Agree with you Bill....

No way I could vote either Liberal or Green, so my only choice would be stay home. And I would resent the hell out of that.

Unfortunately I believe we have to keep the current system at this point and educate voters on the importance of showing up and/or changing the system in the future.

STV

We need permanent minority govts to get the best balance of power in govt. I think its been demonstrated consistantly that any party handed a majority govt does permanent damage to whatever level of govt they succeed in. Wasnt it the reform/conservative/alliance party that was going to scrap or turn down the gold plated pensions?
I think it s fair to say, unless we hold thier feet to the fire (all the time) that politicians will do what they want, not what the people they are elected to represent want.

Electoral Reform

Unfortunately, you are a masochist Bill, who would prefer to go on suffering just to preserve your ideals. Your "arguments" against the idea of cooperation are based on the premise that the Liberals would be the major party party within the cooperation. Do your numbers. The NDP currently has 103 seats versus 34 for the Liberals. There has never been a better time for the NDP to lead the way.
With regard to the electoral reform issue, which everyone knows you reject, Peggy Nash has electoral reform - MMP to be exact - as part of her platform. How can you support her when you are so against any form of of electoral reform?
It's a new world Bill. It's time to be pragmatic and realistic and to occupy the government benches rather than being on the opposition side of the House for ever more.

I hear you, Bill, but after

I hear you, Bill, but after struggling with this for some time (as a Cullen supporter) I believe the co-operative approach is worth the experiment. I am as well on the Sunshine Coast and in the last election considered my options to rid us of the Harperite albatross, "oily" John Weston. I had various discussions with the Lib candidate and was given the strategic voting pitch but in the end voted with my heart. Lo and behold, the NDP candidate came second. Could this Riding be secured for the NDP by eliminating the Lib --- don't know but I do know that the rich guys of in West Van will guarantee either a right wing Liberal or Harperite unless something is done.

bleak future

Then we can only hope that two of the three opposition parties are quickly and mercifully put to death if we are to avoid facing a long dark future of conservative governments. Cooperation among the three opposition parties might not have produced a win, but it would have produced a much stronger opposition, and a considerably weaker Conservative government - a government opposition that is a better reflection of the popular vote. A merged NDP/Liberal party would be a great deal more vibrant and would certainly help to curb the worst instincts of both parties. Elizabeth May would be an invaluable asset to any party.

Useful Idiot

Like his absurd blatherings in the STV debate, Bill is once again working on the wrong team acting as the useful idiot pushing the fascist cause.

With the general lack of interest in politics, activist organizations can be extremely effective working at the riding/convention level. Ask the Cadman's about that.

If Avaaz truly has 600K members well spread out around the country that is most certainly sufficient to take back the Fascist party and boot Harper long before the next election.

In fact the BC Green Liberal caucus after much prompting from ole Seth if I may, was able to buy enough BCLiberal party memberships to ensure a victory for Christy Clark. As bad as Christy pooh is, can you imagine the black horror we'd be facing if the Falcon was in charge and the much reduced NDP BC electoral prospects with a united Fascist horde.

In fact Harper owes his position to a buncha religious fascists highjacking the former Progressive conservative party. As for Avaaz's idea of hijacking the Conservative party back, there is David Orchard who almost succeeded in doing exactly that a year or two ahead of that Fascist overthrow. Can you imagine how much better off we'd all be now if Orchard had succeeded?

Better than Cullen's idea of a joint nomination battle which fails to recognize the massive voter swings that sometimes happen in elections and massive ego of mostly male party gamblin' faithful, negotiations should center around Project Democracy's strategic voting coordination. The group gathered the most up to date polling for all Canadian ridings then suggested the liberal green or ndp candidate most likely to beat the muzzled neocon stooge the Fascist put out for that riding. Progressive parties could run with the strategy calling it the preelection election based on comprehensive polling, with the losing candidates noisily and officially resigning their candidacy two weeks before the election. Post election the new progressive government would make sure ballots are only printed two weeks before the final election date.

Bill your wrong on this one

The fact that Strategic voting was the victim of mutltiple election strategies does not dismiss the notion of running one candidate in Conservative ridings.

In fact, it proves that a more clear and concise strategy, precisely what this is, will be effective.

Strategic voting had appeal because it made sense. It lost that appeal when spin doctors from all corners tainted the waters and the clear strategic choice became unclear.

