2008 Alberta Election

What Will Low Voter Turnout Do in the Alberta Election?

Harold Jansen — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:59:28 -0700

I've been enjoying reading the comments of my University of Lethbridge colleague Professor Peter McCormick over on his blog at the Calgary Herald/Edmonton Journal Alberta Votes website. In his latest post, he talks about what a dull campaign it's been. There's no question about it. No party or leader has captured the voters' imagination. I think the likely result is another low turnout election. In 2004, only 44% of registered voters bothered to cast a ballot (and remember that our system of voter registration is far from perfect,so the actual turnout number is a bit lower than that). With polls showing a large undecided vote and decided voters not particularly excited about their choices, we have all the makings of a new record low, surpassing that 2004 mark.

The big question is: what effect will this have? My esteemed colleague writes: "The conventional wisdom is that low turn-out favors the incumbents," meaning the Conservatives will be the benficiaries. I'm not so sure. It's also been widely believed that in Alberta, Conservative voters who don't like what their government does express their discontent not by voting for someone else, but by staying home on election day. The opposition breakthroughs in 1986/1989 came along with a drop in turnout. There were opposition candidates who won their seats in 1986 with fewer votes than they had in 1982 when they lost those same seats. Why? Tories stayed home. Or at least we think so.

To truly settle this question, we'd need a detailed survey of voters and non-voters after the election. Lacking that evidence, we have to look at it another way. That's what my I did with my colleagues Edward Bell and Lisa Young in an article published recently in the Canadian Political Science Review. We found that in the 2004 election the Conservatives did worse in disticts where turnout was lower and the Liberals did better. Turnout had very little impact on the vote shares of either the NDP or the Alberta Alliance. Now, we have to be careful in interpreting the data in order not to commit an ecological fallacy. We can't make conclusions about the behaviour of individual voters based on these district level data. However, our findings are at least consistent with the interpretation that Conservative voters stay home. Or at least they did in 2004. That's another caveat: what happened in the past may not apply to this election.

But Professor McCormick is absolutely right: the turnout question will be a big one on election night. Besides being reflective of the democratic vibrancy of the province, it could affect the very results of the election.

The Leadership Debate is Going to be Important

Harold Jansen — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:00:00 -0700

There's always a lot of attention paid to the leaders' debate, but frequently they don't matter much. I think tonight's debate might be different. Since no one has caught fire and voters don't seem to be paying much attention, the leaders have a real opportunity here to turn this around. In addition, debates often make a difference when leaders perform significantly above or below expectations. I don't think anyone has exceedingly high expectations for any of the leaders, so they have the chance here to define themselves. The stakes are particularly high for the opposition leaders, since they need to shake up the campaign. Right now, it looks like Ed Stelmach and the Tories are snoozing towards victory and the opposition needs to break the pattern. Tonight will be their chance.

We Finally Have Some Alberta Election Polling Numbers!

Harold Jansen — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:43:05 -0700

I've been waiting for some polling numbers and we finally have them, thanks to a National Post/Global TV poll done by Ipsos Reid. Basically, it shows the Conservatives well out in front, thanks to a commanding lead (46%) outside of Edmonton and Calgary. Interestingly, the Conservatives are doing better in Edmonton (38%) than in Calgary (33%), where the gap between Liberals and Conservatives is within the margin of error. It appears that there is a bit of a Stelmach effect happening in northern Alberta: there is a sense that Stelmach is their premier after years of Calgary-centred rule under Ralph Klein. It would be interesting to see a reversal of historical trends and have Calgary become the home to the opposition. If the Liberals break through significantly in Calgary and lose ground in Edmonton, it would certainly put pressure on them to get a Calgary leader -- Dave Bronconnier, anyone?

One more thing: where is the Wildrose Alliance? They are polling a measley 4% in all of Alberta. Right now that puts them well behind what the Alberta Alliance did in 2004. This party merger was supposed to create a credible threat on the right, but so far it doesn't appear to amount to much.

The other interesting thing about the poll is that only roughly 3 in 10 voters are happy with their choices and the rest of us are holding their noses when they vote. I haven't seen this question asked routinely on polls, so it's hard to say whether this is atypical. However, it does demonstrate that Albertans are a cranky lot, that no leader or party is winning this election. It looks like the winner will be the one who loses least.

2008 Alberta Election: Nominations are Closed

Marco Navarro-Genie — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:28:24 -0700

Candidate nominations for the present general election in Alberta closed yesterday. The biggest news (again) is that Elections Alberta does not make it very friendly for people to use their data (A nice printable file, if not a downloadable spreadsheet file, would make the lives of people in the media a bit easier).

