Though there are those who considered it to be a "self-fullfilling prophecy", our expectation that Freedom Party candidates would garner between one and two percent of the vote in the ridings where they were represented was undeniably right on target. In fact, in the final analysis, Freedom Party's nine candidates averaged a 1.547% share of the vote where the party was represented.
To many people, one and a half percent of the vote isn't much to write home about. Yet, despite the belief of some to the contrary, our vote return was not the result of setting our targets too low, or of ineffective media coverage, or because the public had a generally negative reaction to Freedom Party. As the evidence clearly shows, our nominal vote return was merely an expected result of conditions and circumstances clearly laid out and explained to our members and supporters well in advance of our asking them to support our campaign with their time and money.
In other words, we're still in the early stages of establishing our political credibility.
True, honesty may not always be the best policy when it comes to getting elected, but surely any serious public statement reflecting an expectation that a Freedom Party candidate could get elected would be seen by the public as highly naive. There's nothing more damaging to political credibility (and support) than the disappointment following unrealistic expectations and promises --- particularly if they're announced by a new political party.
Despite our acknowledgement of this reality, however, it has become clear that in future elections we must adopt a tempered attitude when confronted with the issue of electoral expectations. From the public's response, it's likely that our candidates may have unintentionally been conveying a misleading message in their appeal for the vote.
By acknowledging their (realistic) vote expectations, to a significant number of voters, our candidates were also conveying the message that "votes aren't important", and therefore, that we weren't interested in voter support.
Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Votes are important, and future campaigns and literature will stress the importance of voting for the party of one's choice, rather than voting against the lesser of a given number of "evils".
The three London ridings (North, Centre, South) represented the only constituencies in Ontario where Freedom Party has ever been represented a second time. Candidates Robert Metz (London South), Lloyd Walker (London Centre), and Barry Malcolm (London North), ran parallel campaigns in each of their ridings, thus hoping to convey a consistent and recognizable political alternative to all of the voters in London.
During Election '85, when Freedom Party fielded only three candidates in the three London ridings, we were fortunate enough to be the only unfamiliar option on the ballot. During Election '87 however, we were faced with Ontario's most recent entrant in the political field, the Family Coalition Party, and it was represented by candidates in each of the London ridings.
With a minimum of five candidates per riding (six in London Centre, where an independent candidate was running), some unexpected circumstances regarding all-candidates' debates and media coverage surfaced.
For example, the London Chamber of Commerce, who invited each of Freedom Party's London candidates to each of its three 1985 all-candidates' debates, excluded Freedom Party (and the other "fringe" candidates) from its single 1987 candidates' debate. Being denied an opportunity to present our new political choice, particularly to Chamber members, represents an unfortunate circumstance to a small party like Freedom Party. While we recognized the Chamber's right to exclude all but the major parties from its candidates' debate, we nevertheless attempted to persuade them to reconsider allowing our free enterprise party to be represented --- but without success.
As it happened, our exclusion from the Chamber's debate proved to generate more media attention for Freedom Party than might otherwise have been the case had we been invited and attended the meeting. Public sympathy was with us and a number of radio editorials clearly opposed the Chamber's decision to deny us access to its candidates' debate. Nevertheless, the debate was conducted in our absence and it's our guess that as a consequence, it was the dullest debate held in the London ridings.
The unusually high number of candidates fielded in the London ridings tended to produce other uncontrollable obstacles to the maximized effective promotion of our ideas and candidates. Unlike Election '85, where most of the all-candidates' debates were held exclusive to their ridings, the balance of debates held during Election '87 would find a London North candidate of one party debating with a London Centre (or South) candidate of another party. This arrangement seemed to be viewed by debate organizers as the best way to accommodate the large number of candidates in the fewest number of public forums.
Unfortunately, from any individual candidate's point of view, that meant less public exposure, and fewer opportunities to speak. Being a summer election, there were also no high school debates, which traditionally account for the liveliest exchanges and the most intelligent discussion of the issues.
The fact that London is the home of Premier David Peterson's riding was no help. High-profile candidates do as much campaigning outside their ridings (in Peterson's case, more) as within their ridings. This factor was another important determination in the organization of all-candidates' debates. Thus, opportunities to stand out as a clear political alternative were unusually limited for us during Election '87 in the London ridings.
Despite the limitations however, Freedom Party's London candidates clearly had an advantage over the other FP candidates in two critical respects: election signs and manpower. This should not be surprising, considering we've been active in London for the longest period of time.