Therefor one candidate running against a sitting conservative is the anecdote.

Furthermore, it is entirely democratic. By establishing a pre-election nomination amongst those who choose candidates in these ridings wein fact grow participatory democracy. Moreover we bring together progressive thinkers across party lines in order to defeat a conservative cross party strategy.

Finally, I understand you support Nash, I encourage you and others who support her, to show her the simple logic of this proposal. Strategic voting can be traced back to a campaign co-ordinated by her former union. By showing her the that this initiative is the logical next step and the winning strategy we might be able to break the back of the divide and conquer strategy that keeps the Harper government afloat.

mr. t a conservative?

fat steves press corps could have written this article. the conservatives did not win a majority the got give or take 35% of the vote. in order to defeat and repair our democracy green ndp and bloc would have to form a coallition,there is no other way short of revolt, to stop the raging facism now rampant across canada.

"We need permanent minority

"We need permanent minority govts to get the best balance of power in govt."

The canadian political system is not set up to work that way, there would nee to be changes to make us similar to states with MMP type systems.

STVer, LIB plus NDP still would not give you a majority. There is no guarantee many Liberal voters would not bolt for the Conservatives as well. The Liberal party is dead, they just do not know it yet; let voters realize that then convince them where to go. Nash my support electoral reform but she probably realizes that is not happening any time soon.

If not this, then what?

I think you make some good points, Bill, but the only thing missing from your article is some suggestion of what should be done instead. If not a coalition, then what?

You may feel there are considerable differences between the three "progressive" parties in opposition (and you are right), but we can be sure that without cooperation, vote splitting will continue much to the Conservatives' delight. They will be happy to come up the centre to win 39% "majorities" for many elections to come. Should the 61% of Canadians who do not support their policies simply wait politely until an economic crisis or some scandal derails them? Or should we try to do something about it? If not cooperation, what would you suggest?

NOT a Coalition!

Coalition is the death word after the last experience. What this is, is simply cooperating before the election as we are consistently claiming to do after the election. However doing so before the election will stymie the Harper majority and give back leveage to the opposition if not entirely turf this government.

ITs pretty clear that the ones who oppose this idea are not going to support a merger or coalition either and in doing so they ensure the success of the minority conservatives.

This is not rocket science and it is an idea that allows all the opposition parties and their respective histories, integrity and agendas to remain in tact. While at the same time it uses what little democratic power is still available to people, which is obviously quickly shrinking, to affect the make up of Parliament in order for it to function the way it should, by allowing for the majority to be the ultimate force in decision making.

Bill, your logic on this is

Bill, your logic on this is as flawed as a chip in a piece of marble.

1. There is nothing inherently "undemocratic" about strategic voting. What IS undemocratic is the First-Past-the-Post voting system that Canadians are hog-tied to and obediently cling to without questioning or cleverly strategizing to overcome it (as the right wing has proven they at least have the smarts to do). FPTP can be legally circumvented by coalitions, and it is perfectly democratic and moral to do so.

There are times when the commonwealth needs to take precedence over one's one personal preference, when seeking common ground on important issues for the public good is more important than individual belief. I suggest that NOW is one of those times.

2. "But it won't work." Of course, it won't work if the parties and spokespersons such as yourself refuse to support the idea and give it a fair trial. But to say it "can't work" is preposterous and ignorant of world-politics and history. Two thirds of the world's "democracies" employ Proportional Representation of which coalitions are an essential component in successful ruling governments.

(Project Democracy and Catch 22 were nascent organizations giving trial to a relatively novel idea in Canada. I'm sure they've learned plenty about how it could be better coordinated next time, and most certainly, they would have had INCREDIBLE success if the political parties involved had shown support along the lines of the idea Nathan Cullen has suggested.)

Give the Tories just one or two more election wins, and I'd like to ask you then what you have to say about what is "undemocratic" and what isn't.

Teaming up is democratic and will work

This strategy is a winning strategy.

Its democratic and it will work.

Its not about teaming up. Its about exercising democracy.

Its not about denying the conservatives their hard won victory, rather it is about taking the power away from the top down decision makers who tinker with the system and game it in their favour. And in so doing we hand the power back to the people, where it belongs in a democracy.

Finally, for generations Canadians have been victims to power brokers gaming the system to undermine democracy. Its time they get some of their own medicine and people use what leverage points in the system they can to pull back the democractic decision making and push back against the power brokers gaming of our electoral system.

