The "Pundits Corner" Misses the Mark on How to Measure "Excitement" in Elections These Days.

The Calgary Herald has two political scientists “blogging” for them in this election to give “analysis of what is really going on.” They are worth a read but are very conventional in their perspectives...perhaps because they are academics after all…and one has to take with a grain of salt that they really know what is going on. In this election things are so volatile and variable that nobody knows what is “really going on.”

An example of the conventional, dare I say passé, point of view is that of U of Lethbridge Political Scientist, Peter McCormick and his recent rendering. His Five Ways to Measure Campaign Excitement are quintessentially quotidian and so out of date. Not wrong per se but so yesterday, obvious and mostly misleading.

I say misleading because “excitement” is not the test. Citizen engagement and voter turn out are the real tests of any election campaign's effectiveness. Excitement is a media construct not anything that is important to a voter or a requirement of an election. The world is run by those how show up and voters who show up run the world. Engagement

There is a whole new world of election information and citizen engagement that the Internet has wrought that Professor McCormick misses. I don’t know the gentleman but presume, as an academic, he is likely not an active partisan either. So he does not likely know the “excitement measures” and volunteer engagement that is internal to any election campaign either. But I could be wrong.

There is so much going on beyond the Professor’s tests of “coffee shop” chatter, the “sign wars,” paid advertising levels, opinion polls and voting day turn out. Not that they are not "measurements" but they are unreliable and increasingly irrelevant in the brave new (and morphing) world of elections.

Coffee shops are hardly representative samples of public opinion – especially in the go-go economy of Alberta…who has time to take extended coffee breaks to talk politics these days? Sign wars are becoming passé as well for three reasons, fewer people have party allegiances, fewer have time to volunteer and more are seeing them as pollution - visual and otherwise.

There is so much opportunity for earned media in an election that to resort to paid advertising to get your message out is the price you have to pay for being boring. Opinion polls and focus groups are a joke but MSM loves them for reasons of simplicity. “Opinion” polls are hardly representative of anything of substance anymore. This is because most people refuse to participate and those who do are as likely to lie to the pollsters as they are to tell the truth. I saw a great bumper sticker years ago. It said “Save Democracy – Lie to a Pollster.” Sound advice in some circles.

Voting day turn out is an accurate measurement of citizen engagement and I have no quibble with that but the Get Out The Vote (GOTV) efforts of the candidates has a huge impact on turnout totals. That leads me to other real “excitement” measures internal to campaigns. The participation rate of campaign volunteers, the number of mail drops that get done the number of doors knocked, the number of phone calls made by volunteers – not professional services and ultimately – the amount of money raised are the real reliable measures of excitement and engagement in an election.

Then you have the phenomenon of the internet and the impact of Influentials as truer tests of excitement/engagement. Actual Bloggers who are citizen journalists and columnists who have a wide active readership and the amount of posts they do, ther new and returning and traffic requency plus the comment activity are all reliable measurement of excitement for a very a active and growing group of citizens. You Tube and Facebook activity is another modern measurement of political excitement/engagement any conventional observer would miss. Website traffic, readership, content updates and the number of active links are the new “coffee shop” for busy people - and a better measure of actual excitement and engagement.

The number of interest group surveys promulgated and targeted issues related campaign efforts directed at political parties and individual candidates are a better measure of citizen interest and engagement. The complexity of the issues being discussed in a campaign (and there are lots of complex issues these days) that are not being dumbed down by leaders and candidates is a more sophisticated measure of campaign effectiveness in their out reach to voters.

Readers of this Blog often hear me say campaign matter…and they do. What also matters is the new means and models of election campaigning that we have now emerged to reach voters and to be reached by voters. This technology had made it possible to have a dialogue and a virtual conversation between candidate and citizen – one-on-one actually for those candidates who blog too. The filter and traditional political agenda setting of the MSM is no longer dominant and new influential voices, like real bloggers, are publishing a wider range of input and opinion.

Old style politics are still around as are old style election techniques and commentary, but they are no longer mainstream. They are definitely not a measure of what is really going on in politics and elections these days either.

Pembina Institute Releases the Candidate Survey Findings.

The Pembina Institute has been busy focused on oil sands development issues. They released the results of the candidate survey they did on some development issues on the oilsands. They got great participation – 192 individual responses that covered the gamut of political parties too…not shabby at all.

They surveyed issues on pace of development, GHG management, reclamation and the role of government. The interesting thing is to compare the candidate responses and see how much they align with the earlier poll results of Albertans done in 2007. Then 74% agreed the government should manage the rate of growth to better serve the long term needs of Albertans. Then 71% supported suspending oil sands approvals until infrastructure and environmental management issues could be addressed in the Wood Buffalo region.

This is what the Mayor and Council of the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo has been saying. They have even intervened in EUB hearing to make that point. The EUB deferred to the government on those points in recent approval decisions even though they had jurisdiction to dictate some appropriate conditions.

