Canadian Federal Election as Job Interview

I was not sure what to say regarding the upcoming Canadian federal election next week. So, rather than profess allegiance to any one party… Have you ever noticed how this election is like a common, everyday job interview? The candidates and parties are but trying to get a job (elected). Campaigning is the interview, and the voting public the interviewers. We test the candidates, examine their credentials, and make a decision in voting. Either way, we pray we’ve made the correct decision and have to live with the result; at least for a while.

Here is a quick and simplified comparison between the traditional job interview and the election process.

The employer recognizes the need for a new employee and places an ad in the newspaper.
Current ruling party comes to the end of the term, there is a vote of non-confidence, etc, and an election is called.

Applicants submit their applications in response to the ad.
There is a formation of parties, selection of candidates, announcements of running (not to mention procedural applications and paperwork).

Employers review the applications and C.V. of applicants, looking to their past as an indication of future actions and performance. The process really is an examination of accountability and credentials.
This step is akin to examining the past and previous record of parties and candidates. Even now, these individuals rest and tout the laurels of their predecessors. Also, they cannot escape but must answer to past crimes and indiscretions. For example, the liberals flaunt their connections to Medicare in Canada all the way back to the ‘50s. In the next statement, they apologize for injudiciousness as recent as the Ad Scam and as distant as the Chinese Head Tax dating back to the 1880s.

Now the interview process. It begins initially when the applicant comes in (or over the phone) and meets with the interviewer. After initial pleasantries, the interviewer tries to get a measure of the applicant. There are typically questions, tests or exams administered (personality, competence, personal suitability). Applicants are judged/scored against each other based on their performance and a belief of how much they will add to the organisation.
This is the test of the accountability and actions of the candidates. The step involves debates, promises and campaigning. Examined are the actions and statements made.
In the end, applicants are measured against each other based on the above criteria and processes, their past, their conduct, and of course their promises. A decision is made and they are offered the job. Ad campaigns are as close to the window dressing as a clean shirt is during the interview. No one would admit that dressing professionally has merit on getting a job; after all, people should not be judged by the cut of their shirt, but by the courage of their convictions (poetic licence exercised). Still, being clean and wearing a suit has a more positive impression on the interviewer that arriving intoxicated and in beachwear. What do the current ad campaigns, promises, jibes and promotions from the parties really say about them?

After a decision is made, the employer offers the successful applicant the position, and they start work, typically after giving 2 weeks notice to their previous employer.
Election Day!!! We (employers) go into the little voting booth, make our mark, and place our vote for what we believe will be the best candidate for the job. A variation of this is that we select the party we want to win, or alternately NOT select a party/candidate that we do not want to win. Election night, they are informed of their success/failure. Baring recounts, challenges, and other contests of the results, they too would give their 2 weeks notice, and it’s off to Ottawa!

If the election were responsibly treated as a job interview, would we vote differently? How would we view the present-day actions of the parties such as slanderous ad campaigns and debates? Often, the arguments presented are based on why you should not vote for party A rather than why you should vote for party B. How would that reflect on an individual in a real job interview, telling the employer why they shouldn’t hire the other guy rather than hire themselves? We vote based on similar promises and platforms from the parties… would someone be hired merely on the promise that they will try really hard, trying to give good results? If we were to pay more attention to the party’s resumes, what impact would their predecessors and past have on our vote… Chrétien, Trudeau, Mulroney, Broadbent… all the way back to MacDonald? If the Green party received more than 580,000 of the popular vote last election, with candidates in all 308 ridings, why were they not invited to the debates; the Bloc were invited, yet 75% of Canadians are not even able to vote for them.

What about new guys on the block like the Green party? Are they caught in the vicious “can’t get the job without experience, can’t get experience without the job” cycle?


Two interesting and related thoughts to finish off…

In industry, research has shown that a new employee actually COSTS the company money initially, and does not actually begin making the company money for three years. Is that not about the time that a new election is generally called?

Finally, even though I’m doing the hiring (voting), whoever the winners are will end up being my boss…