I meant to say "There is

I meant to say "There is nothing undemocratic about strategic voting AND coalitions."

It's About Winning!

Let me tell everyone out there that if the NDP wins the next Provincial election, there will be no debate on the Right side of politics in this Province to forge an alliance between the B.C.Liberals and the B.C.Conservatives. Reason being, they are in politics to win and they simply won't listen to the idealistic arguments such as the ones presented by Bill Tieleman. Progressives have to learn how to win and if it means making some compromises along the way, it's better than constantly being pounded by the other side. Bill Tieleman's arguments are a recipe for the status quo.

Fragmentation is why we are in this mess- End of discussion.

Once again, Bill Tieleman is simply stirring the pot to draw attention to his article. He is pushing all of the sensitive buttons here.

No one, in their right mind, believes that Harper and his thugs, represent the interests of the majority of Canadians - all stats clearly show otherwise. If one were to look at the last election riding by riding, the story becomes clear: in many ridings - razor thin margins and fragmentation between the Green, NDP and Liberals resulting in a loss to the CRAP party. I would like to ask all of those who voted Green, NDP or Liberal if they are happy with a Con representing them as a result. I doubt many would say yes.

Ideologically, the Green, NDP and Liberals are far closer aligned to one another than they are to the current regime.

So how on earth would it be undemocratic to have a government that may not be exactly my choice but one that is certainly not as distasteful as one that is counter to everything I believe in? - just because I was too proud or stubborn to learn how to cooperate with the others who, by the way, are more palatable to my ideological beliefs.

Anti-Cullen

While posing as a serious discussion of the issue of collaboration, this column is simply an anti-Cullen screed.

snort

'Their goal is to terminate the Harper government, followed by some undefined "electoral reform" after the next election.'

I do not think the overriding goal is to terminate the Harper government so much as it is to introduce some form of proportional representation. The Canadian electorate has demonstrated over and over again that this is what they prefer. Hard to swallow for the old guard, I guess.

Dead fish idea.

This plan is likely to make things even worse. Be careful what you wish for - you might get it.

We all detest the Harper government (which I DIDN't vote for!) for their authoritarianism, their demolition of civil liberties, their continued welfare state spending, their militarism, obsession with "the crime wave" and micro-managing big government mania.

But would any of this end under the other parties? In fact, it may get WORSE.

The ONE plus the Harperites have is that they are committed budget-cutters. If they could drop all the social conservatism, religion, "anti-terrorism" nonsense and military obsession and concentrate on tax cuts, budget cuts and service cuts, they'd have my vote.

The NDP? Hello GREECE! The Liberals? Hello social micromanaging a la gun registration, more social spending, and further attacks on investment on the basis of "national interest". And the Greens: the little green rump of the NDP...

The money-printing opposition is CLUELESS about debt, budgeting and the need to shrink government if Canadians are to become more self-reliant.

As to whether it's "democratic", I refuse to be pulled into voting for a PARTY. The entire system is anything but "democratic"; voters in a British-style parliamentary system were never intended to choose among "parties" - only individual candidates. Moot point.

electoral coalition

Thank you Bill, for putting my thoughts so concise into words. As you say, the liberal record is abysmal and when you actual read the green agenda towards social policies, it is not all that progressive. The NDP is the only progressive party and I would resent, having my choice taken away. Besides, I do not need anybody to tell me how to vote.

In the voting system I would like to see, all the candidates are ranked by the voter. Then if there are for example 10 candidates in a riding, the first choice on a ballot would get 10 points, the second 9 points and so on until the 10th gets 1 point. Any candidate not rated would get 0 points. Then the candidate with the highest point total would win the election.

This kind of system would in my opinion also encourage a more civilized campaign. One that actually addresses the differences in policies. Not like the harebrained idea of Christy Clark, to debate ideologies, instead of the record of the abysmally failed Liberal policies with regard to the environment, healthcare, the treatment of the disadvantaged, elderly and children. The utter dishonesty with regard to PP3s and privatization, the gutting of BC Hydro.

Errr.

Vivian Lea Doubt:

"introduce some form of proportional representation. The Canadian electorate has demonstrated over and over again that this is what they prefer. ..."

