We got excellent news from across the border this week, as Canada, which had been looking toward having a new massively Conservative government, instead saw the election bring about the return of the Liberal government. The loud and ridiculous noises coming from Donald Trump, particularly with respect to threats to Canada’s sovereignty and demand for absorption into the United States, undoubtedly played a pivotal role in the Liberals’ victory, especially because the tangible threat of tariffs made Trump’s threats concrete.
I will generally let those who know Canada better offer broad takes on what the Canadian election means. But one lesson for us here in the US should be that although the refrain “we aren’t happy with the status quo, so let’s throw out the incumbents” has some power, an overriding issue can change the dynamic. The Liberals’ victory was sweeping, however it was not a total success for the Liberals because to win a majority of the seats would have required getting 172 seats, and they ended up on 168. They shouldn’t have too much trouble governing with the much-diminished NDP. So from a policy perspective this isn’t going to mean much. Still being able to do everything within the family is easier, and so those Four missing seats do sting a little.
That those four seats were decided by a combined 654 votes must make things sting even a little bit more. Overall ,there were 10 seats lost by less than one thousand votes. The reason I bring up such small margins is because margins turn out to be that small far more often than observers are ready to admit. When it is on our own country the pain of such narrow defeats can often be enough that we block it out. But as we observe our neighbors to the North from distance, my hope is that the small margins do tend to resonate. What small margins mean is that the tiniest of things that could have been done differently or better can easily make the difference between winning and losing. Because any misstep can determine outcomes, we need to think a great deal about what can be done to add votes and or improve efficiency.
Anything that we do that decreases efficiency, or any vote-adding opportunity that we ignore because it is seen as too novel or too expensive or as stepping on the wrong toes can be what costs our Party the chance to wield power. We need to reject any thinking that this or that doesn’t matter, because tiny improvements add up over time are so very often the difference. It is why I see every one of the little things as in fact a big thing. If you disagree with me about a plan to add to our vote total or reduce the count for our opponents, I am interested only in your argument that says if we do it the way I propose here is how it will result in less votes. If you argument is something else, I am going to be frustrated and think you are misunderstanding the urgency and the stakes of our situation.
If we can find a way to adopt the mindset Canada teaches us, that winning or losing may very well come down to 654 votes, then any suggestion to net our party 100 votes should be treated like mana from heaven, not as a pointless waste of time. Readers of this substack know that there are many good ideas out there, if we are willing to embrace doing things differently.
This is a good and important point with a very useful example. We can't get sloppy or lazy in any election.
Thank you Jason!
Love your perspective here and totally agree!!