New Conservative Ads

So the Conservatives have released a series of new ads with the theme that "Stephane Dion is not a leader". It didn't take long for these ads to become the "hot topic" in the blogging and political news world.

Rather than re-hash the debate between Conservatives and Liberals about the substance of the ads, I want only to comment on one aspect of the issue: the Liberals' response to the ads.

It seems that the universal response - by Ignatieff, Scott Reid, Ralph Goodale etc. - is to state that the ads are evidence that the Harper government is "running scared", or that Harper is "scared of Dion". I feel like I've read a variation of this phrase a dozen times in the last 24 hours.

What is the point of this statement? A response to a political attack ad should either: A) refute the substance of the ad or the statements made therein (defensive play); or, B) counter-attack with some other messaging (offensive play). I don't see how this business about Harper being scared accomplishes either of these things, or really anything at all other than to serve as a token response. Are the Liberals suggesting that taking your political opponent seriously is an undesirable quality in a Prime Minister? Or that Canadians shouldn't vote for someone who does so?

I suppose that in the world of political insiders there might be the perception that you can score a few bonus points for intimidating your opponent. Some Liberals might take comfort in the idea that Harper is genuinely afraid of their leader. But, declaring to the world that you've one-upped the other guy because he's afraid of you is not how you win elections. Furthermore, it doesn't offer one smidgen of a reason for anyone to vote for you.

I'm sure there is plenty the Liberals could have said to either defend against the Conservative ads, or counter-attack against Harper; however, they chose to offer a response that accomplishes nothing more than to make party stalwarts feel better because their opponent might be taking them seriously - something they should have assumed anyway. It is simply bad messaging.

The 63% Spin

On account of the fact that my laptop has recently suffered a meltdown, my access to the internet has been limited to panhandling computer time from my friends and family. Nonetheless, I managed to snag a few minutes this morning.

I read in today's Globe that Jack Layton is indicating that he may not support the minority Harper government unless he sees some “dramatic and significant changes in direction”. In support of his stance he employs one of the favourite rhetorical weapons of Canada's Liberals and NDPers - the 63% Spin. The tactic is basically an attempt to de-legitimize the government by arguing that "63 per cent of Canadians voted against the Conservatives in the last election". This proposition is both false and misleading.

As a simple matter of electoral fact, Canadians each get one vote, which they are able to cast in favour of one party/candidate. The casting of this ballot is incontrovertible evidence that they have, in fact, voted for someone. Therefore, it is true that 37% of the population voted for Harper. However, the inverse is not true. The electoral system contains no mechanism for voting against other candidates and consequently cannot support a conclusion that a vote in favour of, say the NDP, is a vote against the Liberals, Conservatives, Greens, Bloc, etc.

It is indeed possible that someone might have voted Liberal or NDP simply to avert a Harper win, and that this act might be construed as a vote "against" the Conservatives - but to reach this conclusion requires knowledge of a specific voter's intentions. That is, knowledge that no pundit, editorialist or party leader possesses. For them to claim such information, not just about one voter (without asking them), but about all voters would require the employment of some super-human (and clearly impossible) psychoanalytical acrobatics.

The 63% Spin is also misleading because it seems to suggest that 63% of the population is against Harper's government - insofar as one is either "for" or "against" Harper. Again, not true. Canadians are not limited to thinking in such dichotomous terms. The electoral system forces voters to prioritize their voting preferences such that they ultimately choose one candidate, but that doesn't mean they disregard all others as undesirable. It is entirely possible that many voters chose Martin or Layton as their top choice, but would have had Harper as a second choice, and consequently been supportive of his government. Even if he was their last choice they might still not be "against" him.

Finally, a quick look at other recent election results takes most of the bite out of the argument. In 2004 Paul Martin garnered 36.7% of the vote. Does that mean Liberals are willing to acknowledge that 63% of voters voted against them? What about Jean Chretien's 38.5% in 1997? Could it be that 62% voted against the little guy?

More tellingly, back in 2006 I see Jack Layton's NDP got 17% of the vote. If he's willing to argue that 63% of Canadians voted against Harper, perhaps he should also acknowledge that 83% of them voted against him.