Six of one

by Werner Patels

Canadian voters must be tearing out their hair. Most people want to do the right thing on election day (whenever that is), but figuring things out and making a decision has become torture for most.

Polls are no big help either. One week, the Conservatives are up, and the next, the Liberals are up a bit again. Yet, underlying any poll is the lingering suspicion that they are all bogus anyway – one only needs to remember the polling disaster leading up to the general elections in Britain in 1997 when every single poll failed to predict New Labour's triumphant victory under Tony Blair.

It is therefore only logical, not to mention human, to look for other indicators that can assist with the decision-making in preparation of the next election. Since polls are nothing more than glorified tea leaves or extremely murky crystal balls, the next step is to look at what various parties actually stand for.

However, this throws up yet another obstacle: how different are the main parties really? A comparison of the Conservative and Liberal parties in their current incarnations reveals that there are some differences but that, overall, they are really six of one and half a dozen another.

Voters can draw up lists of pros and cons: If party A wins, the country (and I, of course) will benefit in the following ways, whereas if party B wins, a number of things will happen that I cannot tolerate. One might think that a pros-cons list could help the poor voter along in his or her decision, but, alas, it is not that simple – at least in Canada. For every benefit voters derive from a Conservative government, they would suffer a disadvantage under a Liberal government, and vice-versa. This may be stating the obvious in somewhat oversimplified terms, but essentially, this would be the result of any accounting of the Conservative and Liberal pros and cons.

What this means is that every voter will find something he or she likes, no matter whether the government is Conservative or Liberal. The only question that remains is whether the downsides are still bearable or so unacceptable that it would cancel out any of the benefits. There is no general answer to this question; finding the right answer is up to each and every voter.

No list of pros and cons will yield a perfect balance. For some voters, the bottom line of such a list will favour, by an infinitesimally small margin, the Conservative option, while others will have a result pointing to a Liberal preference. So, after looking at the parties' platforms and ideas, another decision-making tool will be needed.

This is found in the very people that represent the parties, that is, the candidates themselves, as well as party leaders. This one, though, gives every conflicted voter good reason to rejoice, because this is the one area of absolute clarity. For the past two years, every single poll has confirmed that Stephen Harper is considered the best leader, with Stéphane Dion always hanging on by his fingernails in third or, most of the time, fourth place (behind the NDP's Jack Layton).

If your list of pros and cons pointed you in the direction of voting Conservative, this additional aspect will most likely seal the deal for you. If your list suggested you should vote Liberal, you are back to square one and will need further input before you can make up your mind.

No doubt, at this point, you may just want to toss a coin and get it over with, but there is no reason to toss coins (or the towel) just yet. What is the one thing that makes the world – and, thus, politics – go round? Right, money.

Polls as a barometer of voting preferences for the different parties are unreliable. Every poll uses sample sizes (900, 1,000, 2,000) that are way too small and never produce predictions of any representative value. To approximate even a remotely accurate forecast, pollsters should use samples of no fewer than at least 10,000 to 15,000 people.

But money is different – it talks, and can tell quite the story. According to the most recent figures, 44,345 donors contributed $4.95 million to the Conservative Party in the first quarter of 2008. The NDP raised $1.1 million from 13,329 contributors, while the Liberals received only $846,129 from 10,169 donors. This puts the Liberals into third place.

In fact, these numbers are more indicative of things to come than any of the polls combined. When people part with their hard-earned cash and invest it in a political party, it is a testament to their commitment. That is to say, come election day, they will not waver and stay home or vote for anyone else.

It seems that the Conservatives know how to pull at the heart and purse strings of people. Even if turnout should be low in the next election, which it most certainly will, based on these numbers, Conservatives and conservative-minded voters will be more likely to go to the polls and vote for the party of their choice. Liberals, by contrast, do not appear to be overly motivated and will probably stay home in droves.

This should not surprise anyone. Many Liberals are not thrilled with Dion's leadership, and even they concede that they would rather see someone else in the Prime Minister's Office. They have resigned themselves to letting the "other guy" win by default, while keeping their fingers crossed that the next leadership contest will produce a strong and iconic leader for the Liberal Party – and, no, they do not plump for Michael Ignatieff either, who is a Liberal's Liberal who would be shunned by the vast majority of fence-sitting swing voters.

If these numbers are anything to go by, the NDP could very well be expected to form the next official opposition. Their numbers have been going up in Québec ever since the by-election victory of Thomas Mulcair last fall. They have been drawing voters away from the Bloc Québécois, and whenever Harper and Dion got right into things, Layton often ended up being the lone voice of reason. Accordingly, in poll after poll, Canadians say that Layton would be their second choice for prime minister, after Harper and ahead of Dion. Now that the NDP has also bested the Liberals in terms of donations – not just this year, but also throughout 2007 – it is not surprising at all that Layton has been acting more and more like the leader of the official opposition, rather than the top guy in charge of the "third wheel".

In all fairness, however, the donations numbers could also be interpreted differently. People tend to hand over money, so that others can do the dirty work for them. When contributions to political parties are involved, some donors may consider their civic duty done and therefore stay away from the polls on election day. Liberals may not want to hand over their money now, because they are resolved to let actions speak louder than words by stampeding to the polls to send a clear message to Harper and the Conservatives. They may also want to save their money for the actual election campaign and then donate generously to the various candidates.

So, on second thought, perhaps the coin toss may not be such a bad idea after all. Does anyone have a quarter?