Welcome to the fourth in an installment of blog posts by LISPOP affiliates on different aspects of the Ontario provincial election. Our last post is by Wilfrid Laurier political scientist Andrea Perrella.
A lot of attention on election campaigns focuses on “swing” voters or toss-up seats, suggesting a volatile electorate. When people think about political persuasion, comparisons are often made to the corporate world of advertising to consumers. But there are massive differences between persuasion in a commercial context and in a political context While the idea of “brand loyalty” is familiar in both domains, identification with a particular political party develops over a long period of time, starting from when we are young. We acquire such orientation from our parents, community, peers. Moreover, the stakes are far higher when making a political decision than when making a decision about consumption. And we are only called to make a political decision every few years, but we make consumption decisions every day. All this is to say, brand attachment in politics is very different than brand attachments in politics. Brand loyalty – or partisanship — is much more important in politics than in consumption.
In the June election, regardless of how much interest you may have, most likely, you’ll vote the same way this time around as you did back in 2018. This is not unusual; this is actually the norm.
In the 2018, 65% of voters in the Ipsos election-day survey indicated to have voted for the same party that they had supported back in 2014. In 2014, the rate of consistent voting was higher, 68%. And while there has been a drop in 2018, it cannot be said to be of the magnitude of the collapse of partisanship. People stick to their brand, for the most part.
But sometimes they defect. Voters can identify with one party, but vote for another in a particular election. They may do so for a variety of reasons. Maybe they don’t like their party’s leader; maybe they are thinking strategically and are hoping to prevent their least preferred party from winning in their riding; sometimes a competing party is promoting a policy that is pulling in voters in. These things happen, and they can agitate the partisanship-vote relationship.
Take the Ontario Liberal Party. According to the 2018 Ontario Election Study, 48% of OLP identifiers voted for the Liberals in that election, about half of the nearly 90% level seen in 2014. Identifiers of the other parties, in contrast, remain far more loyal to their party brands, with 82% of PC identifiers having voted PC, and 87% of NDP identifiers having voted NDP.
While the obvious story of 2018 was the beating the Liberals suffered from voters, the question is whether that reflects an erosion of loyalty. Voters can sometimes sever their identifications with a party and reorient themselves towards another. When that happens in substantial numbers, it is referred to as realignment. In such a case, voters can acquire new identifications, new loyalties, and that can alter the political landscape for many years. Consider the 1993 federal election that saw the former Progressive Conservative party of Canada reduced to two seats after many of its voters moved in large numbers to the Reform Party and Bloc Québécois. The federal PCs never recovered from that realignment. Perhaps even consider in Quebec, which saw a series of governing parties dwindle as voters shift their priorities (e.g., Union Nationale, Parti Québecois).
Is this happening in Ontario? In 2018, many of those who voted Liberal in 2014 (one-third, according to the Ipsos survey) supported the NDP in 2018. The big question is: Why did they shift? Was this shift reflective of any realignment. Are these former Liberal voters now NDP partisans? Doubtful.
Some evidence suggests that the large defections among Liberal identifiers stem from short-term factors. According to the 2018 Ipsos survey, one such reason was disenchantment towards then-leader and premier Kathleen Wynne. Leadership was cited as the most common reason (29%) among Liberal voters who switched parties in 2018. A close second was policies (21%). And more than two-thirds of these Liberal defectors were motivated to vote in a manner that would stop Doug Ford from winning, not necessarily because they saw in the NDP a new home.
What 2022 will test is whether those Liberal defectors return. With Steven Del Duca as the new Liberal leader, and with the Liberal platform containing some progressive elements, it is plausible for many of those Liberal defectors from 2018 to return. Although, polls do not suggest a complete reversal, but they also do not suggest Liberal identifiers have completely severed their ties, at least not yet.