The issue of developing the oil sands as fast as possible, the Greens are way out in front on the issues and the Wildrose Alliance are way behind on the issues. That should not be a surprise. However the big three parties are all very close to each other, all disagreeing in the 75-85% range. There should be little difficulty getting a consensus in the next sitting of the Legislature provided the government poses the questions appropriately.

The question needs to be posed as a policy initiative too because in 2007 67% of Albertans disagreed with developing the oil sands as fast as possible. Maybe the politicians are up to speed on the public sentiment on the pace of development issue. Now does the leadership have the courage to get in front of that parade?

On the idea of government suspending new project approvals until infrastructure and environmental management issues are addressed there is a significant difference between the parties. In 2007 71% of Albertans agreed with a suspension of project approvals to let us catch our breath and catch up to the demands we are already facing. The Libs, Greens and NDP candidates were all stronger in agreeing with this approach than the public. About half of the PC and Alliance candidates were aligned with the public’s agreement and 30- 40% were totally off side with public sentiment on this issue.

Reclamation is a big issue for the energy companies and one they ignore at their peril. The issue is should project approvals only be granted IF companies can demonstrate now that they can restore mined areas back to the way they were. In 2007 88% of Albertans agreed with this condition of project approval. The Libs, Greens and Dipper candidates wee bunched together at about 80% agreeing. Ironically the Lib and Dippers were slightly strong on this than the Green candidates. There were about 70% of the PCs and Wild-Alliance candidates agreeing. Ironically again the Wild-Alliance candidates were slightly ahead of the PCs on this issue and in both instances off side with the party platform and the positions of their leaders.

As to what should drive the pace of oil sands development about 60% of the Wild-Alliance and 15% of the PCs said the marketplace should be the control factor. Government management was preferred by 75% of PC candidates and virtually 100% of the Greens, Dippers and Libs. The public position was 74% wanting government management. PCs are aligned, the Wild Alliance is behind the issue and the other parties are ahead of public sentiment.

On the hard cap versus intensity standards of GHG emissions, 70% of Albertans wanted hard caps. Libs and Dippers are 99% to 95% in favour and the Greens are about 90% in favour. There are only 25% of PCs who what hard caps and that is even less than the Wild-Alliance candidates. Again the right is off side with public sentiment.

As a PC member I can say our policy position has to change for political reasons and if we are to exercise the proper roles and responsibilities needed to better serve the public interest. I see evidence of that change coming about in the recent changes from Ed Stelmach…see my earlier posting on the Premier’s evolution on a partial moratorium request to government from CEMA. I hope the Premier’s office reads these results and the Cambridge Strategies oil sands survey results too – and takes them to heart.

Stelmach Says Environment Trumps Economy - It is About Time.

You can’t blame Albertans for being confused when you read the reporting on Ed Stelmach’s alleged response(s) to the CEMA letter calling for a partial moratorium on further oil sands leases so conservation issues can be addressed.

I think the Edmonton Journal front page headline repeats Stelmach from over a year ago saying “No Brakes on Oil Sands” and the Globe and Mail has Stelmach saying “Environment Trumps Economy.” I think both stories are accurate but you have to wonder at the framing of the issue and why the PC policy position is not clearer and more consistent. It can change over time and I applaud that it does. But whoda thunk Ed Stelmach was so post-modern! Well, me for one because I know a bit about the man. I know his sense of ecological stewardship and the respect he has for the free enterprise system. However the role of government is to ensure and enhance both aspects of our lives and for the greater common good, not just the accumulation of private wealth.

I have to spend some time reflecting on how to square this circle. The best I can do so far is to express my own feelings and beliefs. The environment has to trump the economy –every time. And the economy has to serve the interests of society –every time and not the other way around as it has been in Alberta as of late.

Government has a duty to regulate and protect the environment. And there are economic consequences in the government's job in exercising that stewardship responsibility. Progress is measured by building on strengths and avoiding or mitigating weaknesses. On the weakness side I want a government that first avoids and, if necessary, fixed screw ups and one that seizes opportunities that present themselves.

On the strength side I want a government who takes responsibility for those things we need to care about as a society, including the natural and social capital deficits we have in Alberta today. I want a government that takes its role of managing our resources seriously and responsibly - including collecting royalty payments owned when due.

Finally I want a government that has a leadership group, like a Cabinet, that can listen, learn and adapt – effectively, quickly and appropriately. That is the real biggie going forward. We need to enhance our ecological integrity in this province. We need to enhance our social cohesion and capacity show caring and compassion for our vulnerable citizens form children, to seniors to the disabled. We need to vastly improve our decision making procedures and capacity.

So Ed, Kevin, Brian, Paul and George, that is what I want my next government to be capable of. The rest is detail that I will trust you, as my Premier, if you are in power after Monday, to work out in a way that is open, transparent and accountable. No pressure!

Partial Oil Sands Moratorium Has Industry and ENGO Support!