Much of our London volunteers' time was diverted to preparing literature for candidates outside the city. Response cards were inserted into over 130,000 pieces of literature in an amazingly short period of time, while virtually every delivery objective was attained. Our appreciation must be extended to all those London supporters who participated in our effort. Without a doubt, it was their steadfast support that made our Election '87 campaign in London a success.
Middlesex and Elgin represented the only rural ridings in which Freedom Party fielded candidates.
When Freedom Party Action Director Marc Emery announced his provincial candidacy for the riding of Middlesex, it was front-page news. Though the most politically-seasoned of Freedom Party's nine candidates, Emery's candidacy in Middlesex represented his first official foray into provincial politics.
For Ray Monteith, our candidate in Elgin, it was a first time ever experience to run as a political candidate. Despite his initial apprehensions, Ray came through the experience with flying colours and possibly generated more media and press coverage than any of Freedom Party's other candidates. Significantly, Ray's candidacy in Elgin represented the first time in over forty years that voters in the riding were offered a new political choice.
Campaigning in a rural riding is a much more time-consuming and difficult task than campaigning in an urban riding. With a larger geographic area, and much larger distances between homes and farms, effective delivery of literature requires more than just extra time; it also requires the use of a vehicle and the doubling-up of volunteers so that one person can drive while the other places literature in mailboxes.
Because both ridings were relatively new grounds for Freedom Party, our thanks must once again be directed to our London volunteers whose efforts were largely responsible for introducing our new political choice to voters in Middlesex and Elgin.
Two new frontiers for Freedom Party in 1987 were the ridings of Mississauga East and Mississauga South. Yet, despite the fact that Freedom Party was an unfamiliar entity to most of the voters in these ridings, our best vote returns were produced here.
Perhaps it had something to do with the tongue-in-cheek confidence expressed by Mississauga South candidate Chris Balabanian who, on the day following the election, was quoted by the Mississauga News as saying he "was hoping to be the Right Honourable Chris Balabanian by eight o'clock tonight."
Both Balabanian and fellow Mississauga candidate William Frampton (Mississauga East) are to be congratulated for their virtually single-handed efforts in bringing Freedom Party's message of individual freedom to their community.
Mississauga East candidate William Frampton, who produced Freedom Party's highest vote total (767 votes representing a 2.37% return) readily admits that "my vote total was undoubtedly boosted by the fact that with four candidates on the ballot, I was the only alternative for those who wanted to cast a protest vote."
Yet, the significance of a 2% vote total should never be underestimated. In Mississauga South, where Chris Balabanian's 707 votes represented a 2.16% return, the margin by which Conservative candidate Margaret Marland retained her riding was only 599 votes.
There can be no denying that, as a place to introduce a new political party, Toronto represents one of the toughest markets to crack.
In a city the size of Toronto, competition for media coverage and attention is intense. To complicate matters even further, the ethnic makeup of several of the city's areas requires an approach (i.e., translating our literature into different languages) that may have to be quite different from that used in most areas of the province, a luxury that a small party like Freedom Party cannot yet afford.
These considerations were among the many challenges facing Freedom Party candidates David Pengelly (Don Mills) and Glen Magder (Fort York).
Any meaningful press profiles or coverage of Freedom Party's two Toronto candidates were almost nonexistent, though this factor did not seem to have any direct effect on their vote totals. In fact, Pengelly's vote return of 1.75% represented the third highest return for a Freedom Party candidate while Magder's 0.83% represented the lowest. The inconsistency in vote results was clearly due to the character and makeup of each candidate's riding.
For Glen Magder (son of Toronto furrier Paul Magder, who has been challenging Ontario's Sunday closing laws in the courts for many years now), the fact that eight candidates were fielded in his riding of Fort York was undoubtedly the most significant factor in the lower vote return. Moreover, 62% of the voters in Fort York have a non-English mother tongue (primarily Portuguese, Chinese, Italian) and the availability of our English-only literature was a distinct handicap. As a late entrant to the election race, Magder, like our Mississauga candidates, must be commended on his virtually single-handed effort.
On behalf of David Pengelly in Don Mills, our thanks must be extended to volunteers David Blackmore, Vic and Barbara Brown, Wayne and Heather Borean, Kathleen Crawford, Steve Hutton, David Levy, John Pengelly, Salma Rahman, Mike Revell, and Michael Wallis.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Page
last updated on April 28, 2002
