Election Campaign, or Celebrity Showdown?

Political polling might be more useful if it focused on us instead of politicians.

Welcome to Week 2 of the 2011 federal election. You’ve probably noticed that this has not exactly been the most inspiring election so far: The chief points of debate have been whether the opposition parties are a “reckless coalition” (I would love to see a reporter ask Stephen Harper what, exactly, is “reckless” about a coalition) and whether Green party Leader Elizabeth May should be included in the televised leaders’ debates. In other words, so far the election has been about the election.

Both of the above-mentioned issues have managed to find their way into Canadian Pollville. It appears that the Conservatives’ relentless demonization of an opposition coalition hasn’t made much headway with the public. An April 1 Ipsos Reid poll found that only a slight majority of Canadians think there is a problem with coalitions – 52 per cent, to be precise. Moreover, it found that 54 per cent of Canadians would actually favour an opposition coalition government over a Conservative majority government.

Check out The Mark’s full election coverage here.

And even though an April 4 Nanos poll shows that a clear majority – 61 percent – of Canadians support May joining the televised leaders’ debate, it appears she is out of luck; on Tuesday, the Federal Court refused to hear May’s case before the debate broadcast. I think that’s a real shame. No doubt most viewers of the last federal leaders’ debate (in 2008) would agree that May at least kept things interesting. This time around, the “boys’ club” broadcast will almost certainly be an exercise in formula, posturing, and rote answers. Ho hum.

Speaking of ho hum, the truth is, the latest polls haven’t shown a lot of movement – by and large, the parties are maintaining their relative positions vis-à-vis each other. But how much should we read into the polls anyway? Are they really that accurate?

National Post writer Scott Stinson raised these same issues in an interesting article last week. One point that Stinson made clear was that regional breakdowns of polls are far less reliable than national polls, because the sample sizes are so much smaller. A great example of this is an April 5 Nanos trending poll, which, in itself, is not particularly dramatic – but note that the national poll has a margin of error of 3.1 per cent, whereas the regional margins of error average around 7.5.

In defence of polls, EKOS founder Frank Graves recently expressed concerns about journalists’ inability to interpret the finds scientifically. He cited pollsters’ very real expertise as compared to the slapdash efforts that are often present when filing a story before deadline.

Stinson and Graves are also concerned that polling firms have been contacting Canadians through a declining number of landlines. It tends to be younger Canadians who are moving to cellphone use only – so are their views being left out of poll results? Graves addresses this issue to some extent, but I remain uneasy. There is a big enough canyon between young people and their democracy without their views being left out of the public discourse.

Both Stinson and Graves point out that when it comes to election opinion-polling, the results do tend to closely mirror the actual popular-vote results. Of course, due to Canada’s creaking first-past-the-post electoral system, popular votes do not equal the number of seats won, so results may vary, as they say. But you can’t blame the polls for that!

If polls are sometimes abused, it is often because the 24-hour news cycle has had the effect of blowing up minor results into attention-grabbing headlines – courtesy of desperate editors and producers vying for your attention. And yes, it is easy for editors and broadcasters to trumpet the latest horse-race stats to keep you engaged. It is basic human nature to be interested in the progress of a race, and the media know it.

It’s also important to understand that polls reflect the constant barrage of information about party leaders and what they have said and done on any given day. By viewing issues and politics through the lens of personalities, we have allowed the cult of celebrity to skew our elections. We forget that the few hundred electoral candidates are not the ones who constitute our democracy; we, the great mass of citizens, are the ones who make up the Canadian demos.

To correct the distortion that celebrity causes, I’d like to see polls that only deal with what people want to vote for – actual issues like education, climate, security, pensions, etc. – without any party label attached.

Think of it this way: The polls should be about us, not them. After all, it is our democracy. Turning elections – and, indeed, politics in general – into a series of popularity contests is not fostering good policy. But polls about the needs and desires of Canadian citizens are far more relevant, and ought to displace the hackneyed horse races.

Photo courtesy of Reuters.