We are in the midst of the federal election campaign with it's conspicuous bill board signs dotting the landscape beside our commonly traveled byways and highways. The signs simply show the candidates name and their party affiliation. When these signs are viewed in the aggregate we note their size, color, quality and their frequency. The message seems to be aimed simply at name and party recognition. We are naturally invited to do some comparison shopping using signage as our main criterion for choice. In the absence of other information about the candidate or their party there will be a tendency among some lazy voters to simply make their choice based on signage. The candidate/party with the most numerous/conspicuous signs will make the biggest impression on the voter while the candidate/party with the fewest/more modest signs are likely to make the least impression. The sales pitch is based largely on the effect of repetition and familiarity. The idea is the voter in the ballot booth will be invited to vote for the dominant impression left with them by the advertising. The biggest advertising campaign will win the most votes from those that are least informed.
So the uniformed voter is inclined to vote for the party with the most money to spend on advertising, which coincidently comes largely from corporate donations and wealthy patrons. Ironically, voters with limited financial means are tempted to vote for wealthy parties who owe political debts to corporations and wealthy people. Well in our electoral area the advertising indicates clearly that the Conservatives are that rich party. What have the federal conservatives done for this relatively poor riding to earn those votes?
Now just look at the competence and character of the candidates regardless of party affiliation and decide who might be the best person [honest, dedicated, informed, engaged, etc] for the job of representing this riding. Perhaps the Tory candidate comes off fourth best here, so why is he so favored to win the contest? Perhaps it's simply the inertia of incumbency, he's the person with the greatest name recognition and the current stand in for a party the riding is most habituated to. It seems odd to me the Tories couldn't find a better candidate in this riding than the former mayor of Salmon Arm who carries with him a load of disputable baggage. Perhaps he is just a real nice guy and that's good enough for us or simply you get him by default if you plan to vote conservative.
This also begs the question: why is the hinterland, rural B.C. and Okanagan-Shuswap, so predominantly conservative? Moreover, could the ingrained conservative mindset of the voting population be reflected in the preferred choice for municipal politicians? Perhaps the local population prefer to vote for [are more comfortable with] people who they are most familiar with rather than with newcomers who are unknown to them. However have the locally bred, elected politicians aligned their interests with the electorate? It seems doubtful at best. Will the next election pivot around incumbency , community name recognition and signage? Will newcomers, who are largely issue oriented, be welcomed by the predominantly conservative mindset of this community? The answer will depend in part on the voter preferences of the 'newcomers' to Coldstream, who are largely middle class, educated and affluent. A larger turnout of this demographic segment in the next election could tip the scales in favor of a reformist environmentally friendly council which could bring sweeping changes to Coldstream. This is not what conservatively minded people really want.Time will tell, if not now then perhaps eventually, as the population demographic tips in favor of more liberal minded new arrivals.
I am not in favor of political billboards in municipal elections, they are unaesthetic, intrusive, environmentally harmful and unfair [end to favor people with money].
Peter Peto
*************************************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment