Green Party/May urges strategic voting

[Hux]

Who knew!? Nader'd.

May urges strategic voting

September 25, 2008

Sandro Contenta

STAFF REPORTER

ON BOARD THE CANADIAN–This cross-country train, like all fast-moving vehicles, is responsible for its share of road kill. But every now and then, it becomes the object of a suicidal revolt from a considerable force of nature.

It usually happens during the rutting season: bull moose have been known to charge the train head-on. The impact is hard enough to jolt the front car, but the result is predictably unfortunate.

"The last thing that went through that moose's mind was its ass," said a train worker of a recent incident.

Thankfully, Green Leader Elizabeth May's whistle-stop campaign tour has so far been apparently free of lopsided head-butting contests. The only force of nature has been May herself, treating even the smallest of train station rallies like a high-octane family reunion and breakthrough political moment.

But before her train from Vancouver pulled into Toronto last night, she called for a form of strategic voting, which she feared might get her in a moose-size mess of trouble with her own party.

May urged Canadians to do all they can to throw Prime Minister Stephen Harper out of office, including strongly suggesting they shouldn't vote Green if another candidate has a better chance at defeating a Conservative.

"We are too close to the edge of a global apocalypse," May said in an interview. "We have got to grab the opportunities we have. And, clearly, the contribution Canadians can make to a global solution is to get rid of Stephen Harper."

May insists she's not calling for strategic voting because that leads people to simply vote Liberal. She wants Canadians to examine their riding and figure out how best to keep the Tories from winning.

"I won't say, `You've got to vote Green if you believe in our policies.' I'll say, `Here's our policies, figure out what you need to do because, frankly, the Green party has to put progress (on climate change) and principle above short-term power.'"

The goal is to prevent Harper from blocking the last chance at an international deal on reducing greenhouse gases at a United Nations summit next year, she said.

"I'd rather have no Green seats and Stephen Harper lose, than a full caucus that stares across the floor at Stephen Harper as prime minister, because his policies are too dangerous," she said.

So determined is May to keep Harper from power she also told the Star she wants Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion and NDP Leader Jack Layton to join her in a pact to beat Conservatives candidates.

The Green, Liberal and New Democratic parties should prevent vote-splitting that would favour Conservatives, and carve up electoral ridings according to who has the best chance of winning, May said. "We sit down and say, `Who has the best chance of winning in all these ridings?' What I've been calling for is proportional representation by other means."

She acknowledged that this partly works to the Green party's advantage because it would likely result in its first seats in Parliament.

She also knows some accuse her of wanting to cook the election behind closed doors. She says she's trying to redress a distorted system that creates majority governments elected by a minority of votes.

Layton has refused to even meet May. But May says Dion is interested in going beyond the deal he struck with her before the election call, in which neither the Greens nor Liberals are running candidates in the other leader's riding.

"Dion's willing to do more and I'm willing to do more. The problem is that neither one of us can do anything more when Layton won't because then it looks like, `The Greens are what, a sidekick of the Liberal party?' No we're not. There's a lot wrong with the Liberal party," she said.

She rejected a two-way deal between her and the Liberals.

May said her proposals upset some Green party members, since they suggest voting Green isn't always the best choice. But, she says, "I will not be able to live with myself if anything I've done contributes to Harper winning, because the stakes are too high."

[d_rawk]

Wowza. Need time to digest this, but initial gut reactions:

May urged Canadians to do all they can to throw Prime Minister Stephen Harper out of office, including strongly suggesting they shouldn't vote Green if another candidate has a better chance at defeating a Conservative.

"We are too close to the edge of a global apocalypse," May said in an interview. "We have got to grab the opportunities we have. And, clearly, the contribution Canadians can make to a global solution is to get rid of Stephen Harper."

Ok, commendable.

May insists she's not calling for strategic voting because that leads people to simply vote Liberal. She wants Canadians to examine their riding and figure out how best to keep the Tories from winning.

