No Name Cola and the realities of niche politics

I have a friend in politics. Let’s call him “Chris” because, well, that’s his name. Chris is the candidate for the Green Party in the riding of Toronto Centre and maintains a blog at an address that bears a striking resemblance to the spelling of his name – of course, a dot ca, representin’ his peeps… but I digress.

The reason I mention Chris is that I was recently reading said blog and came across a post that I quite liked where he made a valid environmental and political statement while simultaneously making a wonderfully obscure reference to the Simpsons. This is not something that you would find on the website to his noteworthy Liberal competitor, Bob Rae. This is not something that the average voter would recognize or respond to. This is, however, a perfect example of niche politics, and the way that Chris – and presumably many other fringe party candidates with whom I am not acquainte – runs his campaign.

But with apologies to my friend, how successful can this approach ever actually be? While, as in almost any business situation, only two of the players command so much of the mind share, the political system differs from the consumer world due to one simple fact: there’s consequences.
A harsh reality of our democratic system is that individual choice does influence the group and this is contrary to the notions of our consumer culture. In the supermarket, if I skip past the Coca-Cola in its trustworthy red bottle and jump past the Pepsi in its terror-enducing blue bottle to pick up some No Name Cola, this effects no one but me. More than that, it makes me happy to be able to make that choice – I think No Name Cola actually tastes better than the other two when you flavour with a little whiskey, and I save a few cents, which really is No Name’s niche in the market. I’m happy to choose No Name Cola in the supermarket when I’m the only one who has to live with that decision. But I’m not sure I’d skip over the Coke so quickly if it meant I’d be playing a hand in forcing all of my friends having to mix a drink they hate with their Crown Royal for the next four or five years…
If the goal of these ‘fringe’ parties is simply to engage in the democratic process, challenge the bog boys and create some awareness, then more power to them. It’s certainly noble. But if their goal is to get into office, then within our current political system, they’d better get behind Stephane or Steve, or else the odds are stacked considerably against them.

So is it that politics is impervious to our forthcoming perfect world of personalization? Or is this evidence that the democratic process is no longer relevant to our evolving society and should be examined so that it can, once again, be a true reflection of the people, as it was intended?
Oh, and vote Tindal… if you’re not afraid of drinking Pepsi for a few more years…