The Main — May 11: The Dangerous Case of Kevin J. Johnston
Every proposed solution potentially damages our democratic system in the very way emerging bad-faith actors likely hope
The barrier to enter municipal politics is low. The cost to enter a race is minimal. Aside from a few rare anomalies, there are no political parties playing gatekeeper or forcing expensive nomination campaigns and races. You want to run, you probably can.
As a result, says Duane Bratt, professor of political science at Mount Royal University in Calgary, “you get lots of characters who run, and they do so for all sorts of reasons.” Some run for vanity. Some run on single issues. Some run as a joke. Some run as bigots. What this means is that mayoral campaigns in particular in Alberta’s larger cities have seen frontrunners share debate stages with less than credible people, who use the forum to ram fringe views into the main feed. This often isn’t great to experience. But still, Bratt says, “that’s all good and democratic.”
The disturbing case of Calgary mayoral candidate Kevin J. Johnston challenges these ideals. Yesterday, CBC reported Johnston has threatened to dox — or make private information like addresses public — Alberta Health Services employees, police, and others, partially in retaliation to his friend, Artur Pawloski, who police arrested recently for breaking public-health orders. The trouble, as the story lays out, is that as a mayoral candidate, Johnston will receive voter information on all residents in the city once nominations close in September. The CBC story quoted the Calgary Police Service saying it is “deeply concerned” by the prospect of Johnston having personal information on its members.
“In a written statement provided to CBC News, CPS said it is "working with the city in an attempt to limit the disclosure.’”
The trouble is that all solutions to Johnston as a candidate for mayor in Calgary create their own consequences for our democratic systems. “He’s a really despicable human being,” Bratt says. “But I do think he raises some really interesting questions about elections.”
Question one: In pursuing democratic ideals despite repugnant candidates showing up, and repeatedly so in Calgary’s case with candidates like Larry Heather — an extreme social-conservative known for running for multiple levels of government, throwing ketchup on abortion doctors, and even earning a two-year ban from speaking at Calgary city hall because, well, he’s awful. “Once you open a door for a guy like Heather [in municipal elections], the next guy is going to take it further,” Bratt says.
Hello, Johnston.
A reflexive response is to modify the legal structure for municipal elections in ways to keep people like Johnston out. But doing so would see politicians and bureaucrats applying a measure of acceptability to candidates that raises all sorts of flags. “The whole system is based on good faith,” Bratt says. “And just because a guy isn’t going to win or is promoting a view that’s repugnant, shouldn’t be a way to deny him.”
Further, the term “serious” candidate doesn’t hold much water in Alberta. Ralph Klein, Naheed Nenshi and Don Iveson were not considered “serious” candidates early on, before voters made it clear they were.
Some have suggested an alternative way to keep disturbing, and properly dangerous candidates out of races and not see them gain access to voter lists is to raise the entry fee to run. If we charge, say, $5,000 to run for mayor, less-than-serious candidates won’t be able to enter. This, too, has ethical problems, Bratt says. For one, it deeply favours incumbents who have access to voter lists already, and who have name-recognition and a baked in advantage in elections. But problem two, he says, is that this bar likely wouldn’t work.
“I think there’s a danger in doing that. There’s value in democracy to allow frivolous candidates as it were. Because they don’t see themselves as frivilous. And given his [Johnston’s] profile, he would probably have the money.”
Another problem with shifting legal barriers around is that it wouldn’t be municipalities doing the shifting. As so-called ‘creatures’ of the province, municipal governments hold elections under provincial legislation. Any change to these rules would have to be provincial. Red flag alert. “Do you want the province picking and choosing who can run and who can’t?” Bratt says.
Today, “Larry Heather is no longer the weirdest guy running for mayor,” Bratt says. “Johnston is not just weird, he’s completely dangerous in a way that Heather never was. [Heather] was never advocating the violence and hate crimes that Johnston is.”
What is the fix? If we start at the top of this list with possible solutions and consider the problems each of them creates, we go in circles. Liberal democratic systems assume, rightly, that people running for office come with good-faith intentions. The rise of bad-faith actors using these good-faith systems against themselves will force us to consider harming those open systems in order, ironically, to not allow them to be damaged.
Interesting, dangerous times.
What can you do about it? Vote.
Why do they get access to voter lists at all? Go door-knocking and setup social if you want to engage with constituents. We shouldn't be giving anyone access to personal info, voters or not, of citizens.