The Hot Topic this Week is: Election Campaign Conduct – Can we do better?
“When you throw dirt at people you’re not doing a thing but losing ground.”
Zig Ziglar
This simple yet meaningful quote says it all.
This past election campaign saw a lot of dirt throwing on social media. “Mudslinging” is the phrase most often used on community Facebook pages. Many people commented on the embarrassment, the distaste and even the disgust of it all. Many more stated that it was enough to make them not want to vote at all. By the end of election day on October 18th, approximately 35% of eligible voters came out to cast their ballot.
In the end, did the mudslinging on social media truly cause the rest of us to stay home and not vote – or did it just leave mud on the face of Chestermere?
Many of us feel that this unsavoury behaviour only occurred here in Chestermere, but are we really so different from other municipalities when it comes to dirty campaigning? I don’t think so. Look around and you’ll see the same tactics used in other cities in every level of government from municipal, to provincial to federal to global.
Sadly, Chestermere is not unique in our use of throwing dirt; it is a very common and very sad reality around the world. Mudslinging is not by any means a new tactic. History shows some outrageous election campaign behaviour ever since democracy began.
But just because it has been done before and is done all around the globe, that doesn’t mean that it’s acceptable. Maya Angelou, the famous African American poet and social activist often said “Do the best you can with what you know. Then when you know better, do better.” Can we do better? Yes, I feel certain that we can! But will we?
How many of us are truly outraged by what we have seen to want to actually do something to change the environment for future election campaigns? And how many of us actually enjoy a dirty social media fight and heartily welcome the opportunity to give someone a public smackdown? We have heard so many candidates start their campaigns with the intention to keep it clean and not engage in attack ads and mudslinging. But somehow that resolve gets lost along the campaign trail and before you know it the gloves are off! Then it gets amped up when the Candidate’s loyal supporters take up the banter and start throwing dirt too.
Supposing that the majority of us truly want this behaviour to stop, how do we do better next time around? I believe that with collective intention and a collaborative action plan we can lift ourselves out of the dirt to rise up to a higher level of conduct.
What would constitute a collaborative action plan?
To begin with we could form an Election Campaign Code of Conduct Panel (ECCCP) made up of a broad spectrum of people in our community who understand and uphold good governance of non-partisan principles and practices. Then we begin working on the foundation principles of acceptable campaign ads and messages.
Next, we create a social media platform, such as a dedicated Facebook page, where all candidates post their campaign messages. This would save the other FB pages in our community the task of managing the onslaught of campaign mudslinging. It would also save the visitors to that non-political FB page the headache and annoyance of wading through a steady stream of dirt to get to the heart warming posts they are seeking (like photos of beautiful sunsets over our lake, the kiddo’s sports game, someone’s milestone birthday, a charity fundraiser or celebration of someone’s big accomplishment.)
The ECCCP could effectively manage a single FB page dedicated to the election campaign monitoring it as needed; giving a “time out” penalty to candidates who violate the guidelines and post unacceptable messages by freezing their posts for 24 hours. This won’t be perfect right off the bat, but with collective intention, collaboration and perseverance we will eventually rise up to that higher level of conduct that we seek.
Tony Gaskins, a motivational speaker, author and life coach advises us “You teach people how to treat you by what you allow, what you stop and what you reinforce.” No one is born knowing how to sling mud, we learn how to do that. It stands to reason then, that we can also learn a better way to communicate – without the mudslinging.
This proposal may seem like a huge stretch and impossible to manage, but I think it is worth investigating at the very least. Clearly the campaign mudslinging affected many of us in a very negative and impactful way, as people are still posting messages of disgust on social media. Yes, these feelings will eventually die down over the next months and years; just as they have in the past. But come next election, we will likely see a repeat of the same behaviour and be hurtled right back into this negative space all over again; and it may get even worse!
I feel that we must try to do something to interrupt the process. If we choose to do nothing more than just hope for the best, then we better be prepared to see the same show 4 years from now. This is not a reflection or supposition of our current Council members and how they might conduct themselves should they run for re-election. We don’t know who will be running for election in 2025, so let’s set the standard now while things are relatively calm.
