The Blue Agave Forum: The Blue Agave Forum -> Canadian versus American elections

It's almost humorous that Canada will be holding a federal election just before the Americans hold theirs. Canadian elections normally have the excitement of a church social, but are good for those slow-news years where there aren't any new wars or American elections to cover. It's almost like our politicians didn't want anyone to notice in all the hubbub going on down south, slipping under the radar. But we do that anyway, so we didn't need to do anything special to achieve it.

Yes, yes, Stephen Harper wanted to get ours in before the next Great Depression hits us in the backlash of the collapse of the US financial sector. We don't want our politicians standing too close to the Big Fan as the shit hits it (and it seems to be coming in brontosaurus-size dumps right now). The other party leaders, however, were reluctant to face up to the rigours of an election right now (especially since Stephen promised us we wouldn't face another one for a few more years).

Why does anyone really want to be PM in the worst of times? Whoever becomes PM can't even look forward to a $12 billion surplus to make good his promises because, guess what: the current PM spent it all! And even with $12 billion to dribble away these past two years, we couldn't get port of entry status for our local airport. Maybe Stephen figures if he wins, he can tax us enough to fill the coffers back to the level they were when he took office. But face it: no matter who gets in, taxes will rise.

We're issue-oriented up here because our political personalities are, frankly, dull. American elections get tightly focused and the world's rapt attention gets drawn to just four people. Almost no one else running for a seat matters until after it's over. It's all about the two who will rise to the top of the pyramid, the two who will be the leaders of the richest, most powerful and often scrappiest nation on the planet. Entire books get launched simply on a candidate's single turn of phrase*. Should one of them pass wind, it's the stuff of career-making comedy routines.

Canadian elections are also covered by international news agencies, albeit usually only on election night and that done from a bar in New York where they can get it on cable in between halves during the soccer matches. The results are duly reported by the international media on the same page they cover the Burundian elections and the visits of state to Ulan Bator.

American presidential election campaigns have more reporters covering them than inhabit many Canadian towns. In fact, they have so many reporters on the buses that they when they arrive in some communities, they can cause the same sort of food and fuel shortage one expects of a class four hurricane. Every major TV and radio station and newspaper in the world has someone covering the foursome, often more than one (one per candidate is de rigeur), plus there are hundreds of folk from regional media who join in. Elizabethan Royal Progressions were smaller in size the the campaign bus convoys.

In Canada, when our party leaders roll up to speak to speak in support of their local candidate at the lawn bowling club in Moosebeard, you get a reporter from CBC, maybe one from CTV, another from Global, and a stringer from the Moosebeard Herald. Okay, you might get someone from the A Channel, too, if you're in some parts of Ontario or in Victoria. Sure, you get a sizable media scrum in the big cities, but there are school excursions with more people on them than on the typical Canadian campaign bus or plane (assuming it can get off the ground...).

And when you turn on the news, what do you get, even in Canada on the CBC: Obama versus McCain, with the fate of the Free World, of capitalism, democracy and maybe the entire planet at stake. Big, brash, bold statements.

Harper versus anyone else runs somewhat later, and we don't even get a lot of that because our elections are pretty calm in comparison: it's usually the leaders off somewhere we can't locate on a map making promises to believers, rather than the to-and-fro confrontational politics of American campaigns. And even our media are generally deferential. Makes for an exciting (snore) campaign... a lot of nice, polite people all saying "excuse me,""pardon me," "do you mind?" and "well, I beg to disagree."



Well, I sympathize. It wasn't very exciting. After all, what kind of excitement does a debate on a carbon tax generate? Or on daycare subsidies? Or equalization payments? Intellectual, yes, but exciting? Nope. Canada's doing rather too well to make for much passion at election time. None of the parties want to rock the boat too much by promising anything too radical - not even feisty Jack Layton, and we expect something wacky and radical from the NDP to liven things up. **

American elections have that emotion-fuelling soap opera personality style that turns around the daily lives of the candidates. They have anger, passion, hope, and pride. We get to know what they eat for breakfast, what they wore on the hustings, what books they're reading, what colours they like, where they go to church (going to church is very big in American politics but I can't honestly say if any Canadian leaders attend one, let alone what faith they are - aside from Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day who both made a big deal a while back about being the kind of Christians that make more liberal Christians shudder).

But what do we know about the personal lives of our Canadian leaders? And do do we really care? Aren't the issues what matters, not what shoe size someone wears, or what their favourite movie is? Snore...

Americans tend to paint their politics in angry duotones of left-versus-right, conservative-versus-liberal us-versus-them and make these deep, emotional divides. Canadians actually have real political distinctions between their parties and tend to view American polarities with incredulity. For Canadians, Americans choose between shades of right. We look south and fail to see much substance in the claimed differences, just rhetoric.

There is no active left wing in American politics like we have here. Ask Jack Layton how he'd fare in US elections. Or any of the Marxist-Leninist or Communist Party candidates. Both ran challengers in the last federal election (although rather predictably they didn't even get close to causing the front-runners a moment's sleep during the campaign).

