Strategic voting has reared it's ugly head again this election, and I wanted to reiterate that I'm opposed to strategic voting of any kind. Each voter should vote for whom they think is the best candidate and/or for which party they think has the best platform.

The first problem is this - although the media like to portray the Liberals, NDP and Greens as all being "left-of-centre," the reality is that all three are left only in comparison to the Conservatives. A more accurate picture is that NDP policies are left of centre, Liberal policies are mostly centrist, and Green social policies are left of centre, while their economic policies are right of centre. Each party has a distinct platform that will appeal to a different set of voters.

Setting aside the finer points of policy, the bigger problem with strategic voting arguments is that their advocates are usually promoting tactical voting, not strategic voting. In general, tactical voting advocates are trying to figure out a way to win a single riding and/or overcome the short-term problem of a possible Conservative majority. The tactics would have to be repeated each election, since these problems will always exist.

The actual long-term strategy for non-Green supporters advocating tactical voting is to encourage the Green Party to drop out of the federal political scene so their preferred party can win. Here is a website that offers a good perspective on that strategy:

http://www.voteforenvironment.ca/

Despite polling at over 10% for months, the Greens are offered 1 seat in the tactical voting alliance, while the Liberals get an extra 41 seats and the NDP get an extra 16 seats.

Let's consider an alternative and more visionary strategy that I think will have a better long-term chance of implementing policies where Liberal and NDP goals align with Green Party goals: implementing proportional representation. In a proportional system the Green's support of over 10% would earn them 30+ seats in Parliament. The NDP, Liberal and Green caucuses would almost certainly be able to form long-term coalitions that could pass progressive policies where their policies overlap, while still allowing each party to pursue policies that are unique to their platform. Also, no more time would be wasted on tactical voting campaigns to stop the Conservatives.

The problem is that the leadership (and many supporters) of the Liberals and NDP want to have their cake and eat it too. They know that if proportional representation comes in their influence in Parliament will be permanently diminished. So no steps are taken to make it a reality, and the arguments for tactical voting live on.

Ultimately, the best strategy for Green supporters to achieve proportional representation is to continue to vote for who you believe in. The necessary changes will come if and when the Greens remain grossly underrepresented in Parliament and the electorate - in particular, supporters of other parties - realizes that the electoral system is flawed and needs to be changed if they want a fair system in which sound social and environmental policies can be implemented. This election has already shown that such things are possible, since it was supporters of the Conservatives and NDP that rose up and demanded that Elizabeth May be allowed in the Leaders' debate.

There is no guarantee that such a change will happen in the short term, but it certainly has more of a chance to fix long-term problems than electing a Liberal or NDP minority. There are actually a lot of parallels between the half-hearted, failed attempts to "fix" (as one example) climate change problems and the haphazard, failed attempts to "fix" the electoral system by having voters vote for their second or third choice.

Vote with your head and your heart if you want to see real change.

From time to time I talk to people who are aware of Green Party successes in places like Germany and New Zealand.  But not many know that the Green Party of Canada is more successful in terms of popular support than the Green Parties in those countries. 

That is, our long-standing 10% or more in the polls handily trumps the 8.3% won by the Greens in Germany and the 5.3% won by the Greens in New Zealand.  Not to diminish the significance of those successes, but the nationally elected Greens in those other countries have typically come as a result of some form of proportional representation.  I'm not aware of any national Green Party other than Canada that has 10% support.

Canada's Green Party success is all the more striking given that our supporters keep supporting us, even though they know that it won't lead to immediate wins in their riding!

I just wanted to put this analysis out there, along with a thank you to our supporters who recognize that the most strategic vote is the one for the party with the core values that match their own.  We are in it for the long term, and you have helped the GPC come a long way in recent years.  I'm confident that the Greens can win Parliament by 2020 regardless of whether the electoral system is changed to incorporate some level of proportionality, as has been recommended to Parliament by the Law Commission of Canada (since disbanded).

