This Just In...The Lowest Form Of Political Thuggery Does Not Always...

...Win.

There was much political thuggery in the provincial election just past and, as Daniel Veniez made clear in the GStraight yesterday, it pretty much won the day on May 14th:

...(The BC Liberals) intentionally defined their political opponents through profound mischaracterizations. But more to the point, they lie as a matter of deliberate political strategy.

More accurately, they were works of fiction. These meticulously designed and tested cartoons plant negative imagery in the consciousness of voters. Like their Ottawa cousins did with such devastating effect against Stéphane Dion and Michael Ignatieff, the B.C. Liberals organized and executed a hit job on B.C. NDP leader Adrian Dix.

One B.C. Liberal operater, a twenty-something paid staffer that used to work for Michael Ignatieff—and destined to be a "lifer" in that world—said to me on Twitter that Christy Clark "won because she ran a better campaign".

If a "better campaign" is defined by trying with all your might to scare the living hell out of citizens, highly dubious claims of a "debt free B.C.", and the immediate arrival of Armageddon should Dix become premier, then yes, it was a "better campaign". And that's the crux of the problem. Never mind that is was a "campaign" largely based on outright lies and attacks on the character, honesty, motivations, and integrity of a man wanting to serve the public through elected office. For the most part, the attacks were works of fiction designed to demonize the target and inject fear into the minds of target voters...

All of which is lousy.

But none of the litany listed by Mr. Veniez, above, is the lowest form of political thuggery.

Instead, in my opinion at least, the lowest of the low is 'voter suppression'.

Why?

Because it is nothing more than a concerted attempt by political operatives to subvert the democratic process by disenfranchising legitimate voters that likely won't vote for their candidate(s).

As practiced in the the modern post-Atwater/Ailes/Rove apocalyptic world it is actually, at its core, a very simple two step process.

Step one: Identify people who very likely won't vote for you.

Step two: Do your best to keep the identified voters from actually voting.

Of course, if you have been paying attention you have recognized that this two step process was used to apparent significant effect in the last robocall-laced federal election.

But was that kind of thing attempted provincially this spring?

Read on....

****

The final count is now in from the riding of Vancouver Point Grey.

And David Eby won over Christy Clark, going away.

In fact, his numbers actually improved after the absentee/special ballots were counted earlier this week.

Now, here's the thing.....

Those absentee/special ballots really could have counted if the race on election day had been just a wee bit closer, as was fully expected earlier in the campaign.

Why?

Because they included the votes cast by some of the kids who live on the University campus located in the riding of Vancouver Point Grey.

And when some of those kids, kids who had telegraphed that they were going to vote for Mr. Eby, headed down to the riding's electoral district office to vote early (after announcing they were going to do so, en masse, by public transit, on their facebook page) they were challenged on their residency by BC Liberal Party-affiliated folks who were waiting for them when they arrived.

Now.

Recall those two steps mentioned above, and then read what Zoe McKnight, who had the story at the time in the VSun, reported on April 23rd (i.e. three weeks before election day):

...Liberal party scrutineers are challenging the proof of residency submitted by some University of B.C. students attempting to vote in Premier Christy Clark’s riding.

A get-out-the-vote campaign sponsored by the New Democratic Party of B.C. brought about a dozen students by bus to the Elections B.C. district office on West Broadway last Wednesday in the riding of Vancouver-Point Grey to vote to cast advance ballots.

But when fourth-year geography and political science student Quinn Runkle tried to use a printout of her university account proving she lives in Acadia House on UBC campus, her residency credentials were challenged by Liberal party members acting as “candidate representatives.”...

{snippety doo-dah}

...Liberal party communications officer Sam Oliphant said the party’s scrutineers had concerns about whether a screen shot is unreliable proof of residency.

“We asked for clarification about what would constitute an acceptable proof of residency and whether a screen shot of a residency page or simply showing a smartphone image would be something (Elections B.C.) would accept,” he wrote in an email, adding university transcripts or proof of registration were more commonly used....



And here is what I had to say at the time:

...(Let's) go and have a look at the Elections BC webpage about how University kids can prove their residency in a riding where they are living while going to school:

School/college/university-issued document 
Examples: admissions letter, report card, transcript, residence acceptance/confirmation, tuition/fees statement, student card

Hmmmmm...

Didn't the student concerned, above, indicate that she had "a printout of her university account proving she lives in Acadia House on UBC campus"?

****

Look.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there has been any sort of concerted fraud when kids vote early like this.

Thus, the only reasonable explanation for BC Liberal party operatives (eg. the 'candidate's representatives') to be staking out that office, on that very day, at that very time (ie. the office was open every single working day from the time the writ was dropped until the votes were cast), was so that they could harass those kids and intimidate them (and intimidate other kids who would hear about the intimidation and thus would be reluctant to vote) before they headed off to their families for the summer after final exams were done at the end of April (i.e. two weeks before election day).

So.....

Do you see why discouraging those kids from voting really mattered to those who were engaging in the lowest form of political thuggery now?

Especially if things had been just a little bit closer on election day (recall, for example, that Mr. Eby lost the previous by-election to Ms. Clark by a few hundred votes after the last polls, that presumably included the advances, were counted in 2011).

****

The good news in all of this?

Well, clearly, because of the way Mr. Eby's campaign team worked, on the ground doing real retail politics that actually matter, many of these kids did, indeed, vote. Thus, this particular form of political thuggery did not work this time.

Which, I think, demonstrates how it can be stopped, dead, in its tracks next time.

OK?


______
Speaking of Federal Robo/Con/Calls...Saskboy has a very good summary up of what's going on in the here and now....Here. 
And don't forget, the RoboConCall strate(r)gy was actually breech-birthed in 2008....


.