We also had candidates fielded by the Canadian Action Party, Marijuana Party, Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party, Christian Heritage Party, First Peoples National Party, Libertarian Party, Progressive Canadian Party and the Western Block Party. I know, I know. Some of these sound like party parties. But according to Elections Canada, there were several parties eligible to field candidates, but failed to do so: the People's Political Power Party of Canada, the Work Less Party, Neorhino Party, Newfoundland and Labrador First Party, and the People's Political Power Party of Canada. Sadly, the Natural Law Party de-registered itself (I suppose they all flew away...).

Three other parties applied but were refused: the National Alternative Party of Canada, the Ontario Party of Canada and the Absolutely Absurd Party. Apparently anyone can form a political party in Canada and field candidates. I believe the requirements are simply that you are Canadian, breathing and don't fall asleep while submitting your form. While that may appear lax, it's far more rigorous than our requirements to get into the Senate. Be that as it may, we have real political choices here in Canada, the whole spectrum from loony left to loony right. True, most of the mainstream players are huddled somewhere around the safer middle, though.

Perhaps Canadian elections would appear less lacklustre if the media focused on the candidates from the fringe parties. Can you imagine the debate between the Marijuana Party and the Work Less Party? Or the Libertarians versus the Communists? Or the Western Block versus the Newfoundland and Labrador First parties? We're missing out on some true political theatre.

But no, predictably we get debates between Harper (snore) and Dion (snore) with sniping from Duceppe and Layton to keep us awake. And now May. Yes, the Green Party is included in the debates. But don't expect her inclusion to generate the fireworks our debates have been missing. She's not all fire and brimstone over the environment because they generate too much GHG. Face it: Canadian politics are painted in pastel shades. Light blue, pale pink, soothing green.

American presidential politicians seem to radiate charisma and energy from their pores. They evoke response, they joke, they laugh, they cry. Even for recalcitrant cynics like myself, it's hard not to get swept up by the emotions on hearing either Obama or McCain speak to a hall full of supporters. There's raw emotion there and it's contagious. Watching McCain, I got so caught up I almost wanted to go out and invade an Islamic nation myself.

Our Canadian politicians generally come across like tax accountants who make reluctant house calls. Even when you can understand what they're saying, your eyes glaze over in the telling. Communication skills are obviously not requirements in Canadian party leaders, as Rick Mercer points out:

Quote

All of this is a bit odd, because despite all the attention Americans give their politicians, and despite the dullness of our campaigns, Canadians are better voters than Americans. Per capita, more Canadians turn out to vote than Americans, even when we don't have a lot of reason to do so. It's just our civic duty so we do it. We're nice people that way, well some of us. Voter turnout has been dropping steadily since the 1970s in inverse relation to the number of good shows available on the tube.

Still, in Canada, voter turnout in the past few elections has been higher than our American counterparts. In the last three federal elections (2006, 2004 and 2000), we had 64.7%, 60.9% and 61.2% turnout respectively. In the last three American federal elections (2004, 2000 and 1996), the turnouts were 56.69%, 51.31% and 49.08% respectively. In the Sixties, Canada saw its highest turnout at 79.2%. Curiously, that decade America saw its highest too, at 63.06%. On average, from 1960 to 1995, Canada had a 76% turnout (11 elections), while the US had 54% over nine elections. For midterm elections, the US turnout levels are 10-15% lower than for federal election years.

Canada isn't anywhere near the highest, by the way. In that same time, Australia had a 95% turnout, Malta 94%, Austria 92%, Belgium 91% and Italy 90%. Or course Australians get a free case of beer every time they vote, so that accounts for the high turnout.

Somehow I don't think the turnout will be very high this time. Last time Canadians roused themselves from their political slumber long enough to turn Paul Martin out on his Liberal ear, but not quite irate enough to give the PCs a majority. But this time - well, the choices aren't really anything to get worked up about. No one's promising much new or different, just more of the same (minus of course the $12 billion surplus that fuelled a lot of the last election's promises). Aside from Harper, the rest entered the race with an evident reluctance that translates into even duller campaigns than normal. My prediction: we'll get another Conservative minority. PCs up a few, Libs down a few, NDP and Bloc about the same, and perhaps a single Green seat. And if nothing really changes, why are we going through this exercise again?
~~~~~
* Of course, to be fair, we're not sure if VP candidate Sarah Palin CAN actually speak off the cuff because every time a reporter asks her a question, John McCain answers it. But the Man Magnet stands and smiles and looks good while he pulls the puppet strings, which seems to divert the attention from the obvious questions about her abilities.

** Ever since the Rhino Party disbanded itself, Canadian elections have been paint-dryingly dull. The Bloc injected a little humour for a while, but they got to taking themselves too seriously and now they're as dull as the rest - Quebec voters are turning elsewhere for their laughs.