Stephen Harper has signalled that he won't be calling an election because of the likelihood of another minority government:

"We're entering a period of minority government. We've had a couple in a row now," he said Wednesday.

Harper said with four political parties securing a minimum of 20 seats each, it would be difficult for any side to win a majority government.

"I think the possibility of a minority government in a subsequent election is pretty high," he said. "At the same time, I don't think Canadians want an election and the government is not seeking an election."

Harper is right that we are in a period of minority governments, but he is wrong about the root cause.  The situation of having four parties in a situation to win 20 seats has been the case ever since the Bloc was formed in 1991.  However, the new dynamic in play is that the Greens have built up our core level of support to 10% and this level of support is not going away.  Once voters switch to the Greens they don't go back to the older parties.

This 10% level of support has made it all but impossible for the Conservatives or Liberals to get into what has traditionally been considered comfortable majority territory of 40% or more in the polls.  Consider that in the past those two parties typically shared about 75% of the vote, with a floor of around 30%.  So one party could be at 40% in the polls and the other could be at 35%, or one could be at 43% and the other could be at 32%.  The proper timing of an election call in the latter situation could easily win a majority, and this situation often presented itself.

But now the Greens have pulled about 5% of their support from those two parties, so they only share about 70% or less support between them.  That means that for one party to get to (say) 43% in the polls the other party would have to be at 27%.  And that lower level is unlikely to occur.

The Conservatives and Liberals have both flirted with 40% support in recent years but they can't maintain it since it means the other party is hovering at a historical low of around 30%.  So it is difficult for their leadership to come up with a scenario where they can win a majority using traditional benchmarks. 

As it happens, the new benchmark for a majority is probably around 36% since the 10% of Green Party votes are not really in play. The breadth of our support means that there is no guarantee that the Greens will win even a single seat.  So 308 seats are in play between 90% of the voters voting for the other four major parties (e.g. 90% x 40% = 36%).  But it will be far harder for the Liberals or Conservatives to predict if they can win a majority at 36% or 37% (even if it might occur in practice), which is why Harper is hesitating to pull the trigger on an election.

One of the complaints against using proportional representation in our federal elections is that it will trigger the end of majority governments.  But Green supporters have already triggered this situation, perhaps permanently, even without winning a seat.  This is just one more example of how the current electoral system is broken and has to change.

Finally, some analysis that definitely proves that the GPC is attracting voters from across the political spectrum.  Bruce Anderson from Decima Research wrote an article for CP that summarizes recent voting trends.  The article includes a detailed analysis of where voters who have switched parties have come from, and where they are going to.  This information is often hard to come by, so here are the details:

• The Conservatives have done better at retaining the support of those who voted for them in 2006, losing only 15 per cent of their supporters. The lost points went to the Liberals (six per cent), the NDP (four per cent) the Green Party (three per cent) and the BQ (one per cent).
• The Liberals have lost 22 per cent of their 2006 voters. Ten per cent went to the Conservatives, five to the NDP, five to the Greens and just one per cent to the BQ.
• The BQ has lost 23 per cent of its support, with six per cent siphoned off by the Conservatives, six per cent to the Greens, five per cent to the NDP, and only three to the Liberals.
• The NDP has lost a quarter of its support  an even 25 per cent. Ten per cent went to the Liberals, seven per cent to the Greens, 5 per cent to the Conservatives, and 1% to the BQ.

Other parties (and the NDP in particular) periodically try to resurrect the long-discredited argument that running and voting for Green candidates are actions that help their candidate to lose and some other "bad" candidate (like a Conservative) to win.  I hope Mr. Anderson's article will finally lay that argument to rest.

Recent years have shown that the more support the Green Party has, the more we are able get.  I think the lesson to be learned is that voting for your first choice is the best strategic vote you can make.  In the long-term, such votes have incrementally increased the Green Party's base level of support.  That is important to other voters leaning Green since it adds legitimacy to our stated expectations that we can win.

