but it’s a fairly effective strategy,” said the retired professor of marketing.
“You tell people (proportional representation) is threatening democracy and scare taxpayers into a negative vote.”
However, Meredith said, it’s likely the people the negative ads will sway are those already opposed to, or leaning against, pro-rep.
And there is a chance — if the public perceives the advertising as too manipulative and that fact is pointed out — it can backfire, he said. People can be turned off or become confused and decide not to cast a vote, which could help the pro-proportional representation side whose supporters may be more motivated.
The YouTube ad — which will also run on television — shows a hand reaching to turn on a small television.
The narrator says: “Under proportional representation extremists are elected to legislatures with a tiny percentage of votes. They can hold the balance of power with disastrous results.”
What follows is a stream of images: flag-waving protest crowds in Europe, burning tires and goosestepping soldiers.
Bill Tieleman, a union lobbyist and one of the leaders of the anti-proportional representation campaign, defended the ad as appropriate. “The ad is designed to be hard-hitting,” he said.
On YouTube, the ad had fewer than 900 views by late Thursday afternoon.
The pro-proportional representation side has also used emotion and negativity to promote its position.
In a social media ad, a photo of Dutch politician Geert Wilders is shown with the statement: “A far-right ‘extremist’ who got 13 per cent of the vote but no power. Nobody will work with him.”
Adjacent to Wilders is a photo of a laughing Doug Ford with a caption: “Ontario’s far-right ‘extremist’ Doug Ford got 40 per cent of the vote — and all the power. He doesn’t need any other party to work with him.”
University of B.C. political scientist Max Cameron said he believes negative advertising is counterproductive to the kind of measured debate that could be useful to voters.
Cameron, who supports proportional representation, said there was a valid argument to be made about the power that smaller, fringe parties could potentially have under certain circumstances, in terms of blackmail power over coalitions that are formed in proportional representation.
However, he noted that neoNazis were shunned and marginalized by mainstream parties in Europe.
“Going negative can get people’s attention. It can also be a mechanism of voter suppression — that is to say it turns them off or discourages them,” said Cameron, who is director of the UBC’s Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions.
“Rather than having a deep and meaningful conversation about the kind of democracy we want and realistically what we can expect to see happen if we change our electoral system, we get into a highly polarized debate.”