The following editorial appeared in the October 8 edition of the Guelph Mercury:
Two weeks ago, mayoral candidate Ray Mitchell suggested this campaign would be Guelph’s first “internet election.”
Ward 2 incumbent Ian Findlay conceded at the time that social media “seems to be the emerging trend in politics.
“Whether it’s going to have an impact in the Guelph election remains to be seen,” Findlay added.
Anyone who’s been paying attention to the election trail over the last couple of weeks will know that online activity has become a very real issue in several campaigns.
Last week, we revealed some candidates and campaign insiders had been posting on our own 59 Carden St. blog using various aliases, including Karen Farbridge’s campaign manager, mayoral challenger David Birtwistle and Ward 4 challenger Cam Guthrie.
As the smoke from those campaign grenades was still hanging in the air, Farbridge herself came under fire — on the Carden Street blog and elsewhere — for repeatedly altering posts on her own mayoral blog about costing related to the city’s new organics processing facility.
And then Mitchell made headlines after he was turfed from Ken Danby Public School this week. Mitchell was in the middle of a discussion with a few dozen Grade 5 students when he was asked to leave the school, reportedly after school officials learned of a comment Mitchell had left on a friend’s Facebook page.
The fallout from that event has put a crimp in the campaigning of two Ward 1 candidates — Karolyne Pickett and Tamara Williams — who have each had their pre-arranged visits to the same school temporarily postponed.
It’s not exactly the way some candidates planned on having the online world affect their offline campaigns.
But will it all, as Findlay suggested, have an impact on the election?
In some cases, it could.
I certainly don’t think the revelation that Farbridge’s campaign manager and Birtwistle had used various aliases to post online comments will affect the mayoral race. Those intending to cast a ballot for either candidate on Oct. 25 are either Farbridge fans or Birtwistle fans, and it will take more than some online shenanigans to sway voters across the deep chasm that exists between the two camps.
In the west-end Ward 4, the impact of last week’s revelations might be more obvious.
Guthrie, who in 2006 garnered significantly more support in the ward than Birtwistle and came within 195 votes of getting a council seat, could have a hard time shaking off the fallout from the alias issue.
After saying he found “disturbing” the use of aliases by Cathy Downer, manager of the Farbridge campaign, Guthrie was forced to admit he has engaged in the same conduct, using even more than the five aliases utilized by Downer.
Will west-end voters find Guthrie’s actions — which included using aliases to carry on a conversation about how badly they wanted Guthrie to run — a little too sneaky to trust him with the governance of the city?
Or will they accept his explanation he used the fake names to “feel the mood of the electorate” and to “spur on conversation?”
I guess we’ll find out in 17 days.
In the interim, it would be difficult for anyone to argue social media has been a non-issue during this campaign.