Tipping points

Politics is non-linear. Mistakes compound themselves. Small initial movements in public opinion are often amplified, as the participants -- politicians, media, voters -- adjust their positions in response, and respond to each other’s responses.

As with other social phenomena, elections have their “tipping points,” where seemingly placid political waters turn into treacherous cataracts; where vicious circles suddenly become virtuous, and vice versa; where dignified declines become exponential routs. John Turner’s Liberals were ahead in the polls at the start of the 1984 campaign. Ditto Kim Campbell’s Conservatives in 1993.

Nothing is inevitable, and there is nothing as yet to suggest a repeat of those historic debacles. All the same, the Liberal campaign would appear to have crossed one such tipping point already, dropping from a six-point lead to three points back in the space of a week. But what must haunt the dreams of Liberal strategists are the two more that loom in front of them.

The first occurred when voters found their disgust with Liberal corruption finally outweighed their distrust of Mr. Harper. Whether it was the doggedly prosaic campaign the Tory leader pursued through the first weeks, or the bombshell announcement that the RCMP had launched a criminal investigation into the income trust affair, or simply the opportunity to compare notes with friends and family over the Christmas holidays, a number of voters appear to have reached the same conclusion at the same time.

If only that were the bad news. But the Liberal implosion may well set in motion a further dynamic. The party had won previous elections largely on the strength of its own inevitability. (If none of the other parties had even a mathematical chance of forming a government, Ontarians in particular reasoned, what was the point of voting for them?) When the Conservatives began to show signs of life, it adapted readily enough: the dread prospect of a Tory government was skillfully deployed to scare NDP voters into voting Liberal.

But once it is apparent that the Liberals cannot form a government, the logic of strategic voting may be turned against them. Suppose the Conservatives looked headed for a minority, say of 125 seats, to 100 for the Liberals, 20 for the NDP, and the rest for the Bloc -- not far off current projections.

That would leave the Tories 29 seats short of a majority. If that were to hold, they would be unable to pass legislation with the support of the NDP alone, but would have to seek the Bloc's support as well. Or so it is often said.

This is actually a bit of a fallacy. The notion that the Bloc would be able to make a federalist government dance to its tune presupposes that the other main federalist party, in this case the Liberals, would always vote against the government -- even if doing so helped the separatists hold the country to ransom. But surely if it came down to that Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition would put partisanship aside.

Nevertheless, it's a fallacy in which the Grits are heavily invested: hence all those dire warnings of a “Conservative-Bloc alliance.” So they would be peculiarly vulnerable to a late-campaign Tory appeal to wavering Liberal voters to help “block the Bloc.” Give me enough seats, Stephen Harper might plead, to eliminate the BQ as a factor. I can work with the NDP. But don't give the Bloc the balance of power.

On the Liberals’ other flank, the NDP might at the same time plead, especially with Ontario voters: give us enough seats so that we hold the balance of power. You're wondering whether to vote Liberal to “stop Harper”? You can't stop Harper: the Liberals can't win. But if the Liberals can't keep him from power, the NDP can still keep him in check. Whether the Grits win 90 seats or 100 seats, it makes no difference. But whether the NDP win 20 or 30 seats makes all the difference in the world.

The third potential tipping point is the most nightmarish of all. Tory support has not only been climbing in Ontario, the Liberals’ last redoubt: in recent days, it has also begun to move in Quebec. One poll put them as high as 20% -- within striking range of the Liberals.

On its own, that isn’t going to win them many seats: indeed, its most likely effect is to elect more Bloc MPs. But there is a kind of two-step that goes on between Ontario and Quebec voters at election time. To win seats in Ontario, especially urban Ontario, you must first show that you have at least some degree of credibility in Quebec. But once you have established yourself as a contender in Ontario -- and therefore as a potential government -- that is when Quebecers really take a look at you. And so on, back and forth.

Quite how, and when, that little dance takes place is hard to predict. It is, as the game theorists say, an “unstable equilibrium.” But should the planets align in the right way, the Tories could pick up seats by the dozen. And yes, even a few in Quebec.

Again: Nothing is inevitable, nor does a rout on the scale of 1984 or 1993 seem likely this time. Of course, it didn’t seem likely then, either.