Public Opinion Research

Revisiting the 2017 BC election

, , , ,

Clone Speech

The 2017 British Columbia provincial election saw the BC Liberals lose government to an NDP minority propped up by an awkward coalition with the Greens.   The preceding drama included a controversial throne speech and Hail Mary attempt to force an election.  To make sense of it all, I revisited a dataset from the end of June 2017.   As luck would have it, I was already in the field as the political drama peaked.  Here are a few things I learned:

1. The ‘big’ issues, were not.  

Consider the importance, or lack of, that voters assigned to the following issues:

  • BC Hydro Site C project;
  • LNG development;
  • Political donation rules;
  • Union certification process; and,
  • Electoral reform.

Many of the issues that consumed the press gallery and sent partisans into a frenzy got little more than a shrug from voters.  Even those ‘key’ issues that do appear, garnered sparse attention.  To be clear, these issues may have been symbolic of concerns among voters, but they were not game-changers in of themselves.

2.  It was a murky mandate.

The post-election ‘mandate math’ never added up (60% of BCer voted for parties that support policy X / oppose policy Y.)  As a communicator, I can appreciate the talking point “logic”.  But as a pollster,  it is some pretty thin gruel.

The top two issues among voters in each party (time for change / stop the NDP)  represented a referendum on the government.  Predictably, they divide along partisan lines.  There was also a partisan divide to the prioritization of economic vs. environmental/other issues.  But again, regardless of party vote, the purported ‘big’ issues fail to appear as significant priorities.

.

3. Forcing an ‘unnecessary’ election posed little political risk

The numbers are less than ideal for a “Whose fault is it?” ballot question.  As a PMO staffer during Prime Minister Martin’s minority government, I spent a good part of 2005 warning of the doom that would befall anyone foolish enough to bring down the government: “It is a waste of taxpayers money!” “Voters will punish the party….” etc.

Despite having spouted all of the lines, I have never been a fan of the “unnecessary election” narrative.  In my experience offering a voice in any decision is typically well-received—even by those that don’t participate.

Yes, Premier Christy Clark received the most blame with 31%.  But, a larger plurality of voters—the 43% that say it is everyone or the system’s fault—do not buy the premise.  The blame game was a strategy to get 30% in a game where over 40% is needed to win.

4. That terrible BC Liberal throne ‘clone’ speech was a political winner.  

The BC Liberal throne speech included a heavy dose of policy goodies and promises lifted from the BC NDP and Green campaign platforms.  Pundits went apoplectic derisively dubbing it the ‘clone’ speech.  This was followed by relentless pontification on the existential threat the throne speech posed to the BC Liberal brand and the enormity of the party’s impending electoral doom.

While the election never came, we can imagine what might have been by comparing the data collected before and after the throne speech.  The BC Liberals benefited from an 11 point swing in the horse race against the NDP.

Voters do not punish those who give them what they want!  In hindsight, the big swing in vote towards the BC Liberals immediately after the throne speech shouldn’t be that surprising.  British Columbians want what they want.  Lower tolls? Yes, please.  Less expensive childcare? Yes, I’ll take that too.  British Columbians frustrated with the cost of living were looking for relief, and unlike die-hard partisans and pundits, they couldn’t give a damn about who it came from.

5. Looking ahead

If there’s is a lesson in all of this, it is a cautionary tale about being too ideological.  In the end, purity tests and partisan principles are much more important to party stalwarts than they are to the attention-limited self-interested voters that will decide the election.

BC Municipal Madness: Making sense of the polls

, , ,

VintageBallot

There’s something happening here.  What it is ain’t exactly clear.

     -Buffalo Springfield

For what it’s worth, this is not your typical British Columbia municipal election cycle.  There is no man with a gun, but we are already seeing biblical-sized change:

Amid the chaos and emerging public opinion research: 5 things to consider looking at public political polls:

  1. Start with the fundamentals. Especially in the early days of a campaign,  the relative brand strength of the parties and candidate name recognition can be better predictors than a ballot question that no one has really considered yet.
  2. Ease into the horserace.  Asking mayoral vote preference is like asking about entré choice for a lunch on October 20.  Both answers largely depend on the menu options.  Right now, few have even opened their menus.  Be careful about reading too much into pre-Thanksgiving ballot numbers.
  3. Geography matters.  In Vancouver municipal politics, there is a North / South divide (sorry Eastside / Westside traditionalists.)  Surrey has a large population spread over enormous geography.  This results in some distinct neighbourhoods with great divides between them—Newton is not Crescent Beach.  My point that is a good pollster will consider regional differences when sampling and weighting.  Find out how.
  4. Elections are decided by those that show up.  In BC civic elections, most don’t. Public polls typically report the intent of eligible voters.  This is why experienced It is a good idea told consider voter turnout in their analysis.  Turn out tends to increase with age and can vary dramatically between demographic groups.
  5. Get the crosstabs.  These are the tables that show questions tabulated against each other.  Most pollsters will provide tables of a publicly released poll’s “marquee questions” cross-tabulated against key demographic and geographic segments.  If you are looking for insight, the crosstabs are where you’ll find it.  If these aren’t available, ask why not.

NEXT BLOG: The 5 questions I would ask pollsters if I were a journalist

 

Madmen and the folly of perfect advice

, ,

While I love the pop culture nostalgia and cringe at the routine misogyny and racism of the post-war decades, what gets me most about Madmen are the things that haven’t changed.

For those unfamiliar, the popular AMC series chronicles a Manhattan Ad Agency through the rise of US consumerism in the 50s and 60s.  (Update: Madmen is now available on Netflix.)

The scene in the video demonstrates a timeless constant of the advice business: advice doesn’t need to be perfect, it needs to be helpful.  The research pointed to something the client wasn’t prepared to do.  So, Don intervened with an option they could accept.

Developing helpful advice is much more difficult than giving advice based on ‘best practice’ or other canards of the industry.  The reason is simple: best practice doesn’t need to account for reality—it is the median effective response to other situations.

The actions that should be taken (perfect strategy) seldom resemble the actions that can be taken (those that reflect the client’s situation as bound by corporate culture, budget, etc.)   Being able to give good advice often comes from understanding the difference.

I learned this lesson as a client.  I was in a corporate communications role and my job was to build support for the organization and promote its mandate.  My consultant advised that a TV ad campaign was required.  In fairness, the situation clearly called for it.  My problem was that TV ads simply weren’t on the table—something known by all from the beginning.  But, my consultant advised TV ads anyway.  Yes, it was the best option in a theoretical sense.  In reality, it wasn’t something I could execute—it was bad advice.

When a course of action is justified as ‘best practice’, I get suspicious.  In my experience, ‘best practice’ falls into one of two categories: something everyone does because the rules require it; or, something that is seldom done as it is aspirational and rarely applicable to real life.  Finally, if you do find yourself in a situation that calls for ‘best practice’; before you call a consultant, try a textbook for advice.

As a consultant, I have learned to evaluate my work by asking: “Is this helpful?”  It is an important question because ‘perfect’ advice and ‘best practices’ won’t always be.

© Copyright 2020. Rushbrooke Communications Inc.