Define strategic…
Naheed Nenshi was elected the first Muslim mayor of a major Canadian city in Calgary last night. He overcame a heavily favoured campaign run by Stephen Harper’s strategists for well-financed Conservative alderman Ric McIver through the use of charisma, vision, and social media. In this Ted Talk he describes his philosophy about and research into how cities grow.
by Michael Wheeler
My Facebook feed was an explosion of political thought yesterday.
One week before Toronto’s municipal election, two polls came out putting ex-Liberal cabinet minister George Smitherman in a dead heat with Conservative endorsed Rob Ford, while polls showed defacto-NDP candidate Joe Pantalone to be up to twenty-five percentage points behind.
The opinions expressed by my facebook friends, many of whom I had never seen express their political thoughts publicly, embraced one of two competing narratives
Position A: It’s not strategic voting, it’s rational voting: This camp, as exemplified by the post written by Globe and Mail theatre critic Kelly Nestruck on his personal blog, argues for the rational approach to electing a mayor. In a system without runoff voting, your job is to make the best choice you can from the options presented. Life isn’t perfect and either are elections. If you know your candidate isn’t going to win, it is a waste to vote for him or her.
Position B: It’s not strategic to abandon your principles for a right-of-centre candidate: This perspective, as expressed in today’s column by Toronto Star columnist Royson James, argues that there is little practical difference between Ford and Smitherman’s policies. In particular, for progressive voters, there is very little to identify with or embrace in the platforms of the two leading candidates. Even if he loses, in the bigger picture, it is better to cast a vote for the one candidate who isn’t talking about cutting services and taxes.
Surprise! None of my facebook friends spoke out for Ford and only one spoke out for Smitherman based on his platform or abilities.
Just to add a little spice to the mix – yesterday Toronto officials reported attendance at advance polling stations was up a whopping 82.5% from the previous election. Although some of this can be attributed to a well-organized Ford campaign getting their supporters to the polls early, these kind of numbers indicate something greater shifting in the electorate. Later that night, unabashedly progressive and Muslim candidate Naheed Nenshi was elected Mayor of Calgary. In post-election analysis, The Globe and Mail concluded Facebook and social media tools were the game changer that brought Canada its first Muslim mayor.
Where does that leave us here in Toronto 6 days from E-Day? What is actually strategic? Is Smitherman really “as bad” as Ford? Is it more rational to vote based on polling over principals and policies? Is the process of casting a vote that rational an activity? Is there something they know in Calgary that we don’t know here?
All I know for certain is this would be a good start.
What bigger picture are you referring to when you say, “Even if he loses, in the bigger picture, it is better to cast a vote for the one candidate who isn’t talking about cutting services and taxes.”?
Do you mean one’s own personal satisfaction? When Joe loses we, as a city, won’t get anything, and the people who voted for him won’t have achieved anything, save for the personal satisfaction and knowledge that they voted for him. But they might have helped put Ford in office. It’s not like if Joe and Smitherman get a certain amount of votes then Ford will only have a minority government. There is only one winner here. And it can’t be Ford.
When I vote for Smitherman I won’t be doing it while “holding my nose” and I certainly won’t be abandoning my principles either (there is some looking down the nose at the Smitherman supporters from Joe’s supporters here, which is a bit offensive). It’s true I’m not 100% behind George’s budget – selling assets to cover shortfalls is foolish (407 highway anyone?) but a mayor is not all fiscal policy – although Smitherman proved his budgetary skills as a Provincial Minister as the Health budget and the Energy and Infrastructure budget were both balanced during his tenure. And both were/are larger than the city’s budget. It’s leadership. It’s representing a city. It’s partnerships. To achieve anything you need strong ties to Queen’s Park and Smitherman’s got that in spades. And, since this is a theatre/art blog, here’s another reason I’m for Smitherman – http://artsvotetoronto.ca/mayoral-report-card/ – highest score out of all mayoral candidates.
Naheed Nenshi ran a great grass-roots campaign. But Calgary is also coming off a two term conservative mayor and push back is bound to happen, even in conservative central. Even still, it’s a great story. Another great story would be Toronto electing a left leaning, openly gay mayor.
Hey Chris,
Thanks for responding. Thanks especially for an actual list of reasons why George Smitherman might be a good mayor based on what he can do instead of who he isn’t. There has not been very much of that.
I’m really trying not to embody either of these positions in this space, but what I meant by “bigger picture” was not “personal satisfaction” but that your chance to vote for a progressive candidate next time around is diminished by abandoning one that is polling poorly. Big picture, the fight to avoid neoliberal pro-corporate government is bigger than a single municipal election.
But now I’ve tipped my hand haven’t I? One question: Other than being gay what makes Smitherman left-leaning? I see the word progressive on his campaign material and can’t seem to find any evidence in his platform?
I understand what your saying although I don’t fully buy the argument that if we don’t vote for the most progressive candidate this election we might not have one to vote for next time around. What just happened in Calgary is evidence that this won’t be the case. They’ve had conservative mayors for decades and now they have a very progressive mayor.
