Small P and Large P Politics and the F Word

 Here is something we did up in class this morning.  London Municipal Voter Turn Out By Ward   2014 2018 2022   Votes % of total Votes % of total Votes % of total Ward 1 6,003 5.6 5,091 5.7 3752 5.3 Ward 2 6,413 6.0 5,443 6.1 3729 5.4 Ward 3 5,971 5.6 4,702 5.3 3962 5.7 Ward 4 6,310 5.9 5,063 5.7 3755 5.4 Ward 5 9,746 9.1 4,261 4.8 6172 8.9 Ward 6 6,510 6.1 5,696 6.4 4328 6.2 Ward 7 9,675 9.0 8,137 9.1 ...

 [It's a provocative position. I hope my answer is a bit more nuanced. Thinking with a pen, so the views are my own and likely to change as I think about it a bit more.] The big talking point regarding yesterday's municipal election in London is the free fall debacle in voter turnout. Only 25.5% of eligible voters cast a ballot, a significant plunge from the 40% turnout in 2018 (the BRT election) and from the 2014 high of 43% (the get rid of Fontana and the Fontana 8 election).  This low turnout is seen as the reason for the rather surprising outcomes in some of the words, namely the defeat of three "incumbents."* Incumbents are considered safe bets because they have name recognition and represent the status quo for voters. Generally, the mass of voters in municipal election have little to guide their votes other than name recognition and a desire not to change things up. However, when that "mass" of voters decides not to show up, that generalized support fo...

The focus of this posting is to share graphic visualizations of what the various candidates in London for Mayor are putting forward in their statements on policy. The purpose is to display the "word salads" that candidates make available to connect themselves with as many people as possible, and deconstruct them to show the central concerns and brand the candidates hope to evoke. The visualization allows for a quick grasp of what the candidate sees as being important and a part of their brand. It is generally accepted that messaging matters. The "issues candidates make prominent partly determine the outcome of the election" (Vavreck, 2009). In the election business, this is all about "framing" and "priming." Framing attempts to change peoples' opinions by painting issues from a stance favourable to the campaign and gives definition to the candidate. Priming pushes the salience of issues and the considerations that should drive the voters. The...