Robocalls: Where cynicism meets apathy

If the robocalls scandal does turn out to be a large-scale subversion of basic democratic rights in Canada, no one should be feeling very smug. It happened in part because we -- and I mean we as citizens -- helped create the conditions for a cynical stunt like this to work. 

In the past few days, I've stood back a bit to see where the issue of robocalls fits in the context of the book I'm writing (which is about how we've turned into consumer-citizens with regard to our politics here in Canada.)  Here's where my thinking is at, at the end of a very weird week or two.   

***

 

The less you know about politics, the more important your vote may be on election day. 

This blunt truth of modern-day Canadian politics  has guided  the federal Conservatives for several elections now in this country. 

Patrick Muttart, the savvy communications strategist behind many of the Conservative party’s past successes, lays it out in a new, academic text on the art of political marketing in Canada. 

“Close campaigns are decided by the least informed, least engaged voters,” Muttart told political-marketing expert Jennifer Lees-Marshment, one of the editors of Political Marketing in Canada, newly released by the University of British Columbia Press. 

“These voters do not go looking for political news and information. This necessitates brutally simple communication with clear choices that hits the voter whether they like it or not. Journalists and editorialists often complain about the simplicity of political communication, but marketers must respond to the reality that undecided voters are often not as informed or interested as the political and media class are.”

Romantics and idealists may blanche at this stark analysis of the Canadian political landscape. But  it’s crucial to understanding  why  all political parties are so dependent on the massive voter-identification databases and robo-calling operations that are dominating the headlines these days. 

It works this way: politicians have had to learn more about their voters precisely because their voters care less about politics and the daily debate of the Ottawa “bubble.”   If Canadians have tuned out politics, the people working to grab their vote need to know what it is that they do care about, to lure the apathetic voters  to the ballot box. 

And that’s where the political marketers come in, using the same methods of persuasion that merchants and commercial people employ to capture consumers. Just as the big-box stores and loyalty-card companies are gathering up and recording your purchase preferences in their databases, so are the political parties.  The Conservatives have CIMS, the Liberals have “Liberalist”  and the New Democrats have “NDP Vote.” 

Voting has become more like shopping in modern Canada with each decade since the Second World War.  And robo-calls are the hard sell  in a political marketplace where it’s difficult to get people buying anything -- or even to enter the store, to continue the metaphor. 

 In the last election, for instance, Ipsos polling showed that 42 per cent of Canadians admitted that they weren’t paying attention to the campaign. And even when people do claim to be interested in politics, it pays to take that with a grain of salt, apparently. 

Muttart, who was essentially the marketing chief for the Conservatives from 2004 to 2008 -- the person who crafted the party’s appeal to “Tim Horton’s voters” -- is  now in Chicago doing private-sector marketing. He wasn’t a strategist or even in Canada  in last year’s election. (Correction: He was a part-time strategist, who famously departed mid-campaign.) But his approach to politics is widely shared by the governing Conservatives. 

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former communications director, Dimitri Soudas, did a presentation on “branding” political parties in Ottawa this past week,  in which he demonstrated that voters often exaggerate their level of engagement in current affairs. Quoting from StatsCan figures, Soudas said that while 92 per cent of Canadians claimed to watch TV news and 70 per cent claimed to read newspapers, in fact the real figures are around 50 per cent for both.  

This is why, Soudas explained, Conservatives concentrated their advertising buys on more popular, non-news  TV shows. It’s also why the Conservatives  pay close attention to giving citizens the same clear, strong imagery that Canadians are accustomed  to seeing in their consumer brands.  

“The Conservative brand has had a net positive impact on the consumer, or as he or she is called in this domain, the ‘voter,’” Soudas told his audience of PR professionals.  

But just as the Conservatives aren’t the only ones with robocalls and databases,  it isn’t just Conservatives who have mastered the voter-as-shopper approach in Canada. This has actually been decades in the making -- and it goes hand-in-hand with voters’ increasing disengagement with political parties. 

Hard as it may to believe now, most Canadians used to know how they were going to vote by the time elections were called. Political parties had stable bases of support; loyalties forged sometimes over generations.  The proportion of “floating voters” -- people trying to make up their minds during the campaign -- accounted for only a fraction of the electorate in elections in the 1970s, for instance. 

In a 1971 interview with the Canadian Press, pollster Martin Goldfarb said that his art -- still new to this country then -- was useful only for appealing to the 10 per cent of the electorate who had the power to move the fortunes of the parties either way. 

“I think our research could be enough in a close election to win or lose. If it’s tight, we make that much difference,” said Goldfarb, who went on to become the Liberals’ official party pollster for the next two decades. 

