Green Party/May urges strategic voting

[Birdy]

I think there's a few steps:

- don't make rash generalizations such as 2/3 of Canadians associate the word 'risk' with the Conservatives. Perhaps some just like the Liberals better?

- try to avoid presuming those who vote Conservative aren't thinking of what the country's going to need in 30 years, or even 5 years. It's a little condescending and pretty much false.

- stop saying Conservative agenda is invented/hidden/secret? There's absolutely nothing 'invented' by what's happening in the US right now, on Wall Street, in Washington. Considering Canada is America's largest trading partner and vice versa, there's absolutely nothing invented about the growing concern, and the possibility for a very deep recession, should US efforts fail on finding a solution.

Just a few thoughts.

[SaggyBalls]

How does that have anything to do with the middle ground between the extreme situation of miscommunication.

It's also a rash generalization that people 'like' the liberal party.

Foresight isn't condescending. IT's essential and it's something that seems to be entirely missing from the right and I want to know what comes in its place. I'm tired of partisan politics and it's all I see - which is all i can expect in election times.

Not invented??

The housing crisis in the states has been invented both directly and indirectly. It was 'allowed' to happen.

If you were to watch who buys up the assets of failing banks and investments - and then look at who did the same in the 30's - and who called in their stocks in the big crash - and who got out early...

...You'll most likely see a lot of the same interests taking advantage of these dire times.

And you could probably make a career out of the research needed to properly correlate the data.

Especially if you were looking to prove that there were many large interests involved in keeping Government out of Wall Street. Lobbyists that distract government from the problems at hand or to embrace it get paid nicely.

Many of those same interests will likely be seen when you look at who's going to buy up our failed banks when it trickles down to us.

It's entirely sinister and unfortunate and we have an opportunity to put Canada in a position to not be tied so closely to American Interests.

Why oh why is our debt held by the IMF and why is our government doing nothing to change this?

There's no good reason that we don't borrow from the Bank of Canada other than it benefits Canada to do so and not the interests of big money abroad.

Whether it's the Cons or Libs, it's big money interests that shouldn't have a place in a socialist democracy, which is still far from the borderline fascist democracy that we have right now.

Green Energy, Mass Transportation home and abroad, initiatives to create and keep jobs in Canada, Environmental Rights, and Agriculture are all strong aspects of our potential economic strength that need to be addressed and supported.

These really should be paramount to winning this election as they're all issues that need to be tackled if we intend on coming out on top.

With these serious times ahead 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?

[d_rawk]

HALIFAX — Green party Leader Elizabeth May ended her cross-country train tour in Halifax Saturday, denying reports she's urging supporters to vote strategically in a bid to unseat the Conservatives.

Ms. May stepped off a 22-car Via passenger train where she was greeted by about 80 party faithful waving green banners and chanting her name.

Ms. May, who began her retro-style whistle-stop tour last weekend, shot down suggestions she's urging party members to cast their ballot for whichever candidate can oust the Tories on Oct. 14.

“It's a non-starter,†she said inside the historic train station near the Halifax waterfront. “Strategic voting just doesn't work.â€

Questions arose over her position after a media report said Ms. May was calling for some form of strategic voting merely to depose Stephen Harper's Conservative government.

“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,â€' she told The Toronto Star last week.

“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.â€

Ms. May said at the time she was discussing problems with the first-past-the-post electoral system, insisting it allows majority governments to be elected by a minority of votes.

But her comments caused concern among some members, resulting in the party sending out an internal e-mail explaining that the leader does not endorse strategic voting as it urged them to vote Green.

“As I have said time and again, including all during this train tour, strategic voting does not make sense,†she said in the statement. “On top of that, there is no possibility of a deal with any of the other parties.â€

John Bennett, a spokesman for the Green Party, said Saturday that he issued the clarification to assure supporters Ms. May was not sanctioning strategic voting and she is campaigning to win.

Ms. May has said she supports forming a coalition with the NDP, the Liberals and the Bloc to work against the Conservatives. But she may have trouble with that strategy since NDP Leader Jack Layton has said he wouldn't meet with Ms. May.

During the campaign, Mr. Layton said he would consider a coalition with Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, who quickly shot down the idea.

