Here’s the good news. Twitter isn’t likely to sway the ballot. Not unless a juicy and damning story is leaked and (more importantly) noticed on Twitter. Campaigning through the social network itself won’t convert enough voters overall to influence which party will become government. It’s possible Twitter may play a more significant role in some of the more digitally engaged constituencies.

The reality is the percentage of Canadians on Twitter remains fairly small. An even smaller number are actively engaged in online conversations. Politicians with the largest number of followers are likely to discover a majority of their following isn’t eligible to vote for them.

Does that mean candidates should dismiss the service? Absolutely not. And there are two very good reasons (among others). First, journalists are on Twitter and they follow what’s going on and being said to inform and even inspire stories. Tweets are routinely quoted in articles, particularly when a politician isn’t available for comment or when the tweet adds colour to the story. Being active and interesting on Twitter is likely to keep politicians in the news. Some might say it generates free coverage; earned media, the best kind. They just need to be sure they use Twitter effectively, treating the service and the messages they publish with the same considered thought they would during any public appearance.

Secondly, Twitter is probably the best way to build up digital chops. It doesn’t let users meander in their thoughts, doesn’t require a heavy time investment to offer something interesting, and there’s the benefit of reasonably quick feedback. And, like anybody else, politicians and candidates can tweet from just about anywhere there’s a computer or mobile/smart phone and an Internet connection. With the exception of airplanes in flight, there’s almost nowhere in Canada a tweet (with a photo, even) couldn’t be published.

That’s just a start. I could carry on about Twitter and other digital tools, the role they can play in a campaign and the importance of including them as part of an integrated strategy from the early days of campaign planning. In fact, I wrote a piece called Digitizing the Human Touch which looks at three important considerations for integrating digital into a campaign. The article appears on pages 56 and 57 of the December 2010 issue of Campaigns and Elections magazine, Canadian edition.

I expect the biggest news about Twitter in the next election will be similar to the last one; that Canadians will use the service to bypass media blackouts, sharing election results as they’re published across the country.

Bush Sr. lost his shot at a second term as President of the United States in large part because Bill Clinton’s campaign manager James Carville (the Ragin’ Cajun) uttered those immortal (in political circles) words at the right time to the right reporter. The rest was basically history. Now the line gets hauled out every time a marginal political issue somehow captures mainstream media or “inside the Beltway” types. So much so that it has essentially become a cliche. As loathe as I am to trot out tired old political cliches, lately I have been dying to climb to the highest point in the Gatineau hills overlooking the Parliament buildings and shout it until I am hoarse.

Why? The Census.

For Pete’s sake, is this what it has really come to? Optional versus mandatory long form census for a portion of the Canadian public and the reliability of results under said proposal? This is some sort of grand scheme to undermine our democracy? Will political careers, party leaders or governments, rise or fall over this issue? Are Canadians seized by the issue each night as they sit around the kitchen table? At least to the same extent so many social media commentators seem to be? Headlines shout “Conservatives face Census furor.” Really? I have been doing my damndest trying to locate that furor here in our humble little Hogtown, to no avail. Every single person I have asked about this issue (granted, these are people who don’t work in media, public affairs, communications or government) have in the following order: a) asked me what the hell I am talking about; b) asked me to explain it; and c) asked me, again, what the hell I am talking about.

The biggest issue facing Canadians is still the economy. I am sorry. General Motors is gone from Windsor after almost a century running an assembly line. Gone. Ask those auto workers and their families about the “Census furor.” Ask business leaders who are trying to plan into 2011 amid a shaky European Union economy, poor U.S. job numbers, plummeting U.S. orders for durable goods and threats of a double dip recession. Ask public sector workers being asked to take a wage freeze. Ask dozens of major hospitals facing big budget deficits.

Some folks engaged in the “Census furor” have trotted out a Canadian political catchphrase: “There’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.” But I prefer another Pierre Trudeau saying when it comes to this whole uproar: “Fuddle duddle.”