I copied my last blog article about the deal between Elizabeth and Stéphane Dion over to the blog section on the GPC website and there has been a lot of good discussion about it over there.  Here is the link for those who are interested.

Now that the initial hubbub has died down a little I wanted to post a few follow-up thoughts about the deal and my original blog.  Some of you may have read an article about the deal titled "'Why, Elizabeth, why?"  A bad week to be a lefty" by Patricia Robertson in last weekend's Globe and Mail.  (It's behind the G&M firewall so I can't provide a link)   I'm quoted in the article and I'll get to that in a moment, but first a short synopsis.

One of the key points made by Ms. Robertson is that the Greens would have been better off if we had forged an alliance with the NDP rather than the Liberals.  Since we didn't, she believes that Elizabeth's chances of becoming Prime Minister some day, or even winning her seat in this election is now "an impossible dream."  Ms. Robertson then follows up with the following:

"In fact, we'll have to see if [Elizabeth] even continues to carry the Green banner after the next election."

"Party member Kevin Colton, in his online blog this week, accused Ms. May of poor leadership.  He said he opposes the Dion deal and has misgivings about his party's electoral prospects.  'Despite our best efforts," he said, "there is a very real chance that in the upcoming election that GPC will again elect no candidates under first-past-the-post."

There are a few points to make about this quote and the context in which it was presented.  In no particular order:

First, I disagree with the conclusion that it would have been better to forge an alliance with the NDP.  I've written against this proposal in the past.  The GPC is not by nature a left-wing party, and I think this assumption is part of the reason why some of the conclusions drawn by Ms. Robertson are over-stated.

Second, in no way do I doubt that Elizabeth will continue to carry the Green banner after the next election, regardless of how it turns out, if she so chooses.  Jim Harris was the right leader at a time when the party needed his vision and professional skills, and Elizabeth is the right leader for the party right now when it can capitalize on her charisma, dynamism and long-standing commitment to addressing environmental concerns.

Third, I did not accuse Elizabeth of poor leadership.  I did say she made a mistake and I hope that both she and readers will see this distinction.  Making no mistakes is an impossible standard and no-one should be held to that standard.

Fourth, I do believe the mistake was fairly serious.  However, it is not nearly serious enough that it might prevent a Green Prime Minister from ever being elected.  When I wrote my essay on how the GPC could win Parliament by 2020 I expected there would be growing pains like this, and that would lead to slower growth than some in the party might like to see.  But in the bigger picture of long-term goals and objectives the strength of our values and policies will help to minimize the impact of any given decision like this deal.

Fifth, my comments about the possibility of not electing candidates are presented out of context.  Elsewhere in my article I state that I believe it is almost certain that we will elect someone by the end of the decade.  I also mention that the deal would marginally increase the chances of Elizabeth's election in Central Nova, not decrease them. The possibility of not electing candidates was intended to illustrate the best strategy to compensate for the vagaries of first-past-the-post over the next four or five years.  I do not believe the deal will harm our chances of electing someone in this or a future election under first-past-the-post.  In fact, I continue to believe it is possible to for the GPC to win Parliament by 2020 under any electoral system.

Having said all that, I'm sure my concerns with this single quote would pale next to Elizabeth's frustration about how the deal as a whole was interpreted vs how it was intended.  But, nevertheless, I'll try to draw a few preliminary conclusions from this discussion.

First, many supporters of the deal have noted that it is a good example of what the Green Party means when it says it does politics differently.  I agree that this was a good intention.  I also think that the response to my blog provides another example of how we do politics differently.  On the one hand, we have the Conservatives (and the other parties, perhaps to a lesser extent) exercising message control amongst their caucus to the fullest of their abilities.  On the other hand, as a party member I'm able to openly criticize a party decision on the party's own public website.

