By Richard Clark, Opinions Contributor
The much anticipated vote in the House of Commons to dismantle the controversial gun registry was no less dramatic then expected.
Observers expected the results to be close, with no one certain of the outcome. It was clear that the Conservatives would unanimously oppose keeping the registry, while the Liberals and Bloc Quebecois were determined to fight for its survival. This left the balance of power with the NDP, and Leader Jack Layton refused to dictate how his MPs must vote. New Democrats, for the most part, are comprised of members in favour of gun control—however, a number of their MPs were opposed to the registry.
Chief among them was Nova Scotia Member of Parliament Peter Stoffer.
At least, he was for 13 years.
Then, only 3 days before the vote, he reversed his position, saying that he would vote to save the registry. His reason? Apparently a “poll” that he conducted in his riding, indicating that most of his constituents favoured registering long guns.
According to Stoffer, 3000 people contacted his office about the issue, and 62 per cent were in favour of the registry.
There are some serious flaws in this justification.
Interest groups often have their supporters write to MPs across the country, regardless of where they live. Just because Stoffer’s office received an email from a pro-registry advocate, that writer wasn’t necessarily from his constituency- they could have been from anywhere.
Public interest in this issue was unusually intense. Since Mr. Stoffer’s views were well known, many of his constituents had no reason to remind him how hated the registry is in rural Nova Scotia. After all, they felt the same way he did, and likely voted for him because of it! But people who disagreed with his opposition would want to make their opinions known, in the hopes of changing his mind.
This is clearly not a scientific poll, because it does not use a representative sample. Also, as previously mentioned, it is not necessarily comprised of “constituents,” and would have garnered a response from those at odds with Stoffer’s original views. In fact, the poll on The Chronicle Herald’s website is probably more accurate, and it ironically claims that 61 per cent of readers disagree with his decision.
Of course Stoffer understands a Member of Parliament’s job is to represent their constituents. But he seems to think the best way to do that is by adjusting his view based on public opinion polls. What he doesn’t seem to understand is the purpose of an election campaign.
Many people consider election campaigns to be a waste of time. What a more plugged-in observer understands is that a campaign is a test of a party’s ability to govern, and an individual’s ability to represent.
As many a veteran political operative has noted, “the only poll that matters is the one on election day.” Public opinion is fickle, and the smartest choices are made not based on what seems popular at the time, but what makes the most sense in the long term.
Nevertheless, any aspiring politician should use an election campaign as an opportunity to present themselves to the electorate. Their party will create a general platform, but it is up to individual candidates to make it known where they stand.
What is your position on environmental protection? Do you believe in abortion? How do you feel about gun control? All of those issues are important for many people, and as such candidate’s views should be made known. Then, when citizens cast their ballots, they can make an informed choice, based on whoever best represents their beliefs.
If a politician has clearly defined his or her values, then once they are elected, they can always have a clear conscience when voting based on their personal beliefs. Stoffer never said that he changed his view on the issue; he just said that he had to vote how his constituents wanted him to. He seems to have forgotten that his election victory was a mandate from the people, saying they trusted him to represent them.
Recent Comments