“Greens would want to be in that coalition too,†she said.

May said she plans on spending some time in the region before returning to Ottawa to prepare for national televised election debates this coming week.

She said she'll spend much of her time before next month's vote in her Nova Scotia riding, where many don't think she stands a chance of unseating Defence Minister Peter MacKay.

The Globe & Mail, Sept. 27

[Hux]

She's hilarious, claims she's against strategic voting, but maintains...

I'd rather have no Green seats and Stephen Harper lose

[SaggyBalls]

that's pretty honourable.

I'm not voting liberal. the greens deserve my $2 vote and another chance to gain a seat from a tory.

[d_rawk]

This is getting hard to follow.

May seems to be onboard with strategic voting, again

Meanwhile, the Green Party of Ontario is having none of it:

Greens should never vote strategically

and

The Green Party of Ontario's Approach to Strategic Voting

[d_rawk]

Jen Hunter (Ottawa Centre Green Party candidate) is getting in on it, too now:

Striking back against strategic voting campaign

Green candidate Jen Hunter raises “strategic voting†alarm

Ottawa, Oct. 8, 2008 — With less than a week to go before the election, Ottawa Centre candidate Jen Hunter is warning supporters that voting “strategically†may have unintended but serious consequences, including halting the Green Party’s momentum — financially and otherwise — at a critical time.

Hunter is reacting to a sophisticated Web, email and media campaign urging Canadians to vote not for the best candidates, but for candidates who seem more likely to beat the Conservatives.

“I appreciate the thoughtfulness that voters are putting into their choice,†Hunter says. “So-called strategic voting may be well intentioned, but it’s often based on faulty logic and — contrary to what some people want us to believe — will not magically save the planet.

“However, it does threaten to hurt the Green Party at a time when voters are finally recognizing us as a mainstream political force that offers sensible policies for Canada’s future.â€

While Hunter is concerned that strategic voting could put a dent in national support for her party, she is especially alarmed at the potential long-term damage to the Green Party’s local efforts in Ottawa Centre and other ridings.

“Strategic voting, if widely practised, would not only cost us a very real chance of winning seats. It could also hurt our support base, demoralize our volunteers and literally cost us tens of thousands of dollars in future funding,†she says.

“I want Canadians sympathetic to the Green Party to know that these attempts at do-it-yourself proportional representation could backfire and seriously harm the one party that is committed to protecting and enhancing our country’s environmental, economic and social wellbeing. Ironically, we’re also the only party that unequivocally supports proportional representation.â€

Canadian political parties earn $1.83 in federal funding for every vote, and local campaigns that win at least 10 per cent of the vote get 60 per cent of their campaign expenses reimbursed by Elections Canada. Previous candidate David Chernushenko passed that crucial threshold in 2006 and helped make Ottawa Centre one of the strongest Green ridings in Canada.

“Hundreds of volunteers have worked for years to build credibility, support, votes and funding for the Green Party in Ottawa Centre,†Hunter says. “Thanks to their efforts, we’re lucky to be mounting a well organized, well funded campaign with a budget approaching $60,000.

“Right now, I’m a contender in this riding. But the strategic voting campaign, if it’s successful in drawing away enough of our support, can make the difference between winning this seat and losing as much as $36,000 in reimbursed expenses, putting the riding association back at zero for the next election.â€

Hunter questions both the methods and the motives behind the strategic voting campaign, and cites her own riding as an example. At least two Web sites are instructing environmentally minded residents to vote for the NDP’s Paul Dewar and ensure that Conservative candidate Brian McGarry can’t win.

“Conservatives have held Ottawa Centre for less than six months since the riding was created in 1966,†Hunter says. “Brian McGarry hardly seems to be campaigning, and isn’t showing up for public debates. It appears inconceivable that he could win. So why are the advocates of strategic voting trying to scare people into switching their support?

“As a historically progressive riding, Ottawa Centre has a wonderful opportunity to advance democracy in Canada. A real strategic vote is one that will elect a Green MP.â€

And so is Valerie Powell (Green Party candidate for SImcoe North)

Green Party Leader Elizabath May is confusing her own candidates with talk of supporting Stephane Dion for prime minister, says the Green candidate for Simcoe North.

