Uneven playing field
For the better part of 30 years, equity has been at the heart of Canadian election law. The goal has been to create a “level playing field” among parties and candidates, to make sure that money and influence play little role in the outcome of national campaigns.
But while we may have convinced ourselves that candidates who can dramatically outspend their rivals have an unfair advantage at election time, there is little empirical evidence that this is true.
The most recent proof of this is the recent special Massachusetts senate election in which Democratic Martha Coakley lost to Republican Scott Brown despite handily outspending him by an estimated margin of two to one.
Bradley Smith, a former chairman of the U.S. Federal Elections Commission, a law professor at Capital University and one of the world’s leading experts on election law and campaign finance, has determined that in no Western democracy have spending limits made election outcomes more “fair.” In less than 40% of the campaigns Prof. Smith has studied in which one candidate or party outspent rivals by 20% or more has the free spender won.
[More]
Popularity: 3% [?]
Male, retired and the rest is of little interest to anyone. The site keeps me busy and if it helps others to stay abreast of daily events then my time is well spent.
Tewchip Says:
Well Lorne, I guess this is another in a long list of reasons to cut the $1.95 per vote party welfare. This country east of Sask. is champing at the bit to rid themselves of the CPC. The G&M, CBC, et al are all scraping up any dirt they can to smear the CPC, while down playing any Liberal indiscretions, or just plain not reporting them.
Here’s hoping for a CPC majority, at least two terms. It took 40+ years of Trudopia to get here, it may take a few to get out.
Posted on February 5th, 2010 at 9:23 am
Joe Says:
Level playing field? The only way there could even be close to a level playing field is if we banned all editorials, blogs etc and insisted that all politicical reporting be a direct quote of statement and responses by critics and/or ministers.
Posted on February 5th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
MaryT Says:
With talk at rabble.ca of working to defeat 22 conservatives by strategic voting and not running candidates against each other in conservative ridings, tells me that that the lib/ndp are prepared to give up their 1.95/vote. So, cancel it once and for all.
Or, are they thinking they can get voters that normally vote ndp/lib and vote for just one party to indicate somehow that they really support the other party and want their 1.95 given to said party.
It also states loud and clear that a coalition is the result of such voting.
I am waiting for someone to explain how a coalition would work in the HofC, would the ndp/bloc still be allowed to ask questions and attack ministers, if they are part of the government. They can’t be both, government and opposition.
Sure would cut down QP, with only two sides asking questions.
Would there be a contest to see who gets to mouth off each day to answer questions, or would it just be the PM and leader of the opposition.
Posted on February 5th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Mac Says:
How many other journalists are outraged about this inequity? The only way the Parliamentary Press Gallery would acknowledge this situation is if the Conservatives started firing those responsible for it… and you can guess which side they would support…
Posted on February 5th, 2010 at 8:44 pm