Glad she put a fine point on that. The Liberals have been pretty successful in the past of equating strategic voting with voting Liberal, sometimes to the detriment of the actual intent of the individual voter but to the benefit of the LPC.

The Green, Liberal and New Democratic parties should prevent vote-splitting that would favour Conservatives, and carve up electoral ridings according to who has the best chance of winning, May said. "We sit down and say, `Who has the best chance of winning in all these ridings?' What I've been calling for is proportional representation by other means."

This is dangerous and undemocratic. The NDP has to date held strong against these ideas that prevent constituents from having a full slate of candidates from which to choose. If they were to go for it, I'd be stinking mad. I understand May's intention (both the overt one and the more opportunistic one) but this would be a serious affront to Canadian voters. Voters got themselves into this mess, voters can get themselves out.

She says she's trying to redress a distorted system that creates majority governments elected by a minority of votes.

Indeed. The system is broken. Canadians have had their say and determined that they wish for it to remain broken. I disapprove of that choice, but the way to address that is through public education or through the legislature (tough, when a broken system makes it difficult to get in, but doable over time). If citizens want to band together and cook up this sort of strategy themselves (as, apparently, they are doing via facebook and such) that's fine, but it shouldn't be foisted on them by the very parties seeking to benefit from it.

"Dion's willing to do more and I'm willing to do more. The problem is that neither one of us can do anything more when Layton won't because then it looks like, `The Greens are what, a sidekick of the Liberal party?' No we're not. There's a lot wrong with the Liberal party," she said.

Layton ought not. His party has a principled position on this exact matter, and until the membership of that party endorses reversing it, he'd be remiss to agree to this sort of thing.

[Birdy]

I think it's a little presumptuous of May to assume carbon emmissions are at the top of the electorate's causes and that they and ghg trump everything else that follows - economy, healthcare, education, crime, welfare, etc. Simply calling on Canadians to forgo their ideals in all of these other areas of HUUUUGE importance really, really, really, lessens my opinion of her. Undemocratic? Amen!

[AD]

Is May really assuming that?

[Birdy]

I'd say so. She's calling on Canadians to do what they can to oust Stephen Harper because

We are too close to the edge of a global apocalypse.

We have got to grab the opportunities we have. And, clearly, the contribution Canadians can make to a global solution is to get rid of Stephen Harper."

She wants Canadians to examine their riding and figure out how best to keep the Tories from winning.

the Green party has to put progress (on climate change) and principle above short-term power.

I think just coming out with all this, she's assuming people are going to listen.

No?

Edited September 25, 2008 by Guest

[AD]

you said that May wants carbon emissions to be put ahead of economy, healthcare, education, crime, welfare, etc. i don't see that in what she said. or what someone else said she said.

[Booche]

How does one go about voting for AD?

[AD]

slide me a donation first

[Birdy]

I don't see how calling for strategic voting on the grounds of her environmental ideology, isn't presupposing voters might actually listen.

[AD]

Well, you listened and are actively debating *something* although I'm not sure what really.

And the only thing that had to do with her environmental ideology, at least in the passages you quoted, was in brackets - suggesting it's hardly the main focus of whatever she / you / whoever wrote the article is saying / interpreting / alleging, etc...

what are we talking about again?

The Greens have a platform that isn't just based on the environment.

[Birdy]

You lost me at "well".

All I am saying is that when someone calls for the electorate to strategically vote, they have a reason. I'm saying Elizabeth May (based on whoever said she said ) is presupposing that Canadians will care enough, urging them to care enough on this particular plight, to forgo some of their other ideologies in order to make sure Harper doesn't get elected (because of this plight).

[d_rawk]

And the only thing that had to do with her environmental ideology, at least in the passages you quoted, was in brackets - suggesting it's hardly the main focus of whatever she / you / whoever wrote the article is saying / interpreting / alleging, etc...

It wasn't in square brackets though - if it had been, that would suggest intervention / deduction by the writer of the piece. But it wasn't, it was in parenthesis.

This may be a case of sloppy copy-editing, or not. I'm holding out for an actual clip, or verification from other sources that it is verbatim.

