Good policy translates into electoral appeal

With an election coming up in September, the various political parties are already gearing up for the pre-election period. The rhetoric is becoming sharper and the various political leaders are visibly challenging each other on the issues of the day. Candidates are being sought and local nominations are already taking place.

Despite the fact that the Parties and their Leaders appear to have each other in their sights, all of these activities are aimed at one target – the voter.

As Don Desserud and others have observed, New Brunswick voters appear to be a fairly fickle bunch. They embraced Bernard Lord and the Progressive Conservatives in 1999 but voter affection definitely cooled by 2003. The Liberals with Shawn Graham at the helm were able to win a narrow victory in 2006 but were firmly rejected in 2010. It now appears that the David Alward-led PCs will have difficulty repeating their dramatic 2010 sweep in September.

Even though these electoral shifts are dramatic, the Liberals and PCs maintain a “duopoly” over representation in the Legislature. The New Democrats have been without a seat in the Legislature since 2005 and neither the Green Party nor the People’s Alliance Party, relative newcomers to the provincial political scene, have been able to win seats.

Rather than focus on the parties, we should try understanding the process by which voters decide how to cast their vote. This is a challenging endeavour – a voting decision is as individual as the voter who casts their ballot. Some may vote according to a long-held partisan belief. Others may be torn between their options or, as decreasing turnout numbers attest, will not cast a vote at all.

Since 1965, a consortium of political scientists has been studying the electoral behaviour of Canadians through the Canadian Elections Study (CES). Based primarily on data collected during federal elections, the CES takes an in-depth look at the many factors that contribute to a voting decision. (You can check out the CES at http://ces-eec.org).

One of the key conclusions I have drawn from this information is that policy, rather than the Leader or the local candidate, is the primary driver in the voter’s decision-making process. Having the right policies, and having the perceived competence to deliver on them, accounts for approximately one-half of the vote choice.

It is not enough to have popular policies; you also need to have credibility that you can deliver on these policies. There is no political benefit in espousing popular policies that conflict with each other or promoting a policy agenda that you are constitutionally, legally or financially unable to deliver.

Despite the dominance of political personalities in media coverage of politics and elections, party leaders only account for about one-quarter of a voting choice. Of course, Leaders are the chief spokespersons for their respective parties and their key messages tend to focus on the policy issues they think are vote-getters. More often than not, party leaders stress the policy differences between their respective parties rather than promote (or critique) their personal attributes and differences.

Like Party Leaders, local candidates account for one-quarter of the voting decision. Given their importance to local voters, it is no surprise that a great deal of effort goes into the selection of these local standard-bearers.

One interesting factor in the vote choice dynamic is that Party Leaders tend to be more slightly more important for voters in urban areas represented by multiple ridings. In rural areas, or in urban areas that are represented by a single seat, the local candidate is slightly more important to the voter than the Party Leader.

But even local candidates tend to use policy-based arguments and messages at the doorstep, in town halls or with the media. No one expects every candidate to be a policy expert but they are expected to know and promote their Party’s platform and key election planks.

Clearly, candidates and leaders are important to the political process. But, if they are searching for political success, they need to have a mastery of the policy agenda. Voters may be swayed by “hot-button” issues but, more often than not, they are persuaded by a Party’s ability to govern.

The most recent British Columbia Election is a good example of this factor at work. While Adrian Dix and the NDP were seen as a sure bet to win the election, Christy Clark and the BC Liberals were able to win with relentless messaging on their ability to govern as well as taking full advantage of the policy gaffes offered up by Dix and the NDP.

When voters decide, it is policy (and policy competence) that makes the difference.

- 30 -

This article was originally published in the December 17, 2013 edition of The Telegraph-Journal.