The proposal for a partial moratorium on further oil sands development to lands can be freed up for conservation as reported in the Globe and Mail today is huge for the future of Alberta.

The conservation initiative sponsored by some members of the Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA) shows enlightened leadership from some key players the energy industry corporate sector, some thought leaders in the environmental movement, aboriginal groups in the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo.

CEMA has been around for awhile and a bit lethargic on dealing with issues but this initiative is a blockbuster positive move. The industry names are the Who’s Who in the Alberta energy sector and they are calling for a slowdown of new surface and subsurface rights in the Athabasca region of oil sands development. CNRL and EnCana don’t agree with the slowdown idea, no surprise. However strong advocates of corporate social responsibility like Nexen and OPTI Canada are also opposed and that is a surprise. Syncrude abstained and UTS Energy is in favour of the moratorium concept but has concerns of conservation site impacts where they adjoin project sites.

The lack of reclamation in oil sands to date and the harsh challenging realities of tailing ponds and actually achieving the needed reclamation standards expected on open pit mines especially is a real concern. One of the mitigation means is to provide off sets in other areas to compensate for the habitat, forest and biodiversity damage inherent in open pit oil sands development. This CEMA initiative is a profoundly important integrated step in that direction. Having the support of the various diverse interests and sometimes completing philosophical approaches is a major move in the right direction.

Ed Stelmach is a big proponent of the pending Land Use Framework. We at Cambridge Strategies know from our Oil Sands Survey results that land use is an emerging issue. Habitat, GHG, water and reclamation are the urgent and important oil sands issues for Albertans. Conservation areas that serve those ends using a land use framework as the tool to achieve those ends is the best policy approach going forward.

Thank you CEMA and especially corporations and ENGOs like Petro-Canada, Suncor Inc., Shell Canada, Imperial Oil, Devon Canada and ConocoPhillips and the Pembina Institute who are all on side. Congratulations on a great start to a new consciousness about responsible and sustainable oil sands development.

Debate Uncovers Personal Animosities Amongst the Alberta Political Leaders.

The Debate last week had some interesting subplots. Those revolved around the personal skirmishes between the leaders. It gives a sense of the personal positioning, fears and animosity that may exist between the various party leaders in this campaign.

The order of importance and context of these personal trysts, that I perceived, are as follows:

#1 Mason vs. Taft: Mason has to ensure his base does not go strategic on him and vote Liberal to try and defeat Tories…like what happened in Edmonton in 2004. A vote for Mason is not a Tory victory vote in 2008 but Mason is saying the Alberta Liberals are pretty much the same as the PCs…both are in the pocket of big money. Vote NDP to keep them both honest.

#2 Hinman vs. Stelmach: Hinman has to show some of his “true conservative” credentials and take Stelmach on over his “overspending” and “progressive” values. Hinman gets to ignore the needed increased spending is due to lack of meeting the needed infrastructure and maintenance spending of past years under the Klein regime. Hinman has to give the far right a reason to believe in him and that is best done by showing that the PCs have lost their way. He has gone too far claiming the Stelmach PCs are unprincipled people who “tear up contracts” with oil sands companies (not true at all but good spin) and therefore the PCs not worth reconsidering. Reality check…Suncor has already voluntarily renegotiated its royalty deal and Syncrude is on its way to do the same thing. NO contracts are being torn up and Hinman knows it. He is taking a pass on integrity with this misrepresentation crap…and he knows that too.

#3 Taft vs. Stelmach: This is Taft bemoaning the past of PC governance to the point his is actually running against Ralph not Ed. For example he frames 37 years of the same PC government is long enough and that is reason enough to change government. He discounts the fact that voters decide who they wish to govern them. He skates over the fact that elections are a chance to change governments every 4 years or so and that the various PC governments have been responsive and nimble enough to change with the times. Taft has to beat Ed on a personal level if his is to win this election and based on the changes in the last 14 months, Taft can’t count on Ed gaffing his way out of government. Taft is hoping Calgary is in the process redefining its Red Mile to be a profound Liberal Red Mine with lots of seat shifts. Ed is banking on Redmonton returning to the PCs and becoming EDmonton. Cute metaphors but is there any truth in them? We will know in a week.

#4 Mason vs. Taft and Stelmach: As variations on the same theme, distinctions without a difference. He claims both are in the pockets of big business and they don’t have the best interests of his “regular Albertans” in their hearts...as he obviously does. Nick Taylor, a former Alberta Liberal leader and federal Senator once described his successor Liberal leader, Laurence Decore, as “Getty with glasses.” Mason says the difference between Stelmach and Taft is indistinguishable at their core that he would net even made that distinction between how they would govern.…especially their too cozy relationship with big business in Alberta. Not very accurate on the evidence…but good positioning for Mason to speak to his base who need to believe in him to stay with him.

If all politics are local, are all leadership arguments and differences of opinion ultimately personal?