Right up until the day she became the Green Party leader, Elizabeth May stated unequivocally that the role of the Greens should not be to get votes but to influence other parties on the environment.
And now, even though the Greens probably will not win a single seat in this election, they could determine its outcome and usher in the Conservative agenda that May has been attacking throughout the campaign.
The dilemma is of May’s own making, for she could have from the beginning declined to run in ridings where Liberals or NDPers had a chance of defeating Conservatives (like her Green Party counterparts in the U.S).
That May is getting nervous about playing the spoiler was revealed two weeks ago when she suggested in an interview that she was in favour of strategic voting: “Clearly, the contribution Canadians can make to a global solution [to climate change] is to get rid of Stephen Harper. 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 ...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.”
But it was loo late for such a call and her members and candidates let her know. The next day she issued a statement denying her call for strategic voting: "As I have said time and again, including all during this train tour, strategic voting does not make sense.” But she also revealed her ambivalence: "On top of that, there is no possibility of a deal with any of the other parties."
And yet, a large number of Green supporters seem quite ready to make the leap to another party for their own reasons. According to a recent poll done for CTV, 48 per cent of those intending to vote Green said they were “likely” to change their vote, the highest of any party (for the NDP it was 39 pe rcent, the Libs 31 per cent and the Conservatives, 27 per cent).
There has always been much speculation about which parties the Greens actually take votes from. But a comprehensive study of the 2006 election -- called the Canadian Elections Study -- actually revealed the numbers. And, while 44 per cent of 2006 Green voters identified the NDP as their second choice (20 per cent picked the Liberals and 12 per cent said Conservative) the study showed contradictory results regarding where Green votes actually came from when compared to the 2004 election. When 2006 Green voters were asked who they voted for in 2004, the results in English Canada were surprising: 35 per cent had voted Liberal in 2004, 12 per cent voted NDP and 7 per cent voted Conservative. And the Greens tend to be strongest in areas where the NDP are weak (like Alberta and B.C.’s southern interior) and the fight is between Liberals and Conservatives. This may help to explain the deal between May and Stephane Dion: the Liberals were trying to prevent further losses to the Greens.
And thus Elizabeth May’s dilemma becomes even clearer. Her strategic-voting flip-flop may reflect her agonizing over the possibility that her supporters will help marginalize Stephane Dion, the man she has said she prefers as prime minister.
If the Liberals don’t continue to recover lost territory, watch for subtle signals from Elizabeth May to her supporters regarding voting strategically -- and saving Stephane Dion. She might anger her members and candidates, but her voters are flexible.
The CES report concluded: “Green Party voters tend to be ‘soft’ voters, meaning that their loyalty to the Green Party is weak. Compared to supporters of other parties, greater shares of Green party voters [23 per cent] made their decision to support the party on election day and smaller shares were committed voters before the campaign began.” Just a whisper from May might do the trick.
Murray Dobbin writes the State of the Nation column for The Tyee.
useful idiots
The bad old day Soviet officials used to refer to the left in the west as useful idiots. Todays Neocons look at the Greens in the same way.
These brainless fools who instead of working inside the Liberal and NDP for greener policies had to start their own party and pushed by the Neocon media will split the vote so badly that the two thirds of Canadians who hate Neocons will none the less have a Neocon government. The most environmentally unfriendly government in Canadian history given a majority license to destroy the environment by the Greens.
Their US branch Ralph Nader gave George Bush an 8 years license to gut the US environment and kill a million Iraqis.
The BC branch has gifted us with 4 more years of environmental destruction by ensuring an election victory for Gordo's gang of neocon thugs and will likely give us four more.
Whats new in this election is a group called voteforenvironment.ca that is coordinating strategic voting for Canadians in an effort to avoid the black horror of a Harper majority. The group gathers the most up to date polling for all Canadian ridings then suggests the liberal green or ndp candidate most likely to beat the muzzled neocon stooge the cons have put out for that riding. Check out voteforenvironment.ca's suggestion for your own area and Pass it on!!!!
Greens dug their own grave
As the Toronto Star's Chantal Hebert said after the defeat of electoral reform in Ontario: "I'm not a big fan or a big foe of electoral reform.... I think that a PR system would have as many warts as the system we now have, it would just be different.... But I just don't see, after what happened in Ontario last month, with the referendum on a different voting system, I just don't see that this discussion can move forward significantly over the next few years. Because that was the third strike, P.E.I., B.C., Ontario, where do you go from there? The thing that I can't see is that it isn't going to happen federally until a province does it, and I don't see which province is going to do it now....
Anyone looking at the polls can see that the biggest beneficiary of proportional representation (PR) either provincially or nationally in Canada would be the Green Party. And, incredibly to those who don't understand how little political intelligence exists in the Green ranks, it was the Green party opposition to the STV referendum last election in BC that defeated it, and which may have finished off any chance for PR in Canada as well, for any number of years, according to Hebert's analysis.
Elizabeth May chose Adrianne Carr, the leader who defeated the B.C. STV PR referendum, to be her Deputy Leader.
So, now Elizabeth May and her Green Party find themselves about to be seen to be the ones who drove the stake through the heart of Stephane Dion, the only leader of a party with any chance of forming a government anywhere in the world ever to have campaigned with a carbon tax and global warming as the centerpiece of their campaign.
Elizabeth wrote, before this campaign began that she didn't want to do what Nader did in the US, i.e. run as a Green and defeat an Al Gore to allow a George Bush into power. And here she is, poised to do , in Canadian terms, exactly that.
What is it that drives you Elizabeth? Your climate policy, even if fully implemented, would be described by the best climatologist in the world, James Hansen, as "a recipe for global disaster". What is the point of risking being seen to be in any way responsible for the end of Dion's career while you don't even stand for a solution? Are you mad?
Good points that aren't being seen elsewhere on Greens
Murray has put out info I haven't seen in the media elsewhere - specifically about the Greens taking votes from Liberals more than NDP. That's why the Dion-May deal could end up hurting the Liberals far more.
The reality is - and Greens can blame the First Past The Post system all they like if it makes them feel better - they won't elect a single MP once again this time.
That marks about 25 years of failure to elect just one MP or provincial legislature representative.
If the definition of insanity is trying the same things and expecting different results, isn't it time for the Greens to re-examine their approach?
They also have to explain how every new party in over a century has been able to elect MPs soon after their formation - except for the Greens.
Even the Socialist Party in the early 20th century managed to find pockets of support deep enough to elect MPs. They were followed by the CCF, the Progressives, Social Credit, the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois, the Canadian Alliance and finally the Conservative Party.
When the Green Party stops being a vanity party for the likes of Elizabeth May and Adriane Carr and starts getting real about politics it might actually have a positive influence on Canada and elect members.
Solutions?
Choose one:
a) A two party system
b) Pro. Rep.
c) Strategic voting sites
Which do you prefer?