Ontario Liberal leadership: on the numbers

62298_393466764077929_1219298584_nAs a Kathleen Wynne delegate to the leadership convention, I will probably take some time in trying to articulate the significance of the win and not rush into a blathering post about how freakin’ awesome it all is. (By the way, Adam Goldenberg really nailed the personal aspect in his post for Macleans.) For now, a few thoughts about numbers.

Going into the first ballot, we knew how the delegates would vote because the ballots were pre-printed – you had to support the candidate for whom you ran, obviously, or the first ballot results would not reflect how your riding association members voted. Only independent (mostly candidates standing for Glen Murray, who withdrew) and ex-officio (presidents, politicians) could choose.

1st Ballot – Committed Delegates

Pupatello 509
Wynne 468
Kennedy 260
Takhar 244
Sousa 204
Hoskins 105
Independent 67

1st Ballot – With Ex-Officio & Independents Added

Pupatello 599 (+90)
Wynne 597 (+153)
Kennedy 281 (+21)
Takhar 235 (-9)
Sousa 222 (+18)
Hoskins 150 (+45)

To be perfectly honest, I’m not sure how Takhar managed to decrease his total. Was it simply that his delegates didn’t show up? Alternates were “bumped up” early Saturday, as 11 PM Friday was the registration deadline. I suppose that’s the explanation, but I’d be very interested in your analysis so do send it my way.

You can see early on how momentum was going Wynne’s way. That first result – 597 for Wynne to Pupatello’s 599 – was a huge shock within our delegation; we expected a gap of up to 100 votes. A deficit of just 2 was astounding. Hoskins also did very well. A good friend of mine, who was ex-officio, voted for Hoskins on the 1st ballot even as she sat donning her Wynne gear; she likes Hoskins, and wanted him to do well enough to make a difference… which he did.

2nd Ballot

Pupatello 817 (+218)
Wynne 750 (+153)
Kennedy 285 (+4)
Sousa 203 (-19)
Takhar 18 (-217)

Takhar dropped off and supported Pupatello but only after the 20-minute period before the ballot was printed. Clearly, his supporters followed him to Pupatello, and Hoskins’ delegates went en masse to Wynne.

3rd Ballot

Wynne 1,150 (+400)
Pupatello 866 (+49)

Let’s discount (as I have done for each ballot) those who simply didn’t vote. Given that I waited an hour and a half to vote on the 3rd ballot, it’s amazing – and a wonderful thing, democratically – that only 68 ballots were lost between the 1st and last ballots through attrition. Only a handful of ballots were spoiled on each count. As I recall, precisely one ballot was spoiled on the 1st.

Let’s also assume that those 18 Takhar voters from the 2nd ballot went to Pupatello on the 3rd, and it’s an easy conclusion that Kennedy and Sousa did indeed bring their delegates along with them to Wynne. I’m fudging the numbers, obviously, because it’s a secret ballot, but remove those 18 Takhar votes and something like 6% of Kennedy and Sousa delegates defied their candidates’ choice. Not 6% of total votes; 6% of all Kennedy and Sousa delegates.

Of course, if you ran for Gerard or Charles, presumably you trusted their judgement. I’m biased, of course, but Team Wynne was relentlessly upbeat, optimistic, and encouraging; more on that in a later post. I have anecdotal evidence that Wynne herself reached out to Kennedy and Sousa people with that last ballot in mind, and certainly, the folks I know in those camps told me privately that the respect she showed them did make a difference.

A mea culpa: we in the Wynne camp sold Charles Sousa and his supporters short. Many of us blithely assumed a clear left-right split, that Kennedy would go to Wynne but Sousa, the former banker, would naturally align with Pupatello. (Of course, our assumptions were wrong, and I am very grateful for that.)

Not to detract from Sousa as “queenmaker,” especially since his crossing to Wynne was such a spectacular, emotional moment, but if we simply add up Pupatello plus Sousa plus Takhar on one side, and Wynne plus Kennedy on the other, you end up with Pupatello winning by 3 votes. I’m quite sure that Sousa’s team can do math much better than I. Still, I do believe in my heart of hearts that Kathleen Wynne’s own demeanour, speech, and team deserves credit for running a respectful campaign.

This leads to my final point, which isn’t really “on the numbers.”

Perhaps, given the tallies on each ballot, it makes sense that the most bitter, ungracious posts, tweets, and comments today are focused not on Sousa but on Hoskins, whose endorsement was an early sign of that momentum had shifted.

Perhaps, though, it is incredibly insulting to blame one, two, or three men for a defeat, when we’re talking about hundreds and hundreds of intelligent, committed, caring Liberals who, in the secrecy of the ballot box, supported their candidates’ second choice without threat or coercion.