I propose that we begin the conversation now in preparation for 2025. Just think, if we succeed, Chestermere could become the model city of good campaign conduct. What a worthy goal that would be to achieve!
This is my opinion – what’s yours?
[democracy id=”5″]Comment below to join the Hot Talk in the City the online conversation!
I think this is intriguing! However my first thought is that I wouldn’t want any real or perceived “gatekeeping” of democracy in Chestermere. I wonder if this could be fleshed out into a larger scale advisory committee with the City? Perhaps an ethics committee who could review things like harassment/bullying claims under city bylaws, make recommendations about proper conduct, bring up ethical considerations to Council, etc.
Thank you for your comments! I understand your concern that this panel could be perceived as a “gatekeeper”, but that is kind of what we ended up with by the end of the election campaign. Most of the popular FB pages banned political messages, but some posts managed to sneak under the radar. Whether this was because the administrator of that particular page allowed it or just missed seeing it – we don’t know. And I don’t want to criticize them for their efforts to monitor election posts; it was just too much for them in the end. They provide a valuable service of giving us a social media platform to connect through, an I am grateful to them for that! My proposal of having only 1 community FB page for political messages would take the pressure off of their pages and keep the content confined to 1 place to search, monitor, etc. Regarding your suggestion to have the City manage this panel – I feel opposed to leaving this with the City to manage as there may be people employed by the City who would be better off if a particular candidate(s) won a seat on Council. For example, this past election Mayoral Candidate Jeff Colvin (now our elected Mayor), clearly stated that if elected he would reverse, change or scale back decisions made by the previous Council and CAO and he would review the City CAO’s conduct these past years. In my view, this may give the City CAO reason to hope that the other Mayoral Candidate would win. Would this be enough motivation for the City CAO, or his potentially loyal and supportive staff, to let this concern influence their judgement on what political posts are acceptable and which are not? A lot of the FB posts this past summer expressed a clear lack of trust in the City – both the Council and Administration, so I wonder if the community would have enough trust in them to manage what should be a non-partisan FB page? I didn’t go into great detail about who would serve on the panel that I proposed, but selecting a representative from each of the non-profit organizations, someone from the RCMP, the clergy, an indigenous elder, and perhaps one person from the City administration could be a start. Again, thank you for sharing your viewpoint on my article. I really appreciate you taking the time to write in. Everyone’s opinion matters!
Totally agree with this comment! When candidates are running for important positions, the nasty comes out of those running for the position. I did not see mud sling on Jeff’s part but I sure did from the other candidates husband and the followers. There was a great deal of bullying and so wrong! We teach our kids to tell someone if bullying is happening and in some cases police brought into play. We have also seen the US elections and also Canadian elections where this has taken place. All that set the tone for it to be okay for Chestermere elections. This is so wrong and agree that standards and investigations should be looked into.
Thank you for your comments Rebecca! I agree that the tone of our election campaign conduct had been set by previous elections on bigger stages, and we essentially mimicked the poor behaviour. I also agree that we’re teaching our kids one thing, but doing another. I’m inspired by the lyrics from the Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young famous song “Teach Your Children.”
Absolutely not. The last thing we need in Chestermere is more censorship. Who decides where to draw the line? If a candidate brings up “real” dirt, that should be acceptable, but whio gets to decide what is allowed and not. We do have a right to know. As sleazy as it gets I think most people see through the BS as our recent election proved.
I have to agree with you Daniel, problem these days is that politics in general is a blood sport!! It’s the result of allowing other levels of gov’t we see today, especially at the provincial & federal level, where, politicians control the media, especially when you have a so called leader, buying off the media with large amounts of money!! People see this, and truly believe that this is acceptable, just look at the fact that people actually re-elect a corrupt gov’t as you see today in Ottawa. People believe that it’s okay, since our senior politicians think it’s okay!!
Thanks for your comments Daniel! Interesting perspective that you share. The place to draw the line, in my opinion, is when the dirt is not “real” – but this is easier said than done. Once done it cannot be undone. So even if the attack ad is later proven to be untrue, the damage is done. This causes the person being attacked to feel they must defend themselves by answering to the false charge. To use the punch line from a humourous story “And that’s when the fight started.” I believe there are ways to for Candidates to get their message out there to state their qualifications, skills, experience along with their platform that can be informative without slamming their opponent.
