The Political Math of the Township of Russell

Numbers are the currency of modern politics. And just like money, political numbers are worth much less than they once were, since they are bandied about ad nauseam. But unlike paper money, some numbers, it seems, have something that approaches intrinsic value. One such number is roaming the realm of Russell politics. It is 2,000.

Two thousand is the approximate number of signatures that grace the petition against the Township of Russell’s compulsory bilingual signage bylaw. This may seem insignificant, especially given the fact that this number represents about 14% of the population of the Township of Russell and that politicians almost invariably disregard petitions – as is the case with this one. Despite these facts, however, in this number reside the results of next year’s municipal election.

Let’s do the math. Fewer than 5,000 people voted in the 2006 municipal election. Mayor Ken Hill won his office with less than half the vote. Councillors, for their part, need even fewer votes to gain office. With these rough figures in mind, let’s consider what effect a 2,000-signature petition has on a municipal election. In a two-way race, if all 2,000 signatories vote against the Mayor, his days in office will be over. If these same people also vote against the two councillors who supported the bylaw, all those who voted in favor of the mandatory signage by-law will watch their political careers evaporate before their eyes.

Of course this is an oversimplification. It is likely that a number of those whose names appear on the petition are not Russell voters or that, if they are, this single issue alone will not determine their vote. Further, the mayoral race may see more than two candidates take the field, while councillors can still crawl to victory with relatively few votes. Finally, the population of Embrun and Russell has far from remained constant over the past four years, meaning that even if all 2,000 signatories voted against the bilingual signage ratifiers, these votes would be diluted in the larger pool of 2010 voters. These considerations allow those who passed this bylaw to flout both common sense and this petition, and still dream of $70,000 salaries as they softly slumber.

But their security rests on faulty premises. Certainly these are all things we must examine, but they far from discount the very high probability that this petition holds the key to the next municipal election. The next election will be determined by this issue. If bilingual signage is not the single issue, it will most certainly be the dominant one. The bylaw has polarized the community, and the community is the electorate. And the majority of this electorate preferred the harmony that reigned in its community to the strife that the Pandora’s Box of this bylaw has unleashed.

This petition is a kind of poll. It is a living poll that shows the people of Embrun and Russell are not complacent. This petition means action. Even if half of the signatories vote against the Mayor and councillors who passed this bylaw, this is 1,000 voters mobilized for a cause – and it is a 1,000 vote handicap that makes election all that more remote a prospect for these politicians. Moreover, even if only 10% of the signatories are willing to actively push their friends and fellow residents to vote out these same politicians, this is 200 people who will change minds and stir people to vote. The writing – in this case numbers – is on the wall.

A mobilized citizenry is the worst enemy of meddling, self-satisfied politicians. Ken Hill, Lorraine Dicaire and Donald St. Pierre should be quaking in their political boots.

Published in the October 1, 2009 issue of the Musketeers' Journal.

© 2010 - William G. Stephenson