The New Democrats and the Progressive Conservatives are presenting candidates in all 83 ridings. The Liberals, surprisingly, are not running a candidate in Peace River. The Green Party has augmented its team to 79 for this election, up from 46 in 2004. They’ll be absent in Dunvegan-Central Peace, Peace River, Lac La Biche-St. Paul, and Whitecourt-Ste. Anne.

About their absence in Peace River the Liberals will probably say that it’s not a big deal: someone likely didn’t get the papers in on time. Social Credit (Socreds) are not running a candidate there this year and the Greens have still not found someone to run for them in the riding. It’s a three-way race between Conservatives, New Democrats and the new arrivals, the Wildrose-Alliance. That makes it now one of the seats to watch if for no other reason that there is no Liberal candidate.

The Liberal absence is likely going to boost the competitiveness of the NDP, but their vote (546) combined to that of the Liberals in 2004 (1092) is just better than half of what the Conservatives received (2884). The Alliance in its previous manifestation received 537 votes. Their best growth potential rests with the Socred votes, all 194 of them. It's unlikely that the seat will change hands.

The Wildrose-Alliance is fielding 63 candidates. Technically it’s a new party, born just a few weeks ago. In that sense, a 63-name list is somewhat impressive. They are down from the full 83 names that the Alliance presented in its previous incarnation at the last election.

The Separation Party is down from 10 to only one candidate, and the once-mighty Social Credit dropped from 43 candidates to 8. The Communist Party is still giving the public an alternative in two ridings, but their scope is expanding: both ridings used to be in Edmonton. Now, they are running one candidate in Calgary’s North East.

Two weeks to go. The party leaders’ debate takes place this week.

Happy Family Day

Harold Jansen — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:58:19 -0700

It seems entirely appropriate that we're in the midst of a provincial election on Family Day. Those of you who are really old (like me) will remember that Family Day originated duing the 1989 election campaign. Let's see if this sounds familiar....

In 1989, a nice, well-meaning leader had succeeded a powerful and charismatic premier. Despite being a decent person, he gave the impression that he wasn't up for the job and he wasn't a particularly good communicator. This leader -- we'll call him Don -- was in electoral trouble and basically used elections as an opportunity to buy voters with spending announcements left and right. Family Day was part of the promise orgy of 1989.

Fast forward to 2008: similar kind of leader in similar trouble. The thing that has struck me is the rash of expensive promises that Stelmach and company have been rolling out. Last week it was $40 million for a new science centre in Calgary. That has been going on for the last several months. Here at my university in Lethbridge, we've been promised tens of millions in new building over the past few months. Furthermore, the province is building abunch of new schools. The problem is not that these projects aren't worthwhile. We need the new buildings at the U of L; Calgary and Edmonton desparately need new schools; the Calgary science centre is looking pretty decrepit. The problem is that we need these things built regularly, when they are needed, not when the government needs them to win elections.

The problem is that this gets at two of the Tories' weaknesses. First, they are being accused of not having a plan to manage growth. The government's behaviour over the past few months seems to imply that the only plan they have is to get re-elected. Second, the government's reputation as effective and stingy fiscal managers has taken a real beating. If the Wildrose Alliance, campaigning to the right of the Conservatives, could get its act together, this feeds right into them.

In fairness to the government, the Liberals and NDP are promising to spend lots of money, too, in their own effort to buy voters. Unlike other provinces, where revenues are limited, we haven't had a debate on how weare going to pay for all of this. The problem with capital projects, though, is that they are only very rarely a one-time expenditure. If the government gives Calgary money for new schools, it also have to give the school boards money for staff and supplies to maintain them on an annual basis. We simply haven't had that debate.

A lot has changed in Alberta, but the electoral tactics of political parties seem to remain intact: votes can be bought with voters' own money.

Mason has a point (or at least the start of one)

Harold Jansen — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:24:42 -0700

NDP leader Brian Mason is proposing an end to corporate and union donations to political parties in Alberta. Mason is pitching this as something that would eliminate (or at least reduce) corruption in Alberta. I'm not entirely convinced that this will make much of a difference on that front, but Mason is correct in pointing to the deficiencies in Alberta's party finance laws. Compared to other provinces in Canada (and to the federal government), Alberta has very little in either regulation of spending or in public reimbursements that would help to make political parties more competitive and able to communicate with the public. A ban on corporate and union donations might be part of the solution, but it needs to be part of a more comprehensive review of how we regulate party and election finance in this province.