Nowadays,  the political dynamics are far more volatile. The people who describe themselves as undecided, all the way up to voting day,  has hovered as high as  30 or even 40 per cent  during many of our recent elections. If Muttart is correct, these people may be not so much undecided as simply uninterested -- making it all the more difficult to motivate them toward the ballot box. 

And of course, the corollary is that it’s all the easier to keep them away from the voting booths too. The slightest inconvenience -- a changed polling location -- may be enough to  suppress the vote. 

That’s the subtext under all these allegations of fraudulent phone calls, misdirecting voters away from legitimate polling places. Someone (or many  people)  cynically calculated that it wouldn’t take a whole lot of effort to suppress unwelcome votes  for their political rivals. That’s as much a comment on the disengaged electorate as it is on the plotters behind the scheme. 

The massive Elections Canada investigation now under way will perhaps prove whether this calculation was correct -- that driving voters away from the ballot box may have changed some candidates’ fortunes on May 2, 2011. 

That would  also prove, in turn,  that Muttart is  correct: that in the  post-partisan, consumer-citizen nation that  defines Canada  today, elections are decided by the people who aren’t paying attention to politics. The people who aren't reading this blog, for instance. 

Postscript: I notice today that the government is announcing measures to help the consumer-citizens of Canada. That is, at least in part, a reflection of where we think people's priorities are these days: Never mind all the democracy talk -- there's shopping to be done! 

 

Comments

[janice]

Meh. I have no problem misrepresenting my position (decided, undecided) when the useless pollsters start calling. None of anyone's business and asking about this is intrusive. Basing your strategy (as a political campaign) on such a ridiculous result as these surveys are likely to produce is idiotic.

I DO vote every time I have an opportunity to do so. But where that vote falls, before or at polling time, is not for anyone to know or suppose they know.

[Brent Fullard]

A simple, effective way to achieve major voter reform in this robocall world:

http://caiti-online.blogspot.com/2012/03/simple-effective-way-to-achieve-major.html

[hollinm]

I don't have any dispute with Ms. Delacourt's anaylsis. However, I would add the following. We all recognize that voter turnout has declined over the last few years although it was up slightly in the last election.

I would suggest that the media has a lot to do with voter apathy, cynicism and is a large part of the reason that voters have decided to not vote.

Everyday the media is full of negative press. Each day we see news reports or columnists pontificating that the government did this bad thing or that bad thing. The opposition talking points are repeated verbatim without apparently checking the facts.Pat Martin makes some outrageous comment and the media widely report it as if is based on fact. Soon people get the impression that all MPs are crooks, they are only looking out for themselves and the system is corrupt.

I have no idea if the robocall controversy is real. However, with the shenangins in the House thanks to Pat Martin and others what are Canadians to believe. So they simply turn it off and become disconnected from the political process.

[Snip]

Wow... I hadn't thought of the electoral process in these terms before, but now that I have read this piece, it really starts to come together: "Mad Men" meets Canadian politics. This can't be good.

And of course, if political messaging is merely advertising, truth very much becomes secondary.

What a mess.

[sue]

I disagree with the premise that the voters are to blame if it found that "someone" used phony robocalls.

The responsibility lies with those making phony robocalls.

Personally, I think robocalls should be banned or, at the very least, they should not be exempted from the Do Not Call Registry (as they are currently).

I have a heart patient in my home; being bombarded by robocalls is not just an annoyance; they destroy the sanctity of my home.

And I volunteer for election campaigns and have done lots of phone banking in my time.

If people do not want to be called, they shouldn't be.

There is no "right" for political parties to harass people.

[Roberto]

I believe I can simplify your point. I am not a journalist and don't have to worry about offending readers and suffering blowback for being honest. And the honest truth is, Harper's Conservatives won the election by targeting and winning the stupid vote. The less intelligent the voter, the more likely they are to be sold Harper's simplistic messaging. Harper is an economist - he knew cutting the GST was idiotic, but he did it anyway to appeal to people too stupid to understand economics. He scares people with talk of crime and sells himself as the answer. Stupid people don't know or don't believe crime rates are falling - instant support. He wins a majority after being found in contempt of parliament - stupid people didn't know or understand the issue. He prorogues parliament twice to avoid political problems with no penalty - stupid people can't spell, let alone understand prorogation. His marketing driven, focus grouped machine has relentlessly targeted the least intelligent Canadians with shocking success. Not realizing they have been cynically manipulated, these supporters are strongly loyal, and resistant to reason, science and evidence as tools of persuasion. That's why a government guilty of so many egregious assaults on honesty, decency and parliamentary tradition stays stubbornly at around 35 - 40% in the polls.

