Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderball
Exactly. Octothorp is right in theory, but with party solidarity and campaigning by brand moreso than individual... a vote for an MP is a vote for the party leader, since they pull the strings. Even someone as polarizing and destructive as Rob Anders can really only bluster with no effect on policy as a backbencher.
|
Well, using Rob Anders as an example, I don't think that very many of the people voting for him do so because they like Steven Harper; they do it because they identify strongly with the party. You could run just about any competent conservative as leader of the party, and that riding (Calgary West?) would still vote for them. Hell, you could run Rob Anders as party leader, and the Conservatives would still probably take a majority of ridings in Alberta (some in Calgary and all in rural Alberta) unless another right wing party appeared to challenge them.
In Alberta, the party is and always has been the greatest motivator for voting, on both a provincial and federal level. In other parts of the country, it's not nearly the same motivator.
Similarly, it would be foolish to suggest that voters in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver all identify strongly or trust Stephan Dion, while voters in rural parts of the country distrust him. Some are voting for him because they've always voted Liberal, some are voting for him because they like the Liberal platform, others are voting for him because they don't want to see Conservatives elected.
The vast shift from Liberal to Conservative in parts of Ontario and Quebec was not because people liked or trusted Harper more than Martin; it was because they felt that the Liberal party was corrupt, voters wanted to send a message; and again, any individual in the Liberal party could have been leader, and the result would have been more or less the same.
Look at Newfoundland this year: the conservatives have three seats going into the election, and it's currently predicted that they'll lose two of those three. Is it a coincidence that in the two seats they'll likely lose, the incumbents did not run again, while in the one seat they have a chance of retaining, the incumbent is running again? And this is in the face of prominent regional politicians running an anti-Harper campaign. Incumbent regional representation is proving to be an effective counter there for questions of leadership. Of course, regional issues and regional voting history are also factors. But we see that all the time: a region of the country shifts voting based on regional issues, but one or two ridings maintain allegiance to an incumbent until the incumbent retires, at which point they shift to follow the rest of the region.
For third parties, the leader is far more important; people aren't as familiar with the party history or platform, so a charismatic and trusted leader is necessary; Ed Broadbent for example, who constantly grew NDP support through earning trust on a national level.
The number of seats that change hands to the Conservatives or Liberals this election as a result of the party leadership will be small; the number of seats that remain for incumbent Conservatives or Liberals because of party leader is even smaller. The one issue where I do think that leadership plays a big role is determining whether a government will get a majority; people will vote to prevent a less trusted leader from achieving a majority. But in this case, it's not really weighing one leader against the other, Dion or Layton's charisma doesn't really affect whether people trust Harper enough to give him a majority.