I have no regrets about the campaign that I ran. While I'm still not convinced that they're as effective as some people believe they are, I may use signs in the next election; however, I've already started to devise a strategy for that in an attempt to keep the environmental impact to a minimum.
I am very proud of the effort that I put into the campaign.
- I was the only candidate in St. George's ward who had a solid on-line presence (website, blog, Facebook and Twitter).
- I was the top twitterer/tweeter for the #voteSTC hashtag.
- I blogged just about every day during the campaign, and if I missed I day, I posted two or three things on another day.
- I was the only candidate in the ward who took the time to answer every single survey and every single question from the media.
- I put out two rounds of brochures; one on foot (knocking on thousands of doors) and the other through The Standard.
- I had an incredible support network through friends and family.
Most of all, I ran a good, clean campaign (I still can't believe some of the nonsense that went on this time around, nor can I believe some of the nonsense that apparently happens during every election (stealing signs, removing opponents' literature from mailboxes, etc.)).
In St. George's ward, there were a total of 3,717 ballots cast. That's equivalent to a 22.4% voter turnout. 22.4%.
Of the 3,717 ballots that were cast, Washuta took 2,211 (59.4%); Secord took 1,812 (48.7%); I took 1,021 (27.5%); and Millar took 789 (21.2%). Remember, everyone is allowed to vote for two councillors.
In 2006, I took 10% of the vote in Grantham ward that had nearly a 50% voter turnout, and there were seven of us running for two seats.
I'm going to be extremely frank (recognizing that I may take some heat for what I'm about to say)... I was not successful for two main reasons:
1) I lost to the uninformed voter (the voter who doesn't pay much attention during campaigning, but feels obligated to get out and vote, so they vote for the names they recognize, whether they can attribute anything particularly positive to those individuals or not); and
2) I lost because there was a fourth candidate in the mix, who was not considered to be a viable option for anyone with whom I spoke directly (and one speaks to a lot of people when one knocks on thousands of doors), so he served only to split votes.
I also recognize that the fourth candidate came within 6% of my percentage, but I attribute this also to the uninformed voter.
Having said all of this, I am not a statistician or a political analyst, it is simply my opinion.
I received several calls and e-mails following the election. All of them were extremely supportive, except for one (which I'll discuss momentarily). People couldn't believe that I hadn't won; they encouraged me to stay involved (no encouragement needed); and they expressed their desire for me to run again in 2014.
I, along with some others, already have some ideas about community work in which we can engage in St. George's ward, which will also - hopefully - get the people of St. George's ward more engaged.
I've already started strategizing for 2014. Don't worry.
The only call that I received that was not supportive was from a voter who said, "I feel let down, Laura. You let us down." I'll admit that I felt the initial sting of that remark. After a moment, I asked, "Wait. Did I let you down, or did the voters let you down?" After all, I had done everything I could in campaigning (see above), and I was ready to go. I was ready to go to work for St. George's ward. After another moment, he quietly responded, "You're right." Then, we had a discussion about things we might be able to do to get a different result next time.
In response to Doug Herod's column below, a reader posted the following:
Im a resident of St. George's ward and, the numbers are misleading. Many of the "eligible" voters are in the statistic that do not generally vote. Mostly young single parent families and many university students. We have 8 high rise apartment buildings in a 2 block radius. And they cater to people who generally do not vote, so before you bash the people of st. Georges who are community active citizens, you should adjust your stats correctly.
Here's the thing: It doesn't matter if many of the eligible voters are in the demographics that don't generally vote. We need to figure out a way to engage them so that they do vote. I went into every apartment building in the ward. In a few, I was lucky enough to be able to speak to residents. Most only allowed me to drop brochures in the mailboxes or in the lobby. A few wouldn't let me in at all (we'll do with that appropriately next time, as I have since learned that there is legislation that prohibits a superintendent from denying their tenants information about elections).
We need to figure out a way to attract candidates who are both viable and who are not "the same as all the rest" (a common refrain at the door).
When I posted on Facebook that there had been a 22.4% voter turnout in the ward, a friend responded with the following observation: Wow... So that means less than a 1/4 of the people who live in the ward has decided how the other more than 3/4 of the people will live! ummm interesting or sad...
I say it's sad. The other 75%+ need to get involved. Nothing will change if they don't get out there and vote for that change. Nothing.
As always, I welcome your feedback.
PS: I am not suggesting for one second that any other ward's voter turnout was admirable. Grantham had the top voter turnout...at 33.57%.
Doug Herod's column of Saturday, October 30: http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2824570
No comments:
Post a Comment