And perhaps it is a good thing to remember that politics is not, in fact, a chess game. We are not pawns to be moved around, praised or dismissed solely on the basis of acting as agents for our chosen leadership candidates, electoral candidates, and parties.

Kathleen Wynne did not win, and Sandra Pupatello did not lose, because Hoskins did this or Sousa did that. Wynne won because a majority of delegates wanted her as the new leader of the Ontario Liberal Party and the 25th premier of Ontario.

Convention countdown!

LIBERAL LOGO

Only 8 – EIGHT! – days until the 2013 Ontario Liberal Party leadership convention in Toronto, & I’m in organized chaos mode trying to figure out payments, fundraising, travel, & so forth. Because I’ve focused more on LGBT blogging & Twitter lately, here are a few random thoughts before I get too busy to think:

Fundraising: I realized the other day that 2013 is a Liberal anniversary for me: the first campaign for which I volunteered was the 1993 federal election. (For the record, I made calls on behalf of Jim Peterson in Willowdale. Hands up if you remember the days when voter lists came from dot matrix printers!) Over the years, provincially & federally, I’ve been a volunteer, supporter, member, & director; served in several executive positions for three riding associations; & attended many regional meetings, AGMs, and conventions. Heck, I even attended the 2009 federal faux-leadership convention in Vancouver.

And, of course, over the years I’ve donated money to both the LPC & OLP, been a member of the Victory Fund, ABC, Laurier Club etc. Now I’m looking for Ontario Liberal members & supporters to help me to offset convention costs. I would really appreciate your support & these donations are not to me personally, but to the OLP in my name – so they’re tax-deductible.

More about fundraising soon (I’m hoping to do videos) but please consider contributing through this direct link.

Delegates: Naturally I was pleased as punch to be elected as one of – if I’m not mistaken – 5 Kathleen Wynne delegates from Ottawa Centre, especially after it was reported today that the tally was 21/130 (in 7 ridings plus 2 university clubs). “Humbled” is the right word. I moved (back) to this riding in August 2011 after a ten-year absence & I’m much better known in the hinterland. So thank you, thank you, thank you, Ontario Liberals of Ottawa Centre.

I’m hearing some anger online at the way in which we’re choosing Dalton McGuinty’s replacement. One-member-one-vote has been put before the membership in the past, but collectively we’ve put off making the change. I would suspect, however – especially since the federal Liberals have gone with a preferential ballot – that this will be the last of the old-style, delegated conventions in Ontario, possibly in Canada.

I’m in favour of OMOV & preferential balloting but let’s be honest: delegated conventions are more fun. As an old hack, I will miss them, even as I recognize that, yes, for sure, every single party member deserves a say.

Tribal politics: What has surprised me, but probably shouldn’t have, is that certain operatives from certain leadership camps aren’t being very nice. It’s not that I’ve personally been treated with anything less than respect, but I have noticed that some folks online shut down communication after I made my support of Wynne public, & some of what they’re saying about the other candidates verges on nasty.

I’ve had to “mute” a few people on Twitter but I’m sure we’ll all be friends again, once my candidate prevails. :)

Blogging: Attention all bloggers! The OLP now has a form up to apply for blogger accreditation. As usual, thanks are due to Scott Tribe of Progressive Bloggers for his hard work in pushing the party to make this happen, & I look forward to seeing my blogger friends in Toronto.

Will you be at the convention, as a blogger, delegate, ex-oficio, party worker or press? Let me know via my Twitter account if you’d like to meet up. Many of us know each other rather more well online than in real life & this is a great opportunity to put faces (the real-life variety, rather than avatars) to names.

 

A Tory for Speaker? (plus an Ireland mini-update)

I decided against blogging last week about the new Ontario cabinet in part because it wasn’t very exciting news – no defectors à la Belinda to give the Libs a majority, no new names in cabinet – and also because three (posts), as they say, is the magic number.

Had I written the aforementioned would-be post, I would have included a second viable option: encouraging a member of the opposition to run for Speaker, sort of like, well, this news item on Frank Klees (Progressive Conservative, Newmarket-Aurora), a member of the opposition who’s decided to run for Speaker.

I would have preferred a defection because that would have been much more fun. My favourite candidate (everyone else’s too, I’d guess) was Elizabeth Witmer, because I think she’s the last Red Tory left in Ontario and she must cringe every time she thinks, “I serve in caucus with Randy Hillier,” but alas, no, Witmer stays in as Tory health critic.

What irks me is that some news outlets are reporting that, should Klees become Speaker, the OLP would have a majority. Not to put too fine a point on it, but that’s not accurate. Should Klees win, there would be a 53-53 tie in the Ontario legislature; however, as we saw when federal Speaker Peter Milliken voted in favour of the Paul Martin minority government, it is an established principle that the Speaker always votes for continuance of the legislature.