As far as I can determine none of the other major parties are doing anything close to this and I think there is going to be a big payoff to this sort of open discussion in a few years.  We are setting up a framework to better engage and activate our members and that in turn will allow us to identify solutions for issues and corrections to problems much faster than the other parties.  Not to mention that if and when the other parties decide to give this sort of open discussion a try they will be years behind the GPC when it comes to figuring out how to make it work.

I can attest that there is a huge buy-in to this new way of doing politics.  Not a single member who responded to my post on the GPC blog commented that I shouldn't have made the post.

My second conclusion, an extension of the first, is that people will take what they want from your comments.  Ms. Robertson saw what she considered a good quote and she ran with it.  One response to this might be to try to avoid saying things that are critical.  But much of today's media coverage is driven by conflict.  If a quote that illustrates conflict isn't readily available then I think many in the media will keep looking for another disgruntled member or another divisive topic.

I think that when political observers see disagreements they often tend to view them through the traditional media prism of unhealthy conflict.  Many voters are tired of this perspective, but at the same time working to make things better sometimes means that it is healthy to air concerns and respectfully disagree.  Elizabeth is forthright about issues and it is clear that voters respond positively and find her refreshing.  I think the key is to try to strike the right balance.  I've read that a in a healthy relationship there should be eight positive comments for every disagreement.  That ratio might be a little pollyanna-ish when talking politics, but I've tried to keep the spirit of that suggestion in mind when I offer opinions on my blog or by email.

My third conclusion is our detractors will always try to make internal disagreements like this into more than they actually are.  This happened in the last election as well.  But over time, if we don't respond in a knee-jerk kind of way, I think most voters will see through the rhetoric and will appreciate the way we are trying to do politics differently.  Real change takes more than sound bites and I think that once voters get past the surface messaging in the media and learn in some detail about our ideas they will buy in for the long term.  I think the steady rise in our core support over the past few years is a good proof of this.

Elizabeth, keep up the great work.  Despite my misgivings I continue to hope that your plan works out.

 

 

The deal between Elizabeth May and Stéphane Dion to not run candidates in each others' ridings is making headlines across Canada.  I disagree with this deal and wanted to outline my reasons why.  I'll use the email sent by Elizabeth to Green Party members as a vehicle to examine the issue in some depth:

 

Dear member of the Green Party of Canada,  

 

Assuming our technology works, this message will reach you very close to the time that the Leader of the Liberal Party and I jointly hold a press conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia.  

Today, we change the face of Canadian politics.  Today we will demonstrate that the Green Party is a serious political party, running to win in ridings across Canada. 

 

This is an unfortunate way to start this discussion.  There is an implication that the Greens have not been seen a serious party and that we have not been running to win.  But we have been taken seriously since we first ran 308 candidates - this is most easily demonstrated by the fact that we are now included as a choice in every major poll about federal politics in Canada.  And we have been running to win since 2004, as demonstrated by our efforts to elect Andrew Lewis in the BC riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands.  In that election, the party maximized the amount we were allowed to spend in the riding, but, unfortunately, still fell short.  A more recent example is Elizabeth's own efforts to win in the London North Centre by-election in November.

 

We will also be making it clear that the planet does not have time for the old, tired, cynical game of politics.  We do not have time for games at all.  We are serious and we need to put our country and the planet first.

 

You will get no argument from me about the gravity of the environmental crisis facing the planet.  However, it is a weak argument to suggest that those who disagree with a given action or decision are doing so because they don't put our country and planet ahead of politics.  I can't speak for others, but my disagreement with the deal, as explained in this posting, is based on an analysis that we would have more effectively been able to improve the situation by means other than making a deal to not run candidates.

 

That is why Stéphane Dion, a man whom you know I admire on a personal basis, and I will announce that our respective parties will not be fielding candidates in each others' ridings. Our joint statement is found at the end of this message.  

