Byelection happening Monday
Feels like we’ve been talking about this byelection for a long time. The LaSalle‑Emard‑Verdun vote finally happens Monday, although the 91‑name ballot may slow down the final count.
Updating to add: Steve Faguy reports “Elections Canada had to make special rules so that additional ballot boxes could be used when the regular ones fill up with these monstrosities.” He also has a photo of the real, massive ballot in the same X thread.
JaneyB 11:34 on 2024-09-16 Permalink
Just got back from voting. The ballot is indeed quite something. To fit all those names, it’s about 2.5 feet long!
jeather 12:00 on 2024-09-16 Permalink
Were the boxes bigger, or were there more per table?
Kate 12:02 on 2024-09-16 Permalink
The Gazette headline on the story says “Elections Canada hopes 91‑name Montreal byelection ballots will be counted by midnight.”
CE 12:14 on 2024-09-16 Permalink
I saw a photo of the ballot which showed two columns (and it was still very long).
Kate 12:21 on 2024-09-16 Permalink
Steve Faguy posted a sample of how it would look.
bob 12:47 on 2024-09-16 Permalink
I don’t know why some activists think that the best way to make a point is to inconvenience people. Why not block a bridge at rush hour? So entirely counter-productive.
MarcG 13:12 on 2024-09-16 Permalink
“These sorts of tactics are uncomfortable for everyone concerned, but sadly this is how social change works.”
Kate 13:26 on 2024-09-16 Permalink
Good link, MarcG.
Alex L 14:11 on 2024-09-16 Permalink
@jeather, the boxes are the same. But the lady there told me they had way more boxes than usual to fit all ballots.
bob 14:54 on 2024-09-16 Permalink
“Nearly seven in 10 of academics surveyed”. But let’s look closer. Total survey size was 120. The survey was paid for by Social Change Lab, and they made up the list of “experts” (https://www.socialchangelab.org/_files/ugd/503ba4_8c5aafc9708a405988c8d9e6801345f2.pdf). The survey’s design is not scientific – e.g., the choices to label tactics were “not important” and then five levels of important. Any academic should be able to see the problems here.
Anyways, when it comes to effectiveness for the climate movement, 29% said targeting the public is counterproductive, and 48% said targeting things like galleries and sporting events were. 65% agreed that “Disruptive animal advocacy protests cause a backfire effect”. For animal rights, only 12% agreed that “Protests with no clear logic are likely to have overall positive outcomes.” (No clear logic meaning no direct tie to the issue – clear logic e.g., animal rights activists disrupting a meat packing plant versus animal rights activists disrupting a sporting event). 71% said that “Targeting less related venues” is counterproductive, and 53% said the same of “Targeting the public”.
So they are not so unequivocal as the rather dishonest headline would suggest. Actually, looking at it again, the headline is patently false, and misrepresents what the article is reporting on. Not a surprise for the Guardian. The reporter counts on the fact that no one reads the actual polls or studies. maybe the reporter didn’t read this one.
Other materials from the Social Change Lab tend to show that disruptive and/or violent tactics do not work. They get you attention, not results. Although, for a lot of activists merely being the center of attention is the result they are looking for. It is narcissism couched in terms of “public awareness”. The public is aware of you, and now that they are aware of you, they do not like you.
But a poll by YouGov (also mentioned in that article) of 1708 people found that “A large majority of Britons – including six in ten protesters – say disruptive protesting hinders rather than helps a cause”. The actual numbers were 78% (61% say hinders “a lot”) and 60% respectively. 73% said that plain old protesting doesn’t make a difference – 61% of people who had taken part in protests said the same.
I have been an organizer and an “activist” of sorts a few times, and in my experience disruptive tactics have tended to evaporate the good will and sympathies that other less histrionic tactics built.
Ian 16:02 on 2024-09-16 Permalink
I guess we coulod go back to bombing stuff like the Suffragetes in the UK or the Vietnam war protests in the US or the FLQ chez nous, bob. Careful what you wish for, I think symbolic protests are just tickety-boo, thanks.
MarcG 16:31 on 2024-09-16 Permalink
My voting station was in a seniors’ residence and there was no masking or visible air ventilation or filtration. I’d like a follow up in a week to know if inviting the whole community over for a visit led to any “it’s mild now” tragedies.
The ballot was comically huge and not difficult for me to fold.
Chris 11:22 on 2024-09-17 Permalink
Ian, that’s quite the strawman. Bob wished for no such thing. And what strange dichotomous thinking that if disruptive protest doesn’t work, one must jump to bombing. Just maybe there are other options?
walkerp 11:38 on 2024-09-17 Permalink
What are those options? It is becoming harder and harder to engage people in political change with the internet taking over our brains and gigantic corporations with more power than ever to “engage” us with their bullshit.
For activists these days, it feels like you are stuck between “be safe and anodyne and don’t get any results” or “be aggressive and piss people off and get some results along with the backlash.”
Chris 12:33 on 2024-09-17 Permalink
>What are those options?
Really, you can’t think of anything at all before having to resort to bombing?!
walkerp 14:05 on 2024-09-17 Permalink
I was referring back to the original post in question.
I can tell you specifically, though, that after working with activists in a wide range of approaches that your narcissism argument is absolute bullshit. That is just one more comms strategy by conservatives to belittle and undermine the arguments activists are trying to make.
You could possibly argue that some of them are so passionate about their cause that there is an excess of emotion for them when they do actions that it appears performative and self-centered, but it is not a narcissism of the individual but a true belief in the importance of the cause. Even that position disintegrates if you ever meet any of these activists. They all tend to subsume their egos for the cause.
Ian 07:31 on 2024-09-18 Permalink
@Chris I didn’t attribute advocating acts of violence to Bob, do you understand what a strawman is? My point (and again, I’m sorry for not being clearer, I thought it obvious) is that maybe disruptive acts of protest that simply inconvenience people aren’t that bad compared to some of the more extreme acts of protest that could be enacted instead. Also, more to the point, entering a pile of cadidates to point out the ridiculousness of our electoral system isn’t so much disruptive as a symbolic protest.
That said, as a union member I think that having disruptive protest is the best way to get results, it certainly worked last year. Remember how we all got the 40 hour work week, weekends, and labour safety laws. As the Wobblies are fond of saying “direct action gets the goods”.
Chris 09:34 on 2024-09-19 Permalink
>That said, as a union member I think that having disruptive protest is the best way to get results
Maybe not you specifically, but I find a lot of people think this when they agree with the cause, but quickly feel the opposite when they disagree with the cause.
For example, the trucker protest in Ottawa at the end of covid. That was certainly disruptive. If one condones/condemns that, seems hypocritical to condemn/condone say a disruptive eco-protest.