Bill Tielman:

"Every recent electoral system change proposal have been defeated -- the Single Transferable Vote was rejected by voters in both 2005 and 2009 in British Columbia, ...In a second 2009 referendum, STV was overwhelming rejected, with a 61 per cent vote against it to 39 per cent in favour.

Voters in Ontario in 2007 gave First Past The Post strong 63 per cent backing versus 37 per cent support for a Mixed Member Proportional system.

And Prince Edward Island also handily defeated Mixed Member Proportional by a 63.5 per cent to 36.5 per cent vote in 2005.

Those decisive rejections in three different provinces should give pause to those campaigning to combine 2015 electoral cooperation with a subsequent change to proportional representation.

When given clear information about alternative electoral systems, Canadian voters have decisively chosen to keep First Past The Post."

Realisticman, you miss one important point,

Realisticman, you miss one very important point. In none of those referenda did the major political parties play a role. They stood on the sidelines and played right into the hands of the Conservatives. At least now, we are hearing all the major contenders for the NDP leadership, including Peggy Nash, Bill Tieleman's choice, coming out in favour of Proportional Representation. And there are many Federal Liberals who feel the same way. And of course, the Greens readily concede that they are nothing without PR. Once this is understood by the voters for the respective parties, those numbers will change, big time!

Case against an NDP, Liberal, Green coalition

But of these arguments address things other than joint nomination meetings. The arguments that actually address the problem seem to be that (a) the parties won't go for it, and (b) total non-Conservative votes won't necessarily equal joint candidate votes. The first isn't really an argument at all, of course, but it's worth noting that Elizabeth May and Stéphane Dion not only did some joint nominating, they invited the NDP to do it too. On (b), it's true that many Liberal voters are closer to the Conservatives than they are to the NDP or Greens, so it could backfire. My own door-to-door experience in the last two campaigns tells me that there are plenty of anybody-but-Conservative voters out there though. And unlike you, I really think the Conservatives are that bad.

Bill Tieleman objects

I am more than happy to take your slings and arrows - that's my job as a columnist and your right as readers.

But repeated posters have used the word "fascism" to describe a democratically elected government they happen to intensely dislike. My father and his family lived through "fascism" - the Nazi occupation of Holland in WW2.

Don't cheapen and misuse this powerful word - Canadians and others died to overthrow fascism - never forget it. I'll have more to say on other arguments later but this really disturbs me.

Bill's True Colours Part one

People like Bill Tieleman, David Schreck, Norman Spector, Adrian Dix and Glen clark naturally like our electoral politics just the way they are, because they have shaped their lives to conform to the existing system. Nothing is better in their view, than to get a foot in the door with a party than can get 30%+ at least once every 15 years when the other party's vote is splitting, and you can get absolute power without ever having to worry about what the true majority really thinks.This is what political scientists have termed the "absent mandate", and over historical time it has proven to be increasingly dysfunctional, as our increasingly pluralistic society is insufficiently represented and increasingly irrelevant to the decidedly non-parochial politics of the internet generation.

Bill's True Colours Part two

Of course, local pluralities are important--most PR reform proposals reserve two -thirds of seats for that purpose--but after mocking preferential ballots, Bill is revealed as not liking any kind of electoral reform very much.

Surveys show clearly that the more informed voters are, the more they favour some kind or degree of increased proportionality; of course, they are a minority and of course, there is no consensus on the kind or degree of reform, so even the informed minority have trouble pulling behind any particular proposal. Bill seems all too comfortable with that state of affairs.

I was in Edmonton for the last federal election and I can tell you that strategic voting helped to elect Linda Duncan.

As for Joyce Murray, she would probably never be endorsed by Green and NDP constituency associations, which in a way is the point. A different kind of candidate would have to be found. Mark Crawford has suggested a highly successful local Indian chief , Lynda Price, run as an independent candidate with both Liberal and NDP endorsements in Cariboo Prince George. She doesn't feel comfortable aligning herself with one party, for good reasons; but the bipartisan support could be withdrawn for the next election if the local riding associations didn't like her (which they probably would, given the alternative). Can you imagine what a shock wave it would be for the progressive majority to dislodge the Tories in that "safe" (because of our electoral system) Tory seat?

Bill's true colours Part three

"But while Project Democracy targeted 84 ridings, they were successful in only 26 of them"--successful in 31% of the targeted Tory ridings, at this infant stage of cross -party cooperation" That sounds like a highly encouraging success story to me.