Incidentally, this also points to the relative lack of discussion about the democratic deficit in Alberta so far in the election. Alberta's democractic institutions are in sorry shape, but Mason's foray into this field has been the only discussion of this thus far. I'm thinking this doesn't resonate particularly well with voters, who seem more preoccupied with what government does, not how it does it or why how government does things affects what it does (if you follow me).

Rocky Election Start for Ed Stelmach

Marco Navarro-Genie — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:45:55 -0700

Ed Stelmach's first week during the campaign has been rocky, if the media coverage is any indication.

The start of the Alberta election should have been an opportunity to showcase the government's accomplishments in the last 12 months. Instead, Ed Stelmach got questions about the coinciding election date with the third anniversary of the Maythorpe killing of four RCMP officers. What was reported were speculations about insensitivity or incompetence.

The opposition also attacked the premier for his use of a room to hold a press conference in the legislature. While Stelmach addressed issues in the Throne Speech, which made the use of the space legitimate, there were intimations of impropriety given the proximity to the election call. In any case, the opposition complaints got air and ink.

An order-in-council issued on the same day of the election writ was also called into question. The order stipulated new rules of ethics for public servants and elected officials leaving their posts to become lobbyists. Stelmach was accused of deliberately setting the date for the new ethic rules to take effect after the election, suggesting an intent to allow retiring ministers enough time to get into the unrestricted lobbying game.

Then was the announcement to "graduate" more doctors. Medical schools objected to the implied notion that government can graduate more students by fiat. It suggested that government would meddle in the near-sacred independence of universities to establish their own standards. While Stelmach did not intend to annoy academicians, there were yet again hints of carelessness in the use of language without accounting for the audience to whom he speaks.

That carelessness was also apparent in premier Stelmach's announcement regarding childcare. The premier appeared to be blind sided by questions and comments coming from the mothers present at the announcement. Stelmach may have expected gratitude from them but instead got an earful on camera. The premier got to display his conciliatory nature by meeting privately with those who expressed concern. But he appeared uninformed and lacking in command of the issues for which he is supposed to be presenting solutions.

Very much the same can be said about yesterday's (Feb. 11) response to the young man who heckled the premier's announcement on the environment. Stelmach announced tax-credit incentives for purchases of environment-friendly, energy-efficient items such as heating furnaces. His good nature prompted him to address the heckler's concerns. But he ended up quoting numbers, the origin of which he could not reference. Once again he gave the impression of lacking command of crucial details.

Most of these gaffes are unlikely to cost the premier at the polls. They are not gaffes of Klein proportions in any measure, but they are distracting from the message. They will probably affect many of those watching closely: his opponents, the media, and his followers. The mishaps are likely to inspire his opponents to go harder. They will reason that their hard work might encounter a future opportunity of a more disastrous gaffe; one that will have a greater effect on the outcome.

For different reasons, the media will continue to watch him hawkishly in the expectation of greater or more meaningful mishaps that they can report in what is otherwise expected to be a boring campaign. A goof-watch of sorts may have already been declared, which might result in a quick decision by handlers to keep the premier away from cameras and microphones. The mishaps are also likely to deflate the spirit of party supporters. Going in, Stelmach was already wanting in the key electoral area of troop-inspiring. More gaffes may consolidate the scepticism about the premier, which many seem to harbour in the rank and file of the Progressive Conservatives.

None of the above should be interpreted as a prediction that Stelmach and his party are going to lose the election. All else seems to suggest the opposite. The latest public opinion poll this week gives the premier a more than comfortable 25-point lead over the Liberals and puts him in clear majority territory. The lack of what the public and pundits interpret as viable electoral options in Alberta is not being supplied. The size or quality of a Tory victory will matter more to the premier's and the province's future than a victory itself.

On to week two.

Searching for Peter Lougheed

Harold Jansen — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:37:23 -0700

I'm not ordinarily in agreement with Lorne Gunter, the political columnist from the Edmonton Journal, but I thought he diagnosed the election and the mood of the province correctly in a recent column. Gunter argues that for a change of government to happen, two things have to be in place. He says that voters have to be ready for change and there has to be someone there to take advantage of that mood. His feeling is that there is a mood for change -- meeting the first condition -- but the Liberals are in no shape to take advantage of it.

That, in essence, is the dynamic of this election. After 37 years, it looks like voters are ready for a new party to be in government. Stelmach has tried to position himself as an agent for change (although the recent spendfest by the government is certainly business as usual), but hasn't succeeded. In 1971, that mood was there, but there was a Peter Lougheed out there to take advantage of it. Is Kevin Taft a Peter Lougheed figure? The lukewarm ratings in opinion polls suggest that he isn't. The election is there for the taking if an opposition leader can catch fire.