The Impact of the Local Candidate in Canadian Federal Elections

Société québécoise de science politique

The Impact of the Local Candidate in Canadian Federal ElectionsAuthor(s): Robert CunninghamSource: Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique, Vol. 4,No. 2 (Jun., 1971), pp. 287-290Published by: Canadian Political Science Association and the Société québécoise de science politiqueStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3231812 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 08:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Canadian Political Science Association and Société québécoise de science politique are collaborating withJSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne descience politique.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.152 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 08:36:46 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cpsa

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sqsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3231812?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


The Impact of the Local Candidate in Canadian Federal Elections

ROBERT CUNNINGHAM McMaster University

The impact of the local candidate in Cana- dian federal elections has received scant theoretical or empirical attention. Voting in Canada is usually accounted for in terms of party identification, party leader attraction, ethnicity, and religious affiliation.' Possible local candidate influence on electoral outcomes is rarely considered system- atically.2 An observer of British elections placed the average influence of the local candidate at about 10 per cent of the total vote.3 Morris Davis, in a study of a Hali- fax two-member constituency, states that

the local candidate is responsible for at least 6 per cent of the vote.4

The present study is based on information obtained by personal interviews with 832 constituents of the ridings in the city of Hamilton prior to the 1968 election.5 This limited focus on three constituencies (9 candidates) has certain advantages over studying the problem by means of a national sample.6

Findings and discussion

Respondents were asked "What will be the most important factor in determining how you will vote on June 25: leader, party,

1Allan Kornberg et al., "Some Differences in the Political Socialization Patterns of Canadian and American Party Officials: A Preliminary Report," this JOURNAL, II, no. 1 (March 1969), 74; Gilbert R. Winham and Robert B. Cunningham, "Party Leader Images in the 1968 Federal Election," ibid., iii, no. 1 (March 1970), 51-5; Leon Kamin, "Ethnic and Party Affiliations of Candidates as Determinants of Voting," Canadian Jour- nal of Psychology, xii (Dec. 1958), and in John C. Courtney, ed. Voting in Canada (Scarborough, Ont. 1967), 191-8; Howard A. Scarrow, "Three Dimensions of a Local Political Party," in John Meisel, ed. Papers on the 1962 Election (Toronto, 1964), 53- 67; F. C. Engelmann and M. A. Schwartz, Political Parties and the Canadian Social Structure (Scarborough, 1967), 225; John Meisel, "Religious Affiliation and Electoral Behaviour: A Case Study," Canadian Jour- nal of Economics and Political Science, xxII, no. 4 (Nov. 1956), 481-96, and in Courtney, Voting in Canada, 145-61; Grace M. Anderson, "Voting Behaviour and the Ethnic-Religious Variable: A Study of a Federal Election in Hamilton, Ontario," Canadian Journal of Economics and Politi- cal Science, xxxii, no. 1 (Feb. 1966), 27- 37. 2One reason for this may lie in the fact that researchers wish to generalize to as large a population as their resources and sample will allow. Therefore the research effort is spread over many ridings. Conse- quently, the sample size for each individual riding is usually too small to be sensitive to individual differences in attractiveness among candidates. The present study, which focuses on three ridings, provides informa-

tion about local candidate influence within a limited geographical area. The generality of the findings must await further research in other (probably limited) geographical areas. 3H. J. Hanham, Elections and Party Man- agement (London, 1959), 199, cited in Morris Davis, "Ballot Behaviour in Halifax Revisited," Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, xxx, no 4. (Nov. 1964), 554. 4"Did They Vote for Party or Candidate in Halifax?" in Meisel, Papers on the 1962 Election, 21. The method of arriving at this figure is interesting. Straight ticket voting indicates party voting; while ticket split- ting indicates candidate orientation; Davis' method probably leads him to underesti- mate the importance of local candidates. 5For more detail on the sampling method, see Winham and Cunningham, "Party Lead- er Images," 38-9. 6The obvious drawback is that concentra- tion on any three ridings renders the findings questionable on the grounds of uniqueness. With a national sample, on the other hand, local candidate influence can be compared to party leader, party identification, ethnicity, religion, region, or class variables. However, in most national sam- ples there are too few respondents from any single riding to compare the relative strengths of various local candidates. Con- sequently, inter-candidate variation cannot be ascertained, and the question as to whether one candidate rather than another makes a difference cannot be answered.

Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, Iv, no. 2 (June/juin 1971). Printed in Canada/Imprim6 au Canada.



288 ROBERT CUNNINGHAM

TABLE I

WHAT WILL BE THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR IN DETERMINING HOW YOU WILL VOTE ON JUNE 25 ?

% N

Leader 26 212 Party 27 227 Issues 15 126 Local candidate 26 216 Other/no issue 6 51 Total 100 832

issues, local candidate?" The results, shown in Table I, indicate that 26 per cent at- tributed their intended votes primarily to a local candidate. That he initially appears to influence voters at a rate equal to party identification and party leader is quite sur- prising.7 To test the hypothesis that local candidates vary in their abilities to attract voter support, Table ii singles out voters indicating the local candidate to be the reason for their votes. Significant deviations

7Previous studies indicate party identification to be much stronger than shown here; see fn. 1 above.

from the proportion of local candidate influence are observed for two local candidates Alexander (Pc) and Beckett (L). It seems, therefore, that candidates can have an important independent effect on electoral outcomes, and the nominee of a party may alter party electoral fortunes for either good or ill.8

However, the figures in Table In may in- flate the importance of the local candidate. Party identification may predispose the respondent towards a favourable view of a particular candidate: the reason for one's vote may be partly identification rather than an orientation to the local candidate. To remove this interaction between party identification and local candidate orienta-

8Had there been no significant deviations from the overall mean, the necessary con- clusion would have been that the influence of local candidates, while important in pulling votes, is randomly distributed. Al- though different candidates may appeal to different people, the pull of any one candidate is no stronger or weaker than the pull of any other candidate. Consequently, for electoral victory one nominee is just as good as any other.

TABLE II

CANDIDATE IMPORTANCE AS A PERCENTAGE OF VOTE

(PARTY IDENTIFIERS INCLUDED)

Number who consider local candidate as

the most important Candidate Vote factor in determining factor

intention their vote B/A (A) (B) (percentages)

East Munro (L) 143 50 35 n.s.* Steinberg (PC) 35 8 23 n.s. Ramacieri (NDP) 56 12 21 n.s.

Mountain Sullivan (L) 102 25 25 n.s. Beattie (PC) 54 9 18 n.s. Howe (NDP) 78 19 24 n.s.

West Beckett (L) 92 14 15 sig. Alexander (PC) 75 38 51 sig. Bruce (NDP) 37 7 19 n.s.

Total 672 182t

*A significant difference of proportions between the overall proportion of voters influenced by local candidates (27 per cent) and voters influenced by a particular candidate is determined by a difference of proportions test. Signi- ficance (sig.) is determined by a Z score greater than + 1.96.

tThirty-four of the 216 persons selecting local candidate as most important in determining their vote did not indicate a voting intention.



Local Candidate in Federal Elections 289

TABLE III INTENDED VOTE OF THOSE CROSSOVER AND UNCOMMITTED VOTERS INDICATING LOCAL CANDIDATE

AS THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR INFLUENCING THEIR VOTES

Sum of Sum of candidate Uncommitted candidate pulled votes (A+ B)/

Total Crossovers voters pulled votes total vote vote (A) (B) (A + B) (percentages)

East Munro (L) 143 6 7 13 9 n.s. Steinberg (pc) 35 0 2 2 6 n.s. Ramacieri (NDP) 56 1 2 3 5 n.s.

Mountain Sullivan (L) 102 4 5 9 9 n.s. Beattie (PC) 54 2 4 6 11 n.s. Howe (NDP) 78 3 5 8 10 n.s.

West Beckett (L) 92 0 2 2 2 sig. Alexander (pc) 75 3 18 21 28 sig. Bruce (NDP) 37 0 1 1 3 n.s.