And let's not forget the really big picture: cross-national comparisons consistently show PR systems to have higher rates of voter participation, higher rates of literacy, and greater investment in people, even after adjusting for other variables (see the comparative research of political scientists Arend Lipjhart and Henry Milner). The reason is simple: governmenbts--ALL governments--are forced to take the needs of a majority into account in their electoral calculations. NDP style reforms are more likely to stick under these conditions, and they do, everywhere that a PR system is in place.

Electoral reform is the one major quasi-constitutional change that can be accomplished without a constitutional amendment. It doesn't even require a referendum, provided that parties are up front about it in their election campaigns. And since a degree of cooperation is usually required after the election, in a more majoritarian or proportional government, why not cooperate before the election as well, at least in those ridings where we know that Tories have a stranglehold? It need not be in every Tory riding, and it need not involve two of the three parties subordinating their preference to one of the others. The idea of an independent Progressive Majority candidate, endorsed by the other parties, can work in some ridings, when the memberships in those ridings allow it.

Missing the Bigger picture

What matters most here is that thousands of Canadians are organizing around a positive vision for Canada and they are clear the Conservatives must not hold power. These folks are progressive, they want to participate AND they are not drawn to the political organizing of old. They do not see how the current system will do anything except maintain the status quo and that is not acceptable given the state of the country/world and the path Harper and the Conservatives are on. These are young, energized professionals who are organizing to create alternatives to the existing parochial systems that are not serving them. What I hear in this article is the death rattle of a political infrastructure that is losing it's relevancy and legitimacy with the society it purports to serve. There is a reason voter participation is at all times lows - the parties must come to terms with their lack of relevance. Pro-Cooperation folks do not have all the answers but they are willing to organize and in real-time create a brighter future for all Canadians. That energy should be embraced not belittled. I am inspired by the progressive, innovative bold leadership I see at LeadNow and Avaaz. I am hopeful as I see the broader progressive voices emerging in support of Nathan Cullen and the spirit he is bringing to the NDP leadership race.

partisan delusions

As an NDP member, I was dismayed, not inspired by the supposed Great Victory of the last election: more MPs, Opposition status, but less power.

The fact that so many non-Conservative voters made use of strategic voting info sites or even resorted to vote swapping in recent federal elections underlines the dysfunctionality of our FPP system. It also indicates the desire of many for a cooperative effort to defeat the Cons.

The Sandinistas were only able to overthrow the bloody Somoza dictatorship when they were able to bring their factions together and persuade other currents outside the FSLN to work with them. Of course Nicaragua has very different conditions & history, etc. compared to Canada, but I wonder when the NDP will learn from the examples of others, let alone from its own mistakes.

The fact that Tieleman has written this column gives me the impression that party insiders and spin doctors are afraid of the grassroots and the potential to break with the status quo. Otherwise he wouldn't bother.

let's be honest

Frank Lee's comments about the Cariboo-PG riding caught my eye. Just last night my partner and I were chatting with a friend from Vanderhoof abt how infuriating it was that "our" NDP candidate in the last campaign was such a no-show at all candidates' meetings in Cariboo-PG.

I received no replies to my emails to the candidate. The party spent very little $$ in our riding. WTF?

To paraphrase BT:
As a New Democrat supporter, I don't want to be told that the NDP has fielded a candidate who's not really there. It just says that the party has given up on our riding.

it seems blatantly obvious...

that 'not voting' must be considered as one of the ways in which Canadians express their contempt for the current electoral system. After all, it is a huge number.

So whatever you think of strategic voting or any other tactics, the status quo seems the worst of all possible options.

Bill, my father was in Paris

Bill, my father was in Paris when the Germans rolled in and he soon entered the Resistance. What our fathers experienced was overt fascism. Using the term fascism to describe our present situation is also accurate, it's just covert.

Our masters showed us who and what they are in Quebec and Toronto. Not very covert there.

Initial premise is wrong, plus wild accusations w/o proof

First off, making wild accusations that strategic voting played the significant role in the election and failed, without any proof at all, is by far one of the worst fear tactics I have ever seen.

Even those fear tactics that you he refers to in his article have used some form of 'proof' to justify their arguments.