[Nadine Lumley]

Brave New World

Orwell warns we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history.

As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.

Huxley v. Orwell: comic strip where you can actually read everything
http://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/2009-05-Amusing-Ourselves-to-Death.html
♥
Huxley v. Orwell: comic strip put to cool music ala video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3fAHE6IQxY&feature=player_embedded#at=64

[Scott Preston]

If you are correct in this, then I think we can kiss democracy goodbye. And if you are right, it means we have to think about how to move away from mass politics without sacrificing hard-won political rights. At the moment, I'm not sure what this would look like.

[Mary]

This is a great analysis of what our electoral system has become and it's very sad. Citizens in a democracy have a duty and a responsibility to be engaged, to at least have a basic understanding of the issues, hopefully to have some opinion as to what's important in Canada and how she should function. This blog makes me realize this is pie in the sky, and the average person IS more concerned about which American store - Walmart or Target - they can get their best bargains in. I guess there will be a hell of a shock when the whole damn thing comes crashing down around them.

[IJ]

Thanks Roberto and Scott Preston - I fully agree. These complaints to Elections Canada and their resolution one way or another and possible consequences for future elections are the last chance for those of us who care about who governs us and who truly cherish democracy and freedom, otherwise our next election, if there is one, will resemble the one just held in Russia. Lucky are those of us immigrants who have a decent country to go back to. Thanks Canada, but you cheated and disappointed us and the world will soon see you for what you really are. Thanks Susan for being a shining example of intelligence and integrity in your profession.

[Dan O'Neail]

Interesting blog. I can certainly see the branding. Greens are environment NDP is unions, CPC is money manager, LPC is hard to pin down since the CPC branding of them is drowning out there own message. It's the simplification that people find comfortable. This also explains the switch in party name from Reform to CPC. As the branding of Reform party was bat guano crazy. But buying a respected brand name instantly makes you that respectable party. Perhaps we as voters will become more involved if our parties develop snappy jingles.

[Pissed off Canadian]

People don't care because people DON'T KNOW. You have major media outlets like CTV and SHAW media and newspapers that do not report on major issues or downplay the severity of political scandals that affect the CPC. The question to ask is: WHY??? The Liberal sponsorship scandal was EVERYWHERE in the media unfortunately bringing down PM Paul Martin with it. But what about the Conservative sponsorship scandal?! Where was THAT in the media?! Just like the issue now. These media outlets are downplaying it, denying it as a fraud (what it REALLY is) and just claiming voting "irregularities." WHY are certain media outlets downplaying it?! Go up the chain of command and see who is rubbing shoulders with who. At the end of the day MONEY talks. And when the majority government has stacked the Senate and the Supreme Court of Canada (so there goes those internal safeguards) and has rubbed shoulders and influenced Elections Canada and the RCMP and has influence with media outlets like CTV and Shaw, expect Canadians not to care about politics because the media is selectively choosing when to make the public aware to certain scandals (i.e. Liberal sponsorship scandal) and when to downplay certain scandals (i.e. Conservative "in and out" scandal, ELECTORAL FRAUD, and all the other things they have done that have been swept under the rug). Next they'll be coming after our freedom of speech to make sure that people who see this for what it really is don't speak. Sounds hysterical right? But we ARE talking about the Conservative party here, which makes it more than plausible. Public inquiry is the only hope we have here, which means it has to start with public awareness. But if the media is not making the public aware, then what hope do we have?!

[Aongasha]

Two Words: Nanos Poll

[Observant]

Listen to all the attacks, the whining, the complaining, the outrage... all for naught because the "progressive" vote is split while the "conservative" vote is unified.

If this "robocall" affair doesn't unite the Liberals and NDP into one party on the centre-left, then they are just flatulating in the wind. A disunited progressive-left is impotent and sef-defeating. Neither will a "coalition" of convenience fly with Canadians searching for a strong and legitimate alternative to the Conservatives.

Would leaders Rae(?) and Mulcair(?) unite in unholy matrimony to give Canadians a clear alternative to the Harper Conservatives?

Ironically, defrocked Dipper Rae and defrocked Grit Mulcair, finally uniting the Left into a single, comprehensive, viable opposition to pseudo-Tory Harper!!!

[Blair T. Longley]

It looks like it is only a question of time until the "police" shall be robots controlled by a central computer, in the worst sci-fi reality. Therefore, it appeared appropriate that this cheap automatic technology has disturbed
the electoral processes so much already!

More and more, it becomes clearer Canadians act like political idiots!