I have discovered a lot about politics since becoming Leader of the Green Party less than eight months ago.  I have discovered that there is a nastiness to partisanship that exceeds sense.  It is essentially a form of tribalism, and quite primitive tribalism at that.  As Leader of the Green Party, some would prefer I never said that Mr. Harper's policies are the biggest threat to our planet and our country, even though they know that to be true.  They would prefer I never said that Mr. Dion is a man of integrity (even if we can all agree his Party has appalling baggage).  I promised when I ran for leadership to be a relentless truth-teller.  Even if that might be to a short-term disadvantage.   

 

I agree that there is a nastiness to partisanship and that Elizabeth has every right to be a truth-teller and to make her viewpoints known.  However, these issues are peripheral to the decision at hand.

 

The Green Party will always put principle and progress above petty partisanship.  So I am proud of what Stéphane and I have agreed to do. 

 

The problem here is that different principles can sometimes come into conflict.  And I think the principles behind the decision to not run candidates are weaker than the principle that each voter should have the right to vote Green if that is the party they support.  (Or to vote Liberal, for that matter.)  That is the principled argument advanced by the Green Party ever since we first made the successful effort to run 308 candidates in 2004.

 

I am proud to be able to say that I led the effort to recruit those 308 candidates as a member of our 2004 federal campaign team.  Getting those last few candidates registered was a lot of work by dozens of staff members and volunteers, but I think the effort was well worth it.  In my opinion, running 308 candidates was the key turning point to legitimizing the party in the minds of most voters.

 

The small "308" pin we gave our candidates and supporters after the 2004 election is the Green Party award that I'm most proud of.  I've been told the same thing by others.  Unfortunately, the impression I'm left by the deal is that "the 308" has been turned into a bargaining chip, when, in fact, running 308 candidates in each election should have been treated as an integral reminder of how we got to where we are and what we are able to achieve.  Something of that is now lost.

 

In addition to not running against me in Central Nova, he has signaled a willingness to reform our electoral system.  This is real progress toward Green goals.  

 

Herein lies the crux of the problem.  Electoral reform was recommended by the Law Commission of Canada a couple of years ago.  And Jack Layton has long promised to take action.  Yet nothing has been done, and the reason is that it is more useful for the current political leaders to treat electoral reform as a minor piece in the game of getting and maintaining power for their party.  Without a concrete commitment for specific actions, this signal from Mr. Dion has to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

You should also know that the door remains open to Jack Layton and the NDP to find some way to cooperate to achieve progress particularly in rapid reduction of greenhouse gases to meet Kyoto targets.  I have been attempting to reach Jack Layton for months.  I hope there is still some chance of cooperation.  

 

As do I, since this is the type of cooperation between parties that I support.  However, the agreement to not run candidates strikes me more as backroom deal-making than cooperation - and it is being portrayed in that manner by Mr. Layton.  The Green Party only has one chance to be seen by Canadians as a party that does politics differently.  One of the costs to be paid for this deal is that it will put a question mark in the minds of some voters as to whether that premise is true.

Please be prepared for this historic step to be misunderstood and deliberately mis-characterized. 

 

Strategic analysis of and principled opposition to the deal is significantly different than deliberate mischaracterization.  I hope my commentary in this post will be taken by Elizabeth and by supporters of the deal as an opportunity to reflect on the real costs that will be paid and to help them to prepare for the fallout from those costs.  I also hope they will consider alternate strategies in the future when such deal-making is being contemplated.

 

Adriane Carr, Deputy Leader, is running in Vancouver Centre.  We have made it a priority that she win, defeating Liberal incumbent Hedy Fry

 

It will be great if Adriane wins.  In 2001, Adriane led the Green Party of BC to a very strong 12% showing in the provincial election, after being admitted to the Leaders' debate.  The party then flirted with 20% support in the polls for a couple of years but dropped to only 9% support in the last election. 

 

In my opinion, this stagnation is in part a result of focusing party efforts and resources on trying to get Adriane elected