I don’t think censorship is the correct solution. The fact is that incumbents have to stand on their record and explain their choices. The incumbent’s goal is to take those choices,even if they were not liked by the public, and convince the public to vote for them again. That means they have to address criticism. This is normal. If an incumbent has done something illegal or inappropriate while in office, that also needs to be addressed as part of the process. Where there is an issue, is if information about them or their private businesses are misrepresented which harms their chances of election and further business dealings through lies, misrepresentations and twisting of facts. That is something that needs to be dealt with, but it needs to be dealt with by a policing or judicial body. What would be a better solution would be an extension of the existing legislation for damage to businesses. This is very serious offense and if someone libels or slanders a business or an individual and harms their ability to make money or operate their business with this dishonest action then the consequences are much stronger than would be for an individual slandering or libeling another individual on a personal basis. The problem with the election process is that even though Elections Alberta or Elections Canada is contacted, this is a slow process and by the time something is done the candidate may have had their business reputation wrongfully imputed and has possibly the election based on misrepresentations. This is something that needs to be dealt with. The fastest way to resolve this is to have a 24 hour judicial proceeding available, much like when someone goes in to get an emergency protection order, the action is quick. A ruling can be made and dealt with on the spot and ended. The problem with the most recent election, is that one candidate, Jeff Colvin, was constantly being forced to defend himself but if you’d look through his Facebook posts, he was never mudslinging. He was, however commenting on the record and actions of the incumbent, which is perfectly legitimate in an election. Censoring is not beneficial in any way and leads to people interfering in the election process. No offense intended, but it is a terrible idea. I’m sorry I cannot agree with you on this one however I do agree there should be fast recourse for any candidate to protect their reputation and to dispel anything that is being said that it’s not true which would harm their chances in the election or harm their business in any way.
Regarding voter turnout, the turnout for the election in Chestermere was consistent with good voter turnout for a Municipal election, which always runs at about 35%
Thank you for your comments Sarah! While I very much appreciate your thoughts, I feel that the 24 hour response would not be effective enough to deal with the issue. I feel that many Candidates (and their supporters) would be willing to post an attach ad knowing the information to be false, or not accurate/in-complete, etc. in order to create the fear, doubt and distrust for their opponent. Even if they have to retract their post 24 hours later, enough damage would be done to make this worth taking the chance. I also feel that we should keep this at the grass roots level, selecting a broad base of people from our community who would be vetted to serve on the panel. What comes to mind is someone from each of the major non-profit organizations, someone from each of the various faith organizations, some from law enforcement, like the RCMP, and someone from City administration. I feel very inspired by the Indigenous ways of providing council and guidance and would be very open to inviting elders from the nearby Siksika Nation to advise us on this issue.
The facts are this, we don’t need to hear what is bad about the other candidates! What are you going to for the city, why should you be elected, how are you going to improve the quality of life in our city? If you as a candidate are going to sling mud, we will not vote for you, plain and simple, we are tired of the garbage. When we are pointing a finger at someone else, please remember there are 3 fingers and a thumb pointing back in your direction. Do a good job, prove your worth, be honest and sincere, that is hat is needed.
Thank you for your comments Maureen! I love your reminder that when we point a finger at others we have 3 fingers pointing back at ourselves!
Interesting the best of intentions.
A committee of even 20 dictating what a community of 20,000 plus could comment on in the public domain. During an election conceptually possible, but how? By definition a very slippery slope. I think the community’s ability to converse freely is a huge strength. A lot of community insight and compassion being illustrated through free speech.
Thank you for your comments Patrick! I agree, the concept of the ECCCP could be viewed as impossible to execute in real time. But if the panel included enough vetted members from our community who were made Administrators of a single dedicated FB page, then the task of monitoring the page for the duration of the Election Campaign could be shared between a large enough group of people, that it may make this concept feasible. Yes, it may be daunting and we may not get it 100% right the first time around, but because we cannot guarantee perfection should we just do nothing? If we lived by that attitude, then we would still be living in caves trying to figure out how to make fire. My proposal is a starting point to begin a conversation. Thank you for your participation and valuable contribution! I look forward to hearing many other ideas and viewpoints on this topic.