As the history of the political tax credit demonstrated too, it is relatively easy to keep them that way, but almost impossible to do anything practical to reverse that trend to fascism!

http://www.marijuanaparty.ca/article.php3?id_article=413

http://www.marijuanaparty.ca/article.php3?id_article=215

I have NO reasonable grounds to believe anything else but, Canadians will continue to behave like sheep being fleeced, and therefore, they shall eventually be badly slaughtered! Since I can not get out of that herd of sheep, I expect to eventually be slaughtered off too.

IF the robocall scandal turns out to have been bad enough to provoke by-elections, those will not happen for years, until it barely matters then. All the laws rammed through now will still stand, and the fascism that has taken over Canada will have already become a runaway juggernaut.

IF NOT, what does it matter, the Conservatives are winning in general by marketing lies? Nobody else has enough money to oppose that strategy. Thus, the Conservatives are in a positive feedback with gaining power from Huge Lies. That will end very badly for EVERYONE, but there is nothing we can do to stop it when elections were decided by voters who know almost nothing, and do not want to know, and where 99% of the people fund NO politics, while less than 1% of Canadians fund ALL our politics.

[Paul In Ajax]

Sue at 7:34pm.

Thank you for the wonderful insight. As one of the "stupid vote", I'm unable to discern if your comments are a sign of you being completely ignorant or arrogant. As you so eloquently stated, it's remarkable that 35%-40% of the population can be that stupid. Sad to say you must be including my 92 year old mother in the stupid category as well.

I guess it's beyond the realm for you to see the utter idiocy and hypocricy in your comment. You champion democracy and then state anyone who votes for a party you don't support are the "stupid vote". Would that mean that anyone who voted Liberal in the 2006 election, now fully aware of the Liberal Party role in Adscam was stupid?

If you really want a debate about values, you only need look at the Liberal Greenshift platform. Canadians were told how we needed this great plan, hatched by Ignatieff or Dion, depending on who took the fall for it. Liberals were so sure of this plan, they completely avoided it in the 2011 election. Those are Liberal values. Say what you think will get votes. Stephane Dion, a smart man who wasn't PM material, learned the hard way what his loyalty to the party really meant.

But your comment wasn't a complete waste. Now realizing I was part of the stupid vote, I enroollled in huked on foniks, soz thatz maysbe byze the ectx elekhions I cans becomz a libberul votir.

By the way, you are a real inspiration. So much so that I plan on doing a post on my Blogging Tories blog to show the intelligence of non conservative supporters. Cheers

[Ole Nielson]

Dan O'Neail said:

"But we ARE talking about the Conservative party here, which makes it more than plausible. "
-----------------------------

Sorry, Dan, it's the REFORM party rather than the Conservative party.

But this is actually a good example of branding: the Reform word was left out after the merging of Reform and the old Conservative party. Remember the Conservative Reform Party of Canada (CRAP)? Well that Certainly didn't last very long ;-), and I guess enough years have passed that many have forgotten the fact that the "new" Conservative party is actually "Presto" Manning's party.

[Scott Preston]

Some Canadians today must be watching the claims of election fraud in Putin's Russia with a mixture of perplexity, bemusement, and a sense of the irony of it all.

Unfortunately, your reasoning and evidence suggests... not many, and not enough.

'You won't recognize Canada when I get through with it,' -- Stephen Harper.

Ironic reversal at The End of History. For some reason, the Harperites seem to think that the laws of hybris and Nemesis (and reversal of fortune as retributive justice) have been uniquely suspended just for them and their project.

Perhaps that is the biggest mass delusion of all.

(Scott Preston, not Aongasha or anyone else)

[Scott Preston]

Actually, the present "conservative" formation is a reactionary rump left over after the Reformistas purged the old Progressive Conservative party of its progressives, going so far even as to drop the name "Progressive" from the party rank along with its representatives (so-called "Red Tories"). A lot of these old Red Tories migrated over to the Greens (I know a few of them). What's left after you purge out the moderating progressives except the reactionaries?
In all other respects, "New Right" conservatism (or "creative destruction" and "noble lie" conservatism) is a post-modern configuration (like neo-liberalism or neo-socialism, aka "New Labour"). There's the irony, for in many respects the Harperite faction is very good a deconstruction and dismantling, but impotent at creativity or innovation. -- typical of the nihilist. There's the irony of neo-conservatism -- it's fundamental irrationality -- which makes it very difficult to reason with.
(Scott Preston)

[Sima nitram]

The heavily ironic part of Ms Delacourt's analysis is that outside of the "gotta have it" desires of consumers (Apple products being the best example), people spend a great deal more time researching their purchases than their votes. While the conservatives treat voters as consumers, consumers treat voting as an obligation, like a teenager views chores around the house.