I understand that using history is necessary to determining the future, however just because First Past the Post has 'failed' to be voted in once or twice does not mean that isn't what the people want. Especially when the proper information is given to the public, not the bombardment of propoganda and fear incitement I saw the last few times. Real accurate, relevant information, from places like Germany, Russia, most of Eastern Europe, almost all of South America and parts of Africa where proportional representation is used, works and is still very popular.

Then there is the fact that your initial premise, which the entire article is propped up by as a fear tactic itself, is blatanly wrong. Where is the justification for this absurd comment. Democracy is a failed form of Timocracy, and which both are both corrupt. By every definition that I have heard or found on the internet, in no way is mutual cooperation for the benefit of the majority undemocratic. I am opposed to the coalition and even I will say that this is in no way undemocratic. It is still by definition a rule by the legally free individuals. Please get your information straight and accurate before you start ranting inaccurately again.

The Conservatives did it

Bill, I am sorry but you are wrong. The same was said about the PC and Canadian Alliance joining forces. Pundits like you (I am not sure what you said) indicated that this joint force would help the liberals because red tories like Joe Clark would all leave the new alliance and join the liberals. Well history proved them wrong.

Not Necessarily the Existing Candidate

Bill, you wouldn't necessarily end up being asked to vote for Joyce Murray (to take your example). Under Cullen's plan, there would be a joint nomination process. Since the final candidate would have to appeal as broadly as possible to all participating parties, the process should encourage all parties to put up candidates with cross-party appeal (perhaps using some variant on the standard runoff voting approaches parties use to select leaders and candidates). If Murray is perceived as too right for NDP supporters to endorse, the person chosen might be a left-leaning Liberal or a right-leaning NDPer. The point is, the local unity candidate would likely, in some very real sense, be more appealing to all non-Conservative voters than any individual current candidate from the other parties.

You are so wrong

You say the three parties wouldn't work together...You do realize May (green party Leader) has already said she supports the idea, and this past week the BC Green Liberals back Nathan Cullen....Chretien supports it, etc. Furthermore, these parties cooperate all the time to pass thing how do you think we got health care?....I don't follow you much, but you sound like a desperate Conservative trying to protect you're party next election..

Bill is still living the past

Clinging desperately to the party politic system that has got us the result we all witness today.

People who use labels like Liberal, Conservative, Left, and Right exhibits laxity of thought. It is an ad hominem argument, no better than name-calling, and lacks substance.

Further evidence of “living the past” is the response of playing his family’s Second war history of discrimination is nothing more than a sympathy grab.

Many of us can do the same. My heritage is Huguenot and Serbian. You wanna talk discrimination I am an expert on the subject. 27 members of my family are buried in places like Somme, Pas de Calais, leper, West Vlaanderen, Zonnebeke, Labeuvriere…..

We all got over this years ago Bill. You and your family need to do the same or seek out treatment.
If you want to make your argument irrelevant quickly then trot out the old and weary Nazi argument.

Wholeheartedly agree with Jodietonita

I couldn't have said it better:
"What matters most here is that thousands of Canadians are organizing around a positive vision for Canada and they are clear the Conservatives must not hold power. These folks are progressive, they want to participate AND they are not drawn to the political organizing of old."

Belittling the participations of thousands of new party members makes it seem like you are scared of the grassroots. We should be celebrating this new participation. Not having all the answers is not a reason to dismiss an idea. The problems we face are urgent, complex and incredibly important. Let's be adults and try to figure out how to deal with them, and stop the fear-mongering.

last federal election

With first past the post voting system;

Conservative: 167 NDP: 102 Liberal: 34 Bloc Quebecois: 4 Green: 1

With proportional representation Prime Minister Stephen Harper would have won a minority government, with these seat totals:

Conservative: 122 NDP: 95 Liberal: 59 Bloc Quebecois: 19 Green: 13

Vote Splitting In Parksville

gave us the perfect storm to get out useless MP elected. If everyone had voted for an alliance of NDP/Liberal/Green, we could have got the useless clown kicked out.

Re Fascism: Bill, you seem to have forgotten that Hitler was properly elected to lead Germany. And, I believe that he was more or less a fascist. Stephen Harper is a fascist, but not a Nazi, you just have to look at the laws he is passing.

Your arguements to me sound like a person who has become part of the party "elite" and as such, has a certain amount of power, not the least writing this column. By having the parties amalgamate, you would soon be a little fish in a big pond.

