Vote Swapping

December 23, 2008

The proponents of vote swapping were claiming to have influenced the outcome in some close ridings in the October 14 federal election, undoubtedly Edmonton-Strathcona, Edmonton Centre and even Edmonton East. Member of Parliament Peter Goldring comments on this new campaign tactic.

The vote-swappers claims of influence show how much campaign methodology has changed since I was first elected to Parliament in 1997. Then the internet was just beginning to become widespread. Political websites were a relatively new idea, many people didn’t have e-mail, text messaging was in its infancy and there was no such thing as Facebook, bloggers or computerized autodial, auto-answer manned phone banks.

Now all these things are widespread, highlighted in recently by the introduction of various proxy vote-swapping efforts combining all or some of the latest methods. While some may see proxy vote-swapping as an idea whose time has come, I think all aspects of it should be examined for propriety and to see if it does a disservice to democracy.

Proxy vote-swapping appeals to individuals whose favoured party does not have a hope of winning in their riding. To give your vote more impact, you promise to vote for your second choice in exchange for someone from another riding voting for your first choice in that riding. For example, if a Liberal supporter in Edmonton-Strathcona could be encouraged to swap with an NDP supporter in Edmonton Centre, then both votes could be seen to be making a real difference.

The key to vote-swapping success is trust. Both parties trust the other voter to vote as they have agreed to. That may have been the case this year as Canadians generally will do something they have agreed to. A vote-swapping agreement, verbal or otherwise, is a legal contract which, while possibly well intended, I believe defrauds the public good will of our electoral system.

The difference being made by this process of proxy bartering greatly distorts democratic outcomes. In the last election how many voters nationwide agreed to proxy barter their votes? How many will agree to proxy barter their votes in the next election? If proxy vote-swapping were declared illegal, who would have won in Edmonton-Strathcona?

When the proxy vote-swapping idea first was introduced there were questions about its legality. It is illegal to use money to buy or barter for a vote. (Though it was legal and quite common in the nineteenth century, especially in the US where the going price in the nineteenth century was two dollars a vote.)

Elections Canada determined that proxy vote-swapping was permissible, since apparently no money was changing hands, and there was no perceived “material benefit” involved. Encouraging someone to vote in a particular way is what campaigning is all about, but an organized strategic voting plan, by biased influence groups utilizing proxy vote-swapping by bartering seriously needs to be examined. I believe Elections Canada’s earlier position should be re-examined thoroughly by that organization and possibly by Parliament.

I believe despite Elections Canada’s earlier acceptance of proxy vote-swapping in this election, the process lacks legitimacy. When a vote is swapped or bartered, someone else is becoming your proxy – and proxy voting has long been illegal in federal elections. It distorts the true expression of voter preference. Also, there is a material benefit involved in proxy vote swapping or bartering because of the $1.95 per vote per year Elections Canada gives to political parties based on their past electoral performance.

Elections Canada should be looking into just who is behind these schemes and the cost. It is difficult at times to tell exactly what special interests or politically aligned group is behind a particular website – and legally foreigners aren’t supposed to be influencing Canadian elections. In the 2008 campaign there was controversy when New York based Avaaz openly bought newspaper advertising in several ridings in an attempt to influence the vote. But what controls are there for more covert domestic attempts to distort election outcomes?

There are those in the political realm who I’m sure will take note of the success of proxy vote-swapping and explore en-mass swapping for the next election.

More sophisticated proxy vote-swapping campaigns, involving banks of computerized phone lines and multiple operators are coming into play. Where do they show up on an election campaign spending report if these efforts are primarily before the election is called? There are specific spending limits for each local campaign - computerized phone bank call identification centres are a luxury most cannot afford. Shouldn’t detailed extensive voter identification costs in the pre-writ period be an election expense for the candidate who hopes to benefit from them?

These efforts to establish overt bartering or proxy-swapping, whether pre-writ or during campaigns, should be subject to Elections Canada regulation. There are few pre-writ expenditure rules, but these must be examined as well.

Interestingly, political parties were exempted from the recently established Do Not Call List. With proxy-vote swapping efforts voters can now expect calls from political affiliates and parties year-round, not just in the next campaign, trying to get people to consider bartering votes from Choice “A” to Choice “B,” particularly in ridings with close races.

There should be much concern for the financial aspect of proxy vote-swapping. In Edmonton-Strathcona, where the proxy vote-swappers were claiming to have helped influence the votes that gave the win to NDP MP Linda Duncan, the Liberal candidate ran a very strong, expensive campaign. The rather lacklustre Liberal campaign in 2006 by the previous candidate pulled in 18% of the riding vote. The Liberal vote this time fell to 9%, one per cent below the threshold Elections Canada sets for expense rebates to riding associations. Was the vote collapse, despite a superior effort, caused by the proxy vote-swap? Proxy vote-swapping undoubtedly distorted the outcome of this riding both politically and financially.

The Liberals in Edmonton-Strathcona lost about 5,000 votes from their 2006 totals. At $1.95 per year for up to four years from Elections Canada, and the loss of the 60% campaign expenses refund, the financial cost of proxy swapping could well be $80,000, for just one riding. Nationally it could be considerably more.

The proponents of vote swapping were united in their aims in the 2008 election. They wanted to prevent the re-election of Conservatives. There didn’t seem to be any proxy vote-swapping efforts dedicated to helping Conservatives win close races. Such efforts were hardly non-partisan. Were proxy vote-swapping efforts registered and cost-declared for political affiliations? Did the national or local campaigns which benefited declare the costs as election expenses?

One of the ideas underlying the idea of proxy vote-swapping is that a vote is wasted if your candidate doesn’t win. That is not what the democratic process is for. Participation is what is critical. Participation gives ongoing support to your party of choice and candidate. Proxy vote-swapping disenfranchises you from your party of choice in your riding, denying the party/riding association of important future financing.

Proportional representation also has been suggested by some, such as Green party leader Elizabeth May, as the cure for what’s wrong with Canada’s ‘first past the post’ system that sees Members of Parliament elected who don’t receive a majority of votes in their ridings (and a majority government that does not receive a majority of votes nationally).

Proportional representation may seem like a great idea to Ms. May, whose party does not appeal (at this point) to more than a small number of people. Proportional representation in 2008 would have give the Greens more than 20 MPs based on their share of the national vote, despite not winning any ridings. Who would these MPs be? Who would they represent? Would they be truly representative of the electorate, or just owe their jobs to the party bosses who put their names on a list? Do Canadians want to be governed by unelected, unaccountable patronage appointees?

The proportional representation debate continues but the issue of proxy vote-swapping must be properly addressed by Parliament and by Elections Canada to prevent it from being an even larger issue in the next election. We must say no to organized proxy vote-swapping, or our Canadian electoral process is at risk of becoming truly perverted.