Skip to Content

DMV2016 Campaign Profiled in U of M Press E-Publication on the Election

May 05, 2016

Hot, hot off the presses is an e-publication called Understanding the Manitoba Election Campaigns, Participation, Issues, Place. It's fine reading and presents very thoughful articles that can help make more sense about this past election.

It also includes an article on DMV2016 by Karine Levasseur.

You can download the full e-publication from a link posted here.

The provide for the fullest accessibility of Karine Levasseur's article, we have included the full text below.

The Rise of “Third Parties” in Manitoba Elections?

Karine Levasseur [Karine Levasseur is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Studies, University of Manitoba. She specializes in government–voluntary sector relationships and is the author of “In the Name of Charity: Institutional support and resistance for redefining the meaning of charity in Canada,” which won the J.E. Hodgetts Award for best article (English) published in Canadian Public Administration in 2012.]

If elections are about the expression of what society needs, then Manitoba is witnessing a rise in this expression from third parties, notably, I argue, from non-profit organizations, which includes registered charities. Third parties are diverse and can include any entity that is not a political party, candidate, or constituency association. Prime examples include unions, professional/business associations, and non-profits. Third parties do not compete in elections directly, but attempt to influence elections either in a non-partisan (e.g., focusing on a specific issue or cause) or partisan manner (e.g., providing directives to voters).

True to form, the 2016 election saw its share of “usual suspects” as far as third parties. The Manitoba Teachers’ Society, which represents 15,000 educators, launched TV, billboard, and online advertisements. The Manitoba Government and General Employees’ Union (MGEU), which represents 40,000 provincial government employees, launched a campaign with the slogan “Cutting is easy.” What is new about this provincial election is the significant nonpartisan involvement of non-profits to advance certain causes. A few examples of campaigns were led by the Right to Housing Coalition, Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties, Make Poverty History (Manitoba), Canadian CED Network, and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.

Perhaps one of the most successful campaigns launched by non-profits is the Disability Matters: Vote (DMV) 2016. Formed as a non-partisan partnership between Abilities Manitoba and Barrier Free Manitoba, this initiative included some seventy-seven partnering agencies and was designed to advance five disabilities issues in the election:

  • full accessibility
  • fair wages for staff working with persons with intellectual disabilities
  • reduced wait times for services
  • greater employment opportunities for persons with disabilities
  • liveable incomes for persons with disabilities who face barriers to employment

DMV kicked off its campaign on 3 December 2015 at the Manitoba Legislature with over 1,600 supporters in attendance. It developed a series of tools to help spread the word including lawn signs, buttons, media reports, town hall meetings, and rallies. DMV also sponsored an all-candidate debate held in Winnipeg.

DMV distributed a series of questions to the four main political parties and secured position pieces from each party based on the five priorities. These position pieces were an important strategy for the DMV campaign because they culminated in political commitments. With the commitments made by the new PC government, this allows DMV to work with them to advance priority areas. Moreover, DMV also posed questions to individual candidates that went beyond asking questions about the party platform. Rather, these candidate-specific questions asked about personal and public policy views related to disability issues (e.g., “What do you see as being the greatest accessibility challenges within your constituency and what will you do to address these challenges?”). This approach required candidates to think about disability-related issues, and better positions DMV to work with individual candidates once elected.

What is also particularly impressive about the DMV campaign is its effective use of social media. DMV recruited a social media volunteer who astutely developed Twitter feeds, Facebook entries, and video rants similar to those popularized by comedian Rick Mercer to spread the word and create a sense of urgency about the group’s five priority areas. Another particularly insightful strategy was the identification of sixteen ridings where the vote between the first- and second-place candidate was less than 15 percent in the 2011 provincial election. DMV concentrated its efforts on these ridings—in a non-partisan manner—with constituency captains in place to advance the five priorities to all candidates and illustrate the support behind this initiative.

Non-profits, unlike many other third parties, generally lack the resources necessary to launch expensive campaigns. DMV, however, nicely illustrates that even modest investments into advocacy campaigns can and do matter. By seeking position pieces from all four parties on the priority areas, DMV now has a transparent foundation to hold the winning party—in this instance the Progressive Conservative Party—to account for its pledges.

The DMV 2016 campaign raises several questions about the role of third parties in the political process. For example: with the rise of more and more third parties seeking political commitments during elections, there is a need to assess to what degree, if any, this narrows the opportunity for an incoming government to set its own public policy agenda. Moreover, this election instituted new rules for third-party “advertisements” that were not in place in the 2011 provincial election. How effective were these rules in allowing third parties to advance their views, while simultaneously restraining them to ensure a fair election where no one voice dominates electoral discourse?

Return to News List