Take 1. The mayoral race wasn’t a photo finish
On Monday morning (election day) I predicted, as most people did, a photo finish in the mayoral race. The polls closed at 8 pm and I had not even made it to the bar at my partner’s election party when Mark Sutcliffe’s victory was announced by CTV. Not quite the photo finish everyone expected.
My progressive friends were quick to analyze Mark Sutcliffe’s victory as the victory of the Old Boys’ Club, suggesting that Ottawa residents only supported Sutcliffe on account of his genitals. It’s hard to argue the influence of the old boy’s club, especially when some of Mark’s endorsers are tenured enough to have arterial roads named after them. That being said, I think that both candidates ran distinctive campaigns that gave voters a chance to cast a ballot in favour of the vision that resonated with them. I’m not discounting the existence of systemic sexism informing what resonates with voters. But the argument is a little thin when two truly competing visions are put on the ballot and voters prefer one over the other.
In her newsletter, Michelle Rempel Garner argued that the candidates’ visions were not so competing after all and attributed Sutcliffe’s victory to the tone of his campaign over its substance. It’s a good read, you should check it out:
Take 2. Three capable women in Kanata-South won the vote and returned the incumbent to his council seat
All the incumbents were re-elected, even Allan Hubley. My prediction that 3 capable women would split the vote in Kanata-South and allow a Hubley victory was on the money. The candidates that came in second and third (Rouba Fattal and Erin Coffin) received ~3600 votes each, which adds up to roughly 2000 more votes than Hubley received (5334). Overall, more people didn’t vote for Allan Hubley than did and he’s in for the 4th of his 2-term commitment. I think that Rouba Fattal came under some criticism for living in Stittsville (the neighbouring ward, where I live). I hope that she’ll run again in my Ward in 2026.
Take 3. Low voter turnout is a vote for the status quo
As always, people who were unhappy with the election results – at the ward level or in the mayoral race – complained about the voter turnout. I’m not going to argue that a low voter turnout is a good thing: at the ward level, the voter turnout went from 37% to 53%, averaging 44% for the mayoral race. My comment is more about the way people interpret a low voter turnout.
There is a belief that people don’t care enough about municipal politics to turn up to vote. I will qualify this by adding: “as long as things are going their way.” Low voter turnout and incumbent advantage are two sides of the same coin: a low voter turnout is a vote for the status quo. Status quo doesn’t mean that people are not interested in what’s going on in their communities, it only means that they are not bothered enough to change it. Someone in a local Facebook group griped about the returning incumbent in my ward, writing to her fellow residents: “when you had a chance for change you didn’t come out!”
I would argue that the people who wanted change did come out. In Stittsville, the incumbent won with a 59% majority. The other three candidates shared the remaining 41% of the vote. This doesn’t scream “People who wanted change did not turn up.” My guess is that the people who wanted change turned up and the people who didn’t, didn’t. A higher voter turnout in this case would have bolstered the winner’s majority.
In the end, election loss bitterness is unbecoming of those who claim to love democracy. If you want to hear a concession speech that celebrates democracy and every single vote that was cast in their favour, go find Catherine McKenney’s election night speech (I found it on CTV). It’s a concession speech that sounds like a victory speech. It acknowledges that there is victory in defeat when votes are cast, volunteer hours given, a vision amplified and platformed. It’s a concession speech that looks forward rather than back and I’m here for it.
Take 5. On politics and families
Speaking of Catherine McKenney’s speech, at some point they thanked their daughter who “didn’t sign up for this” and it made me cry. The last month has been a ride.
As I mentioned above, my partner was an incumbent running in the municipal campaign. As I also mentioned, I used to be a Councillor’s Assistant at City Hall. In the last two weeks, I became the object of an online campaign to discredit and embarrass my partner. Guess what happens when you sling mud at an elected official’s personal life? His loved ones get hit.
In the last two weeks, personal information about me, my family status, and my work history have been shared with the media, on twitter, screenshotted, and shared again in a neighbourhood Facebook groups for anyone to discuss and question. There were allegations that my relationship with my partner was an affair (it wasn’t) and that it started while I was on his staff (it didn’t). These allegations have reached our children, our friends and neighbours, and our parents.
Questioning the integrity of elected officials is fair game. But to do it in a way that protects families from the assaults of the public requires more finesse and professionalism than can be expected from Twitter. What has been the most difficult for me has been the dehumanization of my role in my partner’s life. In this story, I am nothing but a pawn used by an angry person to achieve a political result.
The loss of agency, the loss of a voice in my own story – which I am reclaiming here – has been the hardest thing to take.
As I said, it’s been a ride.