Election Wrap-up -- Updated

I enjoyed a unique perspective on the election, residing and voting in Thunder Bay, but still concerned about things “back home” in the Sault.

One thing that has increasingly irked me over the past several elections, provincial and federal, has been the attitudes of the challenging parties, as seen in comments and advertising. Those challenging an incumbent government, whatever party each represents, seem to feel justified in attacking and denigrating the incumbent, rather than promoting themselves.

I don’t want to hear how the challenger “won’t be like” the incumbent, or what they “will do different.” I don’t want to hear or read that challengers find the incumbent government’s policies intolerable and ill-suited to the needs of the constituents. That goes without saying; the challengers are supposed to have a different philosophy.

The picture of Jack Layton and Jeff Arbus grinning like the Cheshire Cat with young Althea Dietz holding the sign that said “stick it to McGuinty” is but one such example.

This leads into a similar attitude amongst some voters, the ones who claim that “more people voted against the winning party than for them. Unfortunately, votes “against” don’t register; only votes “for” are counted.

The reason someone puts an ‘X’ in a particular box cannot be discerned by those counting ballots. All they can know is that an ‘X’ was placed in a particular box, and that candidate gets a tally mark.

It is a problem that is inherent with a multiple party system. If there were only two parties, there would be no ambiguity. Either you vote for ‘A’ or for ‘B’. Period.

The proposed MMP system would not have completely addressed the “votes against” issue. It would have simply allowed voters to cast two “votes for;” one for an individual candidate, and one for a particular party.

It could still end up that someone who cast their ballot for, say, the Rhinoceros Party candidate and the Rhinoceros Party itself would be disappointed with the outcome of the election. It could still happen that a party that does not win the majority of the popular vote would form the government.

We see an example of this locally, during municipal elections. The past few elections there have been at least eight, and sometimes ten candidates running in Ward 6. Because of this, it often happens that the total number of ballots cast for the unsuccessful candidates than for either of the two winners.

What was interesting to see here in Thunder Bay was how issues affected the vote.

While the Liberal candidate in Thunder Bay–Superior North, Michael Gravelle, was re-elected with a far slimmer margin (49%) than that which he enjoyed in the previous election, when he garnered 72% of the popular vote.

The problems in the forestry sector, while a minor issue for voters in the Sault, is top-of-the-list here. It would appear that voters in Superior North were satisfied with the Liberals, overall, but did punish them for their perceived lack of attention to the forestry sector.

On the other hand, voters in the adjacent riding of Thunder Bay-Atikokan expressed their dissatisfaction with the Liberals stance on both forestry and coal-fired electricity plants. They returned Liberal incumbent Bill Mauro by an incredibly narrow margin of 36 seats over the NDP’s Bill Rafferty. (A recount is likely.)

As far as the leaders go, I give top marks to McGuinty for staying focussed and on-issue, and not taking the bait when taunted by either opponent. His message was clear and he stuck to it.

Unlike John Tory. His message was clear, then he added to it with what had been, until he raised it, a non-issue. Then he clarified his position, which only further confused the issue. It was Tory's election to lose, and he did.

I also give credit to Howard Hampton. I don't really agree with his politics, but his tirade at the media last week was, frankly, refreshing. Tired of being asked questions about non-issues, he challenged the media to show their concern for real issues Ontarian are actually facing.

His post-election speech was also stirring and genuine. He acknowledged those who deserved credit for his team's success, and also acknowledged the contributions and sacrifices of his opponents.

By contrast, the tone of Tory's speech was bitter and vindictive. Rather than accept blame for his spectacular defeat, he issued a challenge to the Liberals to "raise the standards of integrity and accountability so that we can in turn, together, all of us, restore faith in government and all the good that it can do."

Judging by the results, the electorate does seem to have faith in the Liberals.

The view from here of the race in the Sault was a bit surprising. I expected David Orazietti to win handily, but not by such a wide margin. Apparently the vocal nay-sayers were far out-numbered by those who were quietly pleased with David’s performance over the past four years.

While the McGuinty Liberals only garnered 42.2% of the popular vote, their thirty-five seat majority gives them a clear mandate to stay the course.

Hopefully, in a few days, the teeth-gnashing will end, and all the parties will get down to business and work together to make good things happen – and even grow – in Ontario.

But, that’s just my opinion.