Really!

Interesting that this debate now includes the WW2 regimes in Europe; perhaps Tieleman should note that during the occupations voters elected goverments that united on the purpose of reducing the suffering caused by the occupying forces! (where elections were allowed that is).

That tells me that there are times when a united approach is needed to overcome what amounts to a national crisis!

If "The Harper Governemnt" is not a national crisis in your eyes, then we have nothing left to talk about Bill!

Weakest Tieleman article yet

From the opening comment to the end, logical fallacies and untruths dominate the discourse.

'Cooperation' is undemocratic and won't work.

From the text that follows I understand that Tieleman means 'undemocratic' because it reduces options to voters. How very principled.

Electoral cooperation has always failed.

So it must fail forever? Ahh, pre-destiny reigns.

Using dubious scare tactics to force Canadians to accept lowest common denominator politics is reprehensible.

But isn't this the very basis behind voting for the lesser evil? As a champion of compulsory voting, this shouldn't trouble Tieleman in the least. Yet it does:

On a personal level, as a New Democrat supporter, I don't want to be told that the NDP won't field a candidate so I have to vote for a Liberal or Green running in my riding.

I guess this just means democratic choices are sufficient when one of the option(s) is to one's liking. But if it isn't, being compelled by state to participate in the voting process can only enhance that democracy. And as Tieleman comment reminds us, our forefathers died so we wouldn't live under fascist rule.

Not About You

I am sick of people talking about how frustrated they would be if a majority of progressives in a riding decided to run one candidate. Reeks of self involved meism, and narcissism. The unique thing about Cullens idea is that he is the ONLY candidate with a plausible plan to ensure the removal of Harper.

Corky Evans got it right - All the other candidates are running for power, Cullen is leading a movement, and that movement is to save our country. Too easy for cynics to say something can't be done, or it won't work. One thing for sure, and thats what we are doing now isn't working. Do this in 30-40 key ridings and Harpers toast.

Cullen's idea would bring

Cullen's idea would bring something sadly lacking into the process -- grass roots democracy. It would be up to individual constituency associations to decide what they wanted to do, and negotiate with the other parties. Only two things are demanded of the National Party structures: to allow the local constituency associations to follow this idea, and to approve any candidate said to be from their party (but not from another partner). BTW, this procedure does not promise heaven on earth, only possible elimination of a Harper majority next time. Even a Harper minority would be less damaging to Canada -- and it is even possible that Harper would resign in a huff, leaving a tory party in the hands of the midgets who have been prepared to put up with his dictatorial behaviour.

Left-wing conservativism

Tieleman is a cynic. Not sure what he gets out of it, but his championing of the status quo helps obttain the results he claims to opppose. Is he he genuine or just a false front for right-wingers? Whatever the case, those of us who want change have to be louder than he is. Lead Now and Avaaz, thank you for being provocative enough to make Tieleman spill some ink over your efforts!

I AM HEARTENED

I am heartened by how much we progressive democrats have agreed to disagree with Bill Tieleman on this one. His appeal to the stability of party discipline during World War II was a very revealing: It's a different world now, with the forces and ideology of global capitalism increasingly squeezing the middle class. NDs and Greens have different approaches to this problem, while Liberals are perhaps less committed to resistance and a minority of Liberals actually closer to the Conservatives on many issues. But as Bruce Hill just said, it only has to work in 30 or 40 ridings.

Bill Tieleman knocks "mandatory strategic voting" but not Nathan

A few rejoinders: First - I am not anti-Nathan Cullen - I appreciate the energy and wit he has brought to the leadership race. I would hold the same views against electoral cooperation regardless of who brought it forward. Second - how does what I call "mandatory strategic voting" improve democracy?

Frank2 says it would give us "grass roots democracy" - by removing choices for voters! Canadians can strategically vote right now and have in past elections - they freely choose who to support, aided by websites like those mentioned above.

But most posters here don't accept that Canadians didn't agree with them on the threat posed by Stephen Harper. Too bad.

Third - the Progressive Conservative Party split under Mulroney and re-formed - pardon pun - under Harper - the Liberals, NDP and Greens have never been one party. That's a fundamental difference.

Fourth - edward01ca - Stephen Harper is not a fascist. Period. You demean the word entirely. So do some others here.

Fifth - sorry to Bill Horne that you had a dud candidate - but that's no reason to give up. Raise some local money, find a winner.