Total 672 19 46 65 9.6

tion, analysis was carried out only on voters who met both of the following conditions: (1) they considered local candidate the main determinant of their voting decision and (2) they either did not identify with any political party or they deserted their usual party affiliation to support the candidate of another party.9 Table iii shows the ability of each local candidate to attract uncommitted voters and those identifying with other federal parties. The attraction of the various local candidates is again con- trasted, with results similar to Table 11.10 The local candidate is still significant, even after identifiers are removed.

Several points should be noted. First, removing party identifiers supporting candidates of "their" party reduces the overall influence of local candidate from 26 to 9.6 per cent; so the strength of local candidate orientation as an independent predictor of vote is considerably diminished. Second, party identification is bound up with candidate appeal. Even a strong candidate like Alexander (strength measured by relative appeal to non-identifiers with candidate's party) rarely pulls voters across party lines. The main source of a strong candidate's potential support lies among the uncommitted voters rather than among those who might be induced to cross party lines to vote for an attractive candidate. Third, despite the loss of strength after removing the party identifiers, local candidates in two cases of nine attract voters at statistic- ally significant, different rates. Conse- quently, although his relative importance is reduced by controlling for party identification, the local candidate still appears to have an important effect on electoral outcomes. The practical significance of the local candidate can be seen in Hamilton West, a riding in which Alexander won over Beckett by less than a thousand votes. Had Beckett even maintained the normal local candidate influence, that is, increased his vote total by 7 per cent to what would otherwise have been his proportional share, the electoral outcome would have been re- versed. Alexander was able to win on the basis of individual attractiveness, especially among uncommitted voters.

Tables ii and iii support the contention

I9Those party identifiers who intend to vote for their party's candidate are removed from the analysis. Underlying this pro- cedure rests the assumption that evaluation of the various candidates is highly depen- dent upon the party identification of the voter; that is, party identifiers perceive more favourably candidates of their own party than candidates of other parties. loIt can be argued that the personal attractiveness of incumbents is underestimated by this method of calculating candidate influence. The incumbent has created party identifiers of his personal followers, thereby reducing his score on influencing inde- pendents and those who cross party lines both absolutely by cutting down numbers and relatively by increasing the size of the identifier group. Especially salient in this study is the case of John Munro, an MP generally conceded to have considerable candidate attractiveness.



290 ROBERT CUNNINGHAM

that local candidates have a differential impact on electoral outcome, though their absolute weight generally is clouded by interaction between the candidate and party orientation of the respondent. If Hamilton, in the 1968 election, is representative of Canada, then the impact of local candidate is slightly less than 10 per cent.1l Local candidate influence is not randomly distributed, however, and a nominee to whom the voters respond can be of considerable importance in determining an electoral outcome.

Speculations and summary

Other distributions were noted in the data. Among the three ridings, candidate influence was greater and had more electoral impact in Hamilton West - where no incumbent was running - than in Hamilton Mountain or Hamilton East ridings where incumbents were involved. This suggests either that voters living in Hamilton West are more candidate oriented or that a particular candidate (Alexander) was more successful in arousing support among the voters. Another tendency noted was that voters with a primary orientation to the

local candidate tend to have slightly lower socio-economic status and to be less in- formed on political matters than other voters. Several questions flow from these observations:

1 Do ridings vary significantly in the rate to which local candidate is a prime vote determinant? 2 Is responsiveness to the local candidate more widespread when the race involves no incumbent? 3 Is there a pool of voters who regularly vote on the basis of local candidate appeal, just as a pool of voters regularly supports the candidate of each of the political parties? 4 Do voters primarily oriented towards the local candidate have different social back- grounds and political information levels than other voters?

Generally, these questions are best tackled by research designs focusing on specifically selected groups of ridings where the number of variable factors is limited.

In summary, the independent effect of a local candidate on an electoral outcome seems to be approximately 10 per cent of his vote. However, some candidates have an influence on the voting public significantly greater or less than the 10 per cent mean, which in June 1968 affected the election in at least one of the three ridings studied. The local candidate does make a difference.

11This 10 per cent minimum candidate pull needs further testing in various geographical areas across several elections. The 10 per cent figures does not seem high for the appeal of Trudeau likely depressed the salience of local candidates generally in the 1968 election.



Documents

The Impact of the Local Candidate in Canadian Federal Elections