Valerie Powell is equally incensed at the Liberals, who she says are engaging in “old political tricks†by trying to appeal for Green voters at the last minute.

and here

She [Powell] called on voters to cast their ballots with their hearts and see where the votes falls. And she said that if the Liberals do form a government there is no way that they will not want to unite the left.

At the beginning of the campaign, Ms. Powell said that the Liberals were friendly: “They (the Liberals) started … saying, ‘Oh, Greens are kind of partners, we think alike … we'll wear Green buttons.â€

But then she said the Grits “started to kind of blur the lines between Liberals and Greens hoping that Greens would just assume, ‘Well if I'm thinking Green I may as well vote Liberal.' “ She says it's not working because the Liberals are now “begging for votes.†And she doesn't care if her stance means that a Conservative will win.

Seems like a bit of a civil war brewing.

[Hux]

Liberal Environment Minister - Senator Elizabeth May??

[d_rawk]

Thanks, hadn't seen that. I'm assuming you are referring to the Bourque bit?

For the benefit of others (courtesy of google.ca - "liberal environment minister may"):

GREEN SUPPORTER: ELIZABETH MAY HAS SOLD US OUT !

SENATOR MAY ? ENVIRONMENT MINISTER MAY ?

Where does Green Party leader Elizabeth May get her marching orders? Increasingly it is becoming clear that it is not from her party members. With less than 48 hours to go before voters go to the polls across Canada, emotions are running high inside campaigns faltering within sight of the finish line. 50 so-called 'close ridings', in particular, are being pitched to May as do-or-die ridings where she can 'lead Greens to make a difference', presumably by inciting Green supporters to not vote Green.

In recent hours, Bourque has heard from a number of senior political operatives, notably a very senior Liberal organizer who admittedly worked on the leadership bid of one of Stephane Dion's rivals, in other words someone who has much to gain if Dion and his Green Shift are soundly defeated Tuesday. Yet, this still-very-active politico tells Bourque he fears a secret deal has been cooked between Dion and Elizabeth May (both unabashed disciples of ex-pat Kyoto godfather Maurice Strong) which may explain why she has been meeting with "key Liberal organizers" and is now actively telling Green Party supporters to vote Liberal, of all things. This, according to our Liberal insider, in exchange for a possible Senate seat and a place as Environment Minister in a Dion-led government.

To be clear, Ms May's curious strategy of backing Dion is creating ill-will within her own party to the point that "a lot of Green candidates are upset", according to one national news report this morning. Add to that the fact Dion himself is urging Greenies to go red and join the Liberals. Surprisingly, top Green Party representatives are refusing to respond to a query from this organ as to what is the Party's current position on the Senate. Meanwhile, and fresh on the heels of Stephane Dion's Air Dud carbon-spewing campaign jet, now shocking news of the World Wildlife Fund's "25-day journey around the world by private jet", a $65,000 extravagance in "19 rows of spacious leather seats with full ergonomic support" enjoying "gourmet meals, chilled champagne [and] your own chef." All of which makes one wonder as to what lunacy is fueling the environmental set these days.

I added a couple paragraph breaks (pretty much in arbitrary places), 'cause Bourque is hard to read.

[d_rawk]

This is all starting to feel very Manchurian Candidate like.

[d_rawk]

This is timestamped as having been pulibshed one hour ago.

The Green party issued a statement Sunday denying that party leader Elizabeth May is calling on supporters to vote Liberal or NDP in tight races to prevent a Conservative majority.

The Canadian Press quoted her earlier Sunday as saying that "there's no question that there are some ridings where you might say to vote Green you ought to vote NDP to stop a Conservative from winning, and in some ridings you might want to vote Liberal to stop a Conservative from winning."

The story, filed from Halifax, was based on an interview with May.

The party statement called it misleading.

May "has not called on voters to abandon Green party candidates," it said.

She did say that "being honest with the voters, I acknowledge that there is concern over vote-splitting in a small number of ridings. But I am not going to say 'vote Liberal here, vote NDP there,'" the statement said.