Lastly - Jodie - I want more people to vote, young people especially. But I don't agree that supporting distinct parties that have different philosophies represents a "death rattle" of political infrastructure at all.

If voters want a mushy party slightly more centrist than the Conservatives, the Liberal Party is still available. But that's not what I vote for.

What really matters

Its good to see Tielman here commenting and trying to defend his position.

ITs the wrong position and its a tough job but I have always respected Bill for his keen gamesmanship.

This idea, is not Cullens, but rather was introduced in SGI two elections ago with the Shun Lunn Campaign. It was the reason d'etre of that campaign. And utlimate intention was to kick it into gear as the antecdote to Strategic Voting and defeat Harper.

It has that potential It is clean and concise and needs only to focus on a small number of ridings. Heck one could even just choose the weak conservative ridings or that of the current Cabinet.

Undoubtedly this idea must not be dropped and cannot die if Cullen is unsuccessful in his leadership bid.

Whoever wins this contest. Must realize the potential this strategy has to fulfill their ultimate obligation and that is to apply the best and most affective strategy and tactics to defeat the government and replace them.

So Bill I suggest you go back to the drawing board and come up with a better strategy. And when you dont becuase you cant, come back and get to work with us on implementing it.

Because I guarantee you this. If no leader picks this up and runs with it, the people will. And just like the Shun Lunn campaign, we will pressure the politicians, leaders and players like never before.

death rattle clarification

Bill,

I have a great deal of respect for distinct parties. And distinctions period. Cooperation is about choosing to instrumentally cooperate NOT merge. There is a level of complexity that is being lost in this discussion (common in online forums).

Part of the challenge of our times is managing the complexity. How do we remain grounded in our ideology, values, and principles and cooperate across change strategies, sectors, and organizations to realize our common progressive goals? Cooperation is the game and does not need to mean we succumb to the lowest common denominator.

When I say death rattle... I mean that this complexity is not being embraced by the NDP. They are not attracting new talent and a new generation of folks who can and will not only hold down but evolve the political identity of the party. It's not a welcoming place that embraces change. The culture is harsh, power is gripped tightly - not shared and feels like it takes more than it gives. That's not the way to grow a movement. And there is movement to be grown.

With respect,
Jodie

@BT

I didn't say I was giving up bec. the NDP ran a virtually non-existent candidate. My interpretation of what happened is that the NDP wrote off our riding, i.e. gave up on us, and that's the impression of many activists I have spoken with. Which didn't really give us much of a "choice", which much of this debate seems to be about.

Fortunately, my wife and I swapped our votes and a non-Con candidate won in the parallel universe riding we paired up with via Facebook. Strange, but it felt like the first time our votes had made a difference federally in years.

P.S. Bill Horne and Bruce Hill

Mark Crawford is an interesting person to talk to. He was a Parliamentary Intern to Nelson Riis in the 1980s and a Ministerial Assistant to DAvid Zirnhelt for a while in the 1990s.I believe that he was the first person from north of Kamloops to win the Rhodes Scholarship for BC. He is a lifelong New Democrat, but I suspect that he has always liked Bob Rae more than Glen Clark, and Elizabeth May more than Adrian Dix.

Anyway, he is supporting Nathan Cullen in the NDP leadership largely because of the cooperation issue. He is thinking of returning to his home riding of Cariboo - Prince George and organizing common general meetings for Liberals, New Democrats and Greens in 100 Mile House, Williams Lake, Quesnel , Vanderhoof and Prince George. If you are interested in working on something like that, you should contact.

P.S. Bill Horne

Vote-swapping through online cooperation is one strategy; as Tieleman admits, it has helped in some ridings like edmonton-Strathcona. THere are other strategies that could be hammered out through common general meetings. For example, Crawford says that his first choice would be to run Lynda Price as an independent or Liberal/NDP candidate, if she consented to run. Bob Simpson might be another good choice. The point is that they sure wouldn't be "no-shows" if the opposition parties could rally around one strong candidate.

@Frank Lee

Thanks for the info. We have some v nice Zirnhelt product in our freezer btw - just up the road from Ed Deak! Will follow up.

Cullen

Most interesting. Whether Nathan succeeds in becoming leader or not, he has won. For or against, his idea has brought passion to the debate and a (mostly) excellent interchange of ideas.