'Wonderful' may be an unusual term to describe an election campaign. Most campaigns are described in more technically-oriented terms, perhaps followed by some superfluous ones like 'brilliant' or 'making solid inroads' and all that. But none of these terms would by themselves describe the harmonious teamwork and effort displayed by our members in London, where Freedom Party fielded its first three candidates in a provincial election.

Campaign strategies, objectives, and policies were all adhered to and met. It was evident that our members had confidence in our strategy; all were aware that they were participating in a long-term, well-planned continuous campaign and that they were promoting the party's political theme that "the purpose of government is to protect our freedom of choice, not to restrict it."

For myself, it is particularly satisfying to be able to report that all 65,000 pieces of literature were delivered on schedule, that campaign costs came in on budget, and that our volunteers not only enjoyed their work, but also volunteered to help out on future campaigns. To date, among the many suggestions we received and will use in future election campaigns, not one complaint was received from the public, members, or volunteers with respect to our candidates' themes, styles, or professionalism employed during Freedom Party's campaign in Election '85.

One of the greatest threats faced by any political effort in its infancy is the threat of the unrealistic expectation. When it comes specifically to political parties, there's no more fertile ground for unrealistic expectations than the vote. For that reason, we made it a point to repeatedly stress that the greatest number of votes that could be expected by any one of our candidates would be in the range of 100 to 200.

This was done because (a) it was likely to be realistic, (b) our campaign promoted the party, not the candidates (in fact, the candidate's name did not even appear on our literature), (c) it was our intention to reinforce to both media and supporters that our goals were aimed not at votes, but at new members and community involvement, and (d) it would establish a basis for realistic expectations, and thus prevent a let-down in post-election morale.

It is very important to keep a lid on expectations of activists and candidates who get "election fever" during a campaign. It is easy to mistake the public's increased awareness of Freedom Party and friendly remarks like "You have many good ideas" as a vote trend, which, of course, it definitely is not. It is critical that our results be compared with our own claims of expected results, rather than with the uninformed and unrealistic expectations of others.

Needless to say, the 1,600-plus votes we received at the polls across London well exceeded our expectations of only about 200 votes per candidate. As a consequence, we found ourselves constantly being congratulated by both the media and the public for "doing better than you thought you would."

Success comes in many disguises.

Our campaign tactics were simple: deliver a single brochure with an enclosed post-paid card (offering information and action options for those interested) to 65,000 households in the campaign areas of London North, London Centre, and London South. Since our primary campaign objective was to find and solicit members from the public who shared some common beliefs with Freedom Party, the over-300 serious responses we received have presented us with an excellent base from which to draw future supporters of campaign initiatives.

Our election signs were produced as 'generically' as possible to allow their use in all three ridings and so that they could be reused for future elections and special events. Candidates' names were simply printed on stickers designed to fit an appropriate blank on the sign. Most importantly, our signs said nothing about 'voting' --- we were asking for involvement.

We were fortunate in having been able to test out our design style well before the election --- it was precisely the same as the one employed by us in conjunction with the local Eaton's employees NO-UNION campaign last fall (see Freedom Flyer no. 4 & 5) --- and which proved to be highly effective.

As to the text, it was relatively easy to read, but highly philosophical in relation to the offerings of the other political parties. Though some regarded it as slightly "word-heavy", it was important to consider that our strategy was to appeal to those who basically were already in agreement with us. Since our platform and philosophy require some understanding of intellectual tenets, anyone interested enough to become involved with our party would want some depth.

Some critics claimed that we did not deal specifically enough with the "issues" in our election brochure --- a deliberate manoeuvre. Many people peruse literature only in order to find something objectionable to justify their vote against "something", but because our message was so highly philosophical, few people had a reason to disagree with us and consequently we made few enemies.

Although two of our three candidates had no previous experience on the political frontlines, they were well briefed on the issues and maintained a firm grasp of Freedom Party's philosophy and campaign strategy.

Possibly the most gruelling question period of the whole election campaign occurred at Freedom Party headquarters during a mock candidates debate, where each candidate was required to answer a half hour of intense questioning from the "audience", Freedom Party volunteers who played devil's advocates for the evening.

Initially, both Michelle McColm and Robert Smeenk expressed some reservations about their ability to handle questions in light of the pressure applied on them during the exercise. It was our expectation, however, that the new candidates would be turning all the questions they had difficulty with over in their minds during the following ten days prior to the first real all candidates debate. Delightfully, this is exactly what happened. Questions that were "difficult" became easier to answer, accompanied by an equivalent degree of greater confidence in the answers.

By the time the campaign was in full swing, our candidates always appeared in public sharply dressed, spoke out firmly in favour of freedom of choice, and always asked voters to get involved with our local initiatives.

After opening speeches were made, the difference between Freedom Party and the other parties was made crystal clear, even without ever having to mention the other parties by name or by policy. In this way, no one was offended by our approach, leaving the door open to a consideration of our ideas.

Because of the credibility and professionalism exhibited by our candidates, we can all be thankful that Freedom Party was not treated like most "fringe parties", but rather, as part of the political mainstream.

Traditionally, the media has been known to ignore the activities of small parties during an election. Because so many small parties are often chaotically organized and have totally unrealistic expectations, this attitude is understandable; after all, they've heard it all before. But such was definitely not the case with local coverage given Freedom Party candidates in Election '85.

Significantly, coverage given our candidates left the impression that they were presentable, competent, realistic, and caring. Quotations were positive, succinct, tasteful, and far more than the standard one-sentence coverage usually accorded smaller parties in larger urban areas.

Possibly the most outstanding and comprehensive coverage we received during the entire election campaign came in the form of a four-minute featurette appearing on London's only local television station, C.F.P.L.-T.V., where it was broadcast twice during the day, including a segment on the supper hour newscast. It was almost as if we produced it ourselves, proof that a well-planned marketing strategy pays off. A number of electors mentioned seeing it and agreed that it conveyed a desirable and positive impression. If not their vote, at least we earned their respect, an asset that will prove far more valuable to us in the future than their vote would be today.

Running an effective, credible campaign on only $2,000 per riding may, to some, have seemed to be an impossible undertaking. But a major mistake to avoid during an election is to spend each and every dollar raised during the campaign period, regardless of whether the expenditure is cost effective or even relevant to the campaign's over-all objectives. And when you know that you're not going to win (i.e., an electoral victory), objectives must be focused on building an organization that can sustain itself during non-election periods.

How did we raise the money? The vast bulk of our financing was raised quite bluntly by our letting local activists and members know that we expected a minimum contribution of $50 towards campaign expenses and --- without exception --- every supporter came through with a donation of $50 or more. Because signs and design costs had already been incurred prior to the election, we were able to raise enough money to operate the bulk of our campaign within the first ten days after election call.

Key to our financial strategy was our marketing strategy. In other words, every cent spent during the election was completely consistent with our marketing strategy. Despite the belief of many that money can buy "visibility" and consequently credibility, this is simply not the case. Only results in your local community are worth anything. They're an investment, not an expense.

Let us never lose sight of the fact that growth --- activists, riding associations, new members, campus clubs, etc., --- is our primary objective, not getting votes. Spending money on short term mass media advertising like billboards, radio, television, etc., is completely unjustifiable until a candidate is in a position to win a riding. Until we are in a winnable political environment at least a decade from now, all our dollars will continue to be invested in our political future.

e-mail

Page last updated on April 28, 2002