As for Smitherman’s progressiveness, well equality, as you noted. But there’s also having a strong arts platform. Arts platforms aren’t really that popular amongst conservative candidates. His transportation plan is also pretty great. Sure the transit portion of it is no Transit City but there were things in Transit City that I wasn’t happy with either. But he’s got a workable plan. I know he’s putting a hold on new bike lanes but he’s also putting in curbs on existing ones. This would make it much safer, and I know loads of people who don’t bike because of safety. Curbed bike lanes would also mean no turning or parked cars in bike lanes.
There’s more but so far that’s equality, arts and complete transit. Sound progressive yet? Maybe not as progressive as Joe but as I mentioned in my earlier post George brings other things that Joe doesn’t.
I know I’m not going to convince you but George is a great option and there are lots of reasons to vote for him beyond stopping Ford. And while stopping Ford is not why I am voting for Smitherman, it is a good reason. A great reason. And if that’s why someone is supporting Smitherman they are not abandoning their principles or compromising their morals as some on Facebook and other social media have suggested. If you’re for something you’re against something else and I’m against Ford’s policies for sure (and his terrible math) but more than that, I’m against what he represents and how he would represent our city. Smitherman represents something entirely different and would represent our city in a different way.
I am resisting the urge to write two things here:
1) A detailed investigation of the criteria that gave Smitherman an A+ from ArtsVote in comparison to Pantalone and Rossi. (ArtsVote and Torontoist are hosting an Election Night Party at Cadillac Lounge. If Smitherman wins, I predict the place will go ballistic. Get your seat early.)
2) An evidenced rebuttal of Smitherman’s progressive credentials.
I could go for ages, but neither is ultimately that helpful.
Anyways, I’m not unmoved by your argument Chris. Especially your final representative one, and I think at the end of the day it is the real reason that George Smitherman will win this election. We remember Mel Lastman in this town, and there is a social contract to act if something that embarrassing were to happen again. It has less to do with policy or politics and more to do with the type of person we tell our children they should look up to and should meet Obama at the airport and whatnot. This is why I don’t think voting is entirely rational or at least based on policy and why voter turnout at advance polls was so high this year.
I should also admit that last time there was an election I was the guy responsible for updating Department of Culture’s website on a daily basis, which consistently promoted strategic voting to prevent a Harper majority. For some reason it’s really rubbing me the wrong way this election though. I’m not sure why. I think it has something to do with the way social democrats are being consistently asked to abdicate their very reasonable and logical positions in favour of an alternate logic and reality determined by polls commissioned by interested parties and media conglomerates. It’s kinda total bullshit.
This is essential reading for anyone who finds this conversation interesting.
As someone who doesn’t live in the city, I’ve been reluctant to weigh-in on Toronto mayoral election matters. In a way, I’m rather glad that I don’t have to make what is being portrayed as a bit of a Hobson’s choice.
Let me throw a different question at you. I think a contributing factor is that Joe Pantalone has not been an inspiring progressive candidate (although you might reject that premise.) Doesn’t a vote for Pantalone just says that progressives will accept anyone who runs under that banner? Does that vote ensure the opportunity to vote for an inspiring progressive the next time, or just says “we’ll take whatever we can get.” Shouldn’t progressives demand better? I understand there was a poll that said Miller would win re-election if he were a candidate (not that I’m fond of hypothetical polls.) But that support isn’t translating to Pantalone. For Toronto to find its Naheed Nenshi, don’t progressives have to be more discriminating?
Let’s face it: you mark a single x, and it can be interpreted however anyone wants to spin it to make their own case. Until we take a lesson from the State of Nevada where you have the option of “none of the above”, or have an instantaneous run-off system that requires candidates to have a majority vote in order to gain election to an office (rather than a plurality vote), “interpreting the meaning of a vote” really just keeps political scientists debating.
Thanks Brandon,
You are certainly right that Pantalone has not run an inspiring campaign. The “Things are just fine and I’ll be the gardener” message is obviously not resonating with the imaginations of the broader electorate. And yes, hypothetical polls have consistently shown that Miller would win if he ran, so the only logical conclusion to be drawn from these two facts is that Toronto voters are willing to elect a progressive candidate if he or she inspires, and not if not.
None of this helps me, personally, find the stomach to vote for a candidate who thinks we should apply Walmart’s business practices to the city though. I think I would rather spoil my ballot frankly. I’ll say the same thing next year when everyone is going ballistic about the potential of Hudak bringing back the Harris years in Ontario. I’m done voting out of fear and ready to vote consistently for the candidate that has the most reasonable platform that embraces inclusive and progressive (as opposed to regressive) values. Sometimes that will be for a soft-spoken gardener, and sometimes for a charismatic leader, i hope the principals of why I vote however remain the same.
More essential reading from Dave Meslin on this topic.