In the News June 7

Results of the June 2 Ontario Election

What the Establishment Says About the Low Voter Turnout

Newspaper editors, pollsters, political and academic pundits and think tanks of the establishment are deliberating on the low voter turnout in the June 2 Ontario election. They are attempting to explain why it happened and its significance. One thing emerges from a review of what is being said which is the absence of addressing the party-dominated unrepresentative system called a representative democracy.

On June 3, the Globe & Mail, the Ottawa Citizen and the Toronto Star among others, featured articles on voter turnout. The Globe suggested that a possible solution is to introduce compulsory voting. Of course, if such a thing were introduced, spoiled ballots would become a definite way to cast a protest vote and then they will not like this either. Australia has compulsory voting where abstentionists face fines. The joke is that voting is encouraged with barbeques serving up “democracy sausages.”

“It’s not a good sign for our democracy. I don’t think anybody should be saying that our democracy is healthy,” said John Beebe, founder of the Democratic Engagement Exchange at Toronto Metropolitan University. He suggested to the Globe that the dismal turnout was caused by “the lack of a dominant divisive issue” and the failure of NDP and Liberal leaders to “inspire numbers of voters.” He did not address the failure of these two cartel parties to have any vision whatsoever because, at the end of the day, they basically agree with the pay-the-rich schemes of the cartel party in power. Beebe added “pandemic fatigue” as another factor causing the low voter turnout.

Cameron Anderson, associate political science professor at Western University, told the Ottawa Citizen there was “a perceived lack of a competitive race.” There was no “galvanizing issue” which parties differed on, he said. He suggested that because Ford was leading in the polls, the electorate did not feel that “This is a competitive election, ‘this is something that I need to get out and vote to have my voice heard.'”

Denis Pilon, associate professor in politics at York University told the Star, “It’s a dismal level of voter turnout. And that really tells you that a lot of voters just said: ‘I’m not interested enough. I don’t see enough going on here toward my interest.'” He also attributed the low votes to “enough people who said, ‘Oh, you know, things seemed fine.'”

Carleton University political science research professor Jon Pammet, whose field of expertise is said to be democratic participation, told the Ottawa Citizen that the trend of decreasing voter turnout is a phenomenon federally, provincially and internationally, with “upticks” occurring when there is “a widespread desire for change.” He said there was no such desire in Ontario. He said this conclusion was based on “province-wide polling.”

In a similar vein, University of Toronto political science professor Nelson Wiseman told the Globe the turnout “could indicate a level of contentment.” He also told the Toronto Star “there was little appetite for change.”

“When you don’t have appetite for change, a lot of people just stay home,” Wiseman told the Star. “People aren’t worse off than they were four years ago. The economy is booming. Now, of course, that’s not a permanent state but there isn’t a sense that: ‘If we elect this party or that party, that’s going to make a difference,'” he is quoted as saying. The “negative election campaign,” is also cited as a reason for low turnout. Wiseman said it kept “voters away from the polls in droves.”

Likewise, Jonathan Rose, political science professor at Queen’s University, told the Star that “the spate of negative political ads — an increasing trend in campaigns — also served to disillusion voters and depress turnout.” “Voters, in essence, say, ‘A pox on all your houses. I’m getting told from all sides that each one is negative.’ And that’s actually really worrisome for democracy, because it suggests that people are tuning out, and that’s not good,” he said.

Two CBC journalists present their analysis of “what the federal Tories can learn from Doug Ford’s big Ontario win.” Mark Gollom and Steven D’Souza write about whether or not the federal Conservatives can replicate Ford’s success. Duane Bratt, a political science professor at Mount Royal University tells them the federal Conservatives can learn lessons from Ontario. He says that the federal Conservatives do not need to win Alberta. “They need to win Ontario.” He argues that “the playbook to look at is Doug Ford and being a pragmatic leader.” He suggests that the federal Conservative leadership contestants are split between focusing on their base versus broadening it. The question, he said, is “how do you make the pivot? Ford made that pivot.”

Michael Diamond, a Conservative campaign operative, told CBC there is a “huge lesson” to be learned from Ford. “By reaching out and making inroads and engaging in dialogue, Ford attracted a new demographic to the party.”

Jamie Ellerton, a public relations strategist at Conaptus and a campaign manager in the Federal Conservative leadership contest said it is not easy to draw lessons for an internal party race from Ford’s win because “ultimately you’re talking to kind of a different group of people – a very small percentage of the population who actually belong to a political party.” Still, he said, “I think that [the Ontario election] is a blueprint for how the Canadian Conservative Party could be successful.”

All to say that none of these folks seem capable of seeking truth from facts or even getting the pertinent facts, let alone getting to the heart of the matter. It is thus up to the working class and people of Ontario to bring into being the democratic renewal of the political process. Those who wield positions of power and privilege certainly have no reason to do so!

Ontario Political Forum, posted June 7, 2022.