Advertisement

News

Strategic stink

The current distraction caused by the ongoing strategic voting discussion that has infected Toronto’s mayoralty race seems based on the absurd idea that there is a science to elections and that the process has more to do with lab coats than lawn signs.

The electoral alchemists who push strategic voting have helped create a cynical atmosphere around this election, a race that’s been largely devoid of ideas and inspiration, hardly fertile ground to engage an at best disinterested, at worst cynical electorate.

Since barely more than 30 per cent of eligible voters choose to mark an X on municipal ballots, I’m certain more citizens would make the effort if they felt they were voting for something instead of against something else.

“Hey, everybody, let’s hold our noses and vote for the best of a bad lot” is hardly the oratorical excellence that has inspired people to give a shit in elections throughout the ages.

When ex-mayor John Sewell was asked what it meant when he agreed to be on a post-election panel for mayoralty hopeful George Smitherman, his tepid response was, “If that means I’m endorsing him because of it, so be it. That’s fine with me.”

Really? That’s the best we can do? We’re going to engage young people and non-traditional voters with this expedient message?

Wouldn’t you rather vote for something you believed in? That’s what has ignited unlikely front-runner Rob Ford’s crazy campaign. His folks believe in screwing everybody else and not paying taxes, and tough luck for the little guy or the disadvantaged. Sadly, this “positive” message has more resonance than the compromise collusion that is strategic voting.

Supposedly left-wing councillor Joe Mihevc has abandoned his natural ally Joe Pantalone in the name of strategic voting. While admitting Pantalone has “the skills, smarts and experience to be a fine mayor,” he’s reluctantly calling for a Smitherman vote to elect “a good mayor” rather than Ford. Is this what people had in mind when they fought for democracy?

Americans surprised themselves by electing Barack Obama, Toronto did the same by electing David Miller, and a tiny, perfect progressive named David Crombie once stole Toronto’s mayoralty. Hell, even Sewell did it. So why are so many now prepared to sell a diminished vision of our city and what it can be?

Once we drag out the logarithms, spreadsheets and poll numbers, a case can be made that a strategic vote for Smitherman is actually more likely to give us a city we’d be ashamed of than would a vote for Ford. Despite claims by the mainstream press, if Ford were to win, he’d be very unlikely to have council support, so getting his slash-and-burn policies through would be a daily struggle.

Smitherman’s huge-tent, “I will be what you want me to be” approach is more likely to be bought by a new council, meaning his own slash-and-burn approach might actually become city policy and the recent great strides Toronto has made would be dismantled and destroyed.

To ignite the strategic voters’ Bunsen burner for a minute to warm this electoral petri dish, I suggest that we might be doing more strategic harm electing Smitherman than Ford.

As the federal and provincial governments continue to ignore this city and hoard their 90 per cent share of tax dollars raised in Toronto, the next term will be tough for any elected representative. If Ford were to win, the folly of his policies and crazy promises would be quickly exposed. That means the shit would hit the fan in plenty of time to pre-empt a new right revolt led by provincial Conservative Tim “I Like Mike Harris” Hudak when the Ontario vote happens in about 18 months.

Voting “strategically” for Ford might ensure that Ontario wouldn’t elect another Harris-style Tory government. A vote for Smitherman would be more fuel on the fire to discredit Liberals and hasten, perhaps guarantee, a horrible provincial Tory backlash win.

But even thinking this way makes me want to take a shower. I’m committed to marking my X beside a candidate I believe in, not one I can merely put up with. And you can be sure that if Smitherman is elected, he will interpret the result as a mandate, not as lukewarm support. He will operate as if every vote were enthusiastically given, not reluctantly, strategically offered. And if you look at his not-so-different-from-Ford approach, that’s something to fear.

Of course I want the candidates I vote for to win. But even if they don’t, I want my vote – and my support – to stand with a candidate and policies I believe in.

Ideally we all use our votes to elect those we believe in. But at the very least, we use our votes to stand and be counted, and to make sure, even if the wrong candidate is chosen, the winner knows there’s a significant group out there with a different vision of the city.

By casting your vote with confidence and conviction, not compromise and collusion, we might just get a city government and a Toronto we can be proud of. It’s happened before. Why not again?

michaelh@nowtoronto.com

Advertisement

Exclusive content and events straight to your inbox

Subscribe to our Newsletter

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

By signing up, I agree to receive emails from Now Toronto and to the Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.

Recently Posted