Birdy's reading of the quote seems entirely consistent to me with the way that it is presented. The May quote suggests a vocal aside by May, not an explanatory interpretation by the reporter.

[AD]

worst. thread. ever.

[Birdy]

Not so.

Hux had an excellent post.

[ollie]

Go Lizzie Go!!

[d_rawk]

Go Lizzie Go!!

What she is proposing is potentially far more damaging than Harper (or fucking Satan, for that matter) could ever be to this country.

If this comes to pass, I will not vote.

The one good I can see coming out of this is that this monstrous proposal wakes people up to the fact that FPTP is a stupid way to run a Parliamentary system with a wealth of viable parties.

[Birdy]

Amen!

[Thorgnor]

Did you just agree that the other parties are viable?

[Birdy]

Yep! I don't mind the Libs or the Greens. I don't like the NDP... they'd be the only national party that I would question. I think the Greens would have a serious wake up call should they be elected and we'd see a bunch of broken promises, but all in all, I don't think we'd fall apart. The Liberals, of course they're viable. Doesn't mean I would vote for them.

[SaggyBalls]

If the conservatives get elected again Canadians are going to have to answer to a potentially numbing decision, as we all have an opportunity to aim as high as we deserve.

Does it feel as though Canada votes like it doesn't deserve to be better?

Are we just a bunch of greedy, cheap, wussies or do we just vote to impress our grandparents but still don't admit for voting blue?

[Birdy]

Do you ever consider Canadians might actually view a vote for the CPC as an opportunity to be better?

[ollie]

Do you ever consider Canadians might actually view a vote for the CPC as an opportunity to be better?

Only the ones with candy floss between their ears.

[SaggyBalls]

Better than what, Birdy?

- Better by holding ourselves back?

-By not making the opportunities in front of us into reality?

-By not looking forward?

-By scaring and controlling people with invented economic problems?

I consider that right-wing voters think that they're voting for an solution to be better.

I can't fathom how any of those voters could possibly look at it using the word 'opportunity'

I think that the word 'consequence' resonates with a typical right wing voter in voting for anything that would be any kind of risk and 'risk' has been removed from the status quo.

It is plain to see that 2/3 of Canadians have found the word 'risk' to resonate with them when thinking of the Conservatives.

I don't think it's fair to presume that Conservative voters are stupid or shallow...but i don't think it's unfair to presume that most of these voters aren't thinking of what the country's going to need in 30 years, or even 5 years.

It's a 'right now' mentality that comes across to me. Most older voters don't have to find a daycare spot for their non-existant newborns for example.

How could it possibly be an opportunity to 'be better' - both on its own and better than the rest

I've never had it spelled out to me as a voter - or a listener.

[Birdy]

hahaha... I'm sorry.

But I consider the left-wing voters think that they're voting for a solution to be better.

I also can't fathom how any of those voters could possibly look at it using the word "opportunity".

I too think the word 'consequence' resonates with a typical left wing voter in voting for anything that would be any kind of risk and 'risk' has been removed from the status quo.

It is plain to see that 2/3 of Canadians have found the word 'risk' resonate with them when thinking of the Conservatives, the Green Party, the Liberals and the NDP (depending on who they vote for).

I don't think it's fair to presume that lefty voters are stupid or shallow... but I don't think it's unfair to presume that most of these voters aren't thinking of what the country's going to need in 30 years, or even 5 years.

It's a 'right now' mentality that comes across to me. Most families are pre-occupied with findinga daycare spot for their children that they fail to see what kind of harm universal daycare promises to deliver, as can be seen in pretty much every example of it.

How could it possibly be an opportunity to 'be better' - both on its own and better than the rest.

I've never had it spelled out to me as a voter - or a listener.

Edited September 27, 2008 by Guest

[SaggyBalls]

Since perspectives on approaching issues differ so greatly, what kind of middle ground do you think could bring people together enough to actually communicate with other voters rather than acting smug and arrogant?