So, as I see it, Klees as Speaker would be obliged to vote in favour of the government on a tie vote on matters of confidence and supply, but would be free to oppose other government legislation, the defeat of which would not cause the government to fall. In other words, it’s still a minority of one, only one Tory sits on his hands for money bills like the budget, confidence motions, etc.

It’s partly true that I like this idea because of its inherent Machiavellian appeal – Klees refused the shadow cabinet jobs he was offered, which seems to signal internal PC dissent – but our previous era of CPC minority rule federally suggests defensible reasons for the Ontario Liberal MPPs to stand aside in favour of Klees.

First, Ontario has voted three times in a year (municipal, federal, provincial in that order). Enough already. Give us a few years of stability. The electorate is annoyed. Turnout is down. Party workers are exhausted and some of us are trying to rehabilitate our reputations, thank you very much.

Second, during its half-decade as a minority government, the federal Tories rarely sought consensus. Instead Harper and crew practised political brinkmanship by gambling that one or another of the opposition parties, usually the Liberals, would so not want an election as to give them a free pass. That’s not leadership – it’s playing games.

Speaking of, both Hudak and Horwath demonstrated ably why they lost the provincial election by their antics after E-Day. It didn’t matter what approaches McGuinty made to the two other party leaders; it would never be enough for a meaningful agreement. Contrast to Peterson and Rae after the 1985 vote. Whether or not he actually wants to work with the opposition leaders, McGuinty seemed to do what’s right in opening up a discussion that Hudak and Horwath dismissed out of hand.

Look, I opposed the McGuinty government openly on a few issues in its second term, but really, the PC and NDP campaigns were crappy. Somehow the NDP managed to lose a quarter of Jack’s Ontario supporters between May and October while Hudak pulled a John Tory and, instead of letting McGuinty’s OLP defeat itself, the PCPO came out of the gate offending many with all that “foreign workers” gabble.

The PC campaign was truly an example of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and I’m slightly amazed that Hudak still has a job. My point is, neither opposition party has a mandate for bringing down the government right now.

Oh yes, I know that the Liberals won a very narrow plurality of the popular vote, but the federal Tories have drummed into us for years their mantra that if you come first, you’ve won, no matter what the numbers, so the PCPO can’t really fall back on the minority argument and it’s not like they could feasibly form a coalition with the New Democrats. (Anyway, remember what Harper taught us: coalitions are evil.)

But I’m not giving the government a free pass either: my fear is that McGuinty will use those Harper-ish brinkmanship tactics in seeking to prevent his government’s fall, rather than a more positive goal of seeking consensus in a minority parliament. The PCs are intransigent as always but I still want to believe that Grits and Dippers can get along if they try.

Anyway, if I were Premier McGuinty I’d three-line-whip my members into not standing for Speaker. The previous (and rather good) Speaker, Steve Peters, retired at the last election, so it’s not as if this would kick a standing Speaker out of his chair. Besides, renegade Tories sometimes make excellent Speakers and, uh, future Liberals (Gary Carr, I’m looking at you).

***

In all the excitement (it isn’t really that exciting) surrounding the race for important post of President of the Republic of Ireland (it isn’t really that important), I totally forgot about the by-election in Dublin West to be held on the same day, October 27.

The by-election was caused by the sudden death of former minister and deputy leader of Fianna Fáil, Brian Lenihan, Jnr. Lenihan was last elected back in February on the fifth count without reaching the quota and until his death was Fianna Fáil’s last surviving Dublin TD.

Nominally the seat should be Labour’s to lose, according to the general election results, as Joan Burton was elected on the first count with her running mate Patrick Nulty – Labour’s candidate in the by-election – losing to Lenihan on the last count.

Back in the day, Dublin West reliably voted in two Fianna Fáil TDs but of course this is a by-election, so Ireland’s single transferable vote system operates like an Australian alternative vote instead, and anyway, all those old rules and assumptions were thrown out the window with FF’s decimation, right? (But if that’s the case, why does Seán Gallagher look dead certain to win the bloody presidency?)

Dublin West’s other TDs are the Socialist Party leader, Joe Higgins, and Fine Gael minister Leo Varadkar. It would be a blow to the coalition government if anyone other than Ethne Loftus (FG) or Nulty should end up winning the by-election.

I suppose it’s possible that sympathy for Lenihan might boost Fianna Fáil’s vote, but I doubt it, and it’s not like when Lenihan himself ran to succeed his deceased father – the Lenihan family was approached but declined to run one of their own to replace Brian Jnr.

If there is a substantial increase in the FF vote, I’m blaming it on Gallagher’s Trojan Horse run, but my money’s still on Labour to win despite a few bad poll results, with an outside change that Socialist Ruth Coppinger takes it based on recent polls showing smaller parties (including the United Left Alliance, of which the SP is key part) on a whopping 22%.