The statement also quoted her as saying:

"I do understand how difficult choices can be due to the perverse results of the first-past-the-post voting system. Canada needs an electoral system that accurately represents how Canadians vote.

"I repeated over and over that I would not advise voters to vote for anyone other than Greens. Attempts to misrepresent my position on this issue are tiring. I do not support strategic voting and I have not advised voters to choose any candidate other than Green."

Green party says leader not calling for strategic voting to block Tories (cbc.ca)

Ok, I'll stop flooding this thread. Just trying to sort it all out. I've got a thanksgiving dinner to cook.

[Hux]

It's pretty obvious the leader is saying one thing and the party another...her war room must want to strangle her.

[SaggyBalls]

It's not really obvious Hux. She's merely acknowledging the split of the left/centre and doesn't want to alienate strategic voters.

In acknowledging the problem with our voting system it will give more reason to look into changing it.

[Big Wooly Mammoth]

In acknowledging the problem with our voting system it will give more reason to look into changing it.

that won't happen for a long time, I'm afraid, after we voted against changing the system last time around. unfortunately, the proposal wasn't that great - although, I supported it and voted for it. I don't think that support was that strong amongst regular Liberal and Conservative supporters, though. I don't see a committee being formed in the near future to study the issue.

[d_rawk]

that won't happen for a long time

Unfortunately, I agree. There is going to have to be a domino effect - this will happen, if it happens, province by province initially. It will probably only be after there is a taste of a more robust and representative system at the various provincial levels that the momentum truly builds to see it implemented federally.

after we voted against changing the system last time around

Don't forget though that the 'we' in that sentence is Ontarians, as it was a provincial Ontario referendum. Most Canadians have not yet had the opportunity to voice their opinion on the matter.

In BC, in a similar referendum, 57% of the voters voted in favour of an STV system (I'm not a huge proponent of most STV setups, as they tend to lend themselves to cynical gaming of the system as well, but I do prefer it over vanilla FPTP). 60% was required, which is a rather bizarre threshhold when you think it through, because it means that the vote of those voting for one position counts for significantly more than those voting the countervailing position.

(Imagine if every vote for McCain was worth 1.5 votes, but every vote for Obama was worth 1 vote)

I don't think that support was that strong amongst regular Liberal and Conservative supporters

It was a requirement for continued NDP support of the Liberals in the 2004 election, and Martin - with the 'democratic deficit' verbiage (to borrow a Palin-ism) gave every indication that he would work for electoral reform. The Conservatives were supportive, as were the BQ. Broadbent, for one, IIRC, went on a major crusade damning the Liberals for letting the opportunity evaporate, before leaving Parliament to care for his ailing wife. I think there was a discussion on here regarding Broadbent's point by point decimation of the Liberal policy on electoral reform, back in the day.

I would love to see Dion (or Rae or Ignatieff or whoever else may become leader of the party) pick up the ball that Martin dropped with such a thud. But the golden opportunity of cross party support may have already arrived and moved on. Pity.

[d_rawk]

This comes courtesy of an NDP strategist re: the Bourque affair

"Dion's backroom deal with May which was supposed to steal votes from Layton has backfired. Looking at the polls, the Greens are taking support from the Liberals, not New Democrats. Layton is up in every public tracking poll from the start of the campaign, while Dion is down. This will lead to many NDP pick ups - particularly in Toronto where Layton will spend the final day of the campaign. It's a massive political blunder, another example of Dion's poor judgment. Here he is in the final days of the campaign in a fight with his surrogate, not the Prime Minister. While Dion teeters on the worst electoral showing since Confederation, New Democrats will have an unobstructed view to attack the PM on the final day of the campaign. The spat helps, not hurts, Layton's growth."

Liberal-insider-but-no-friend-of-Dion Ray Heard:

Its all part of a secret deal between Dion and May.

Former Green Party man about town:

No, the Green Party has not made a deal with the Libs.

Yes, Ms. May has made a deal with the Libs. It includes the mutual non-compete and who knows what else.

How many showers will it take to wash off the dirty feeling? It's all just he said, she said, of course. May lost me with the undemocratic non-compete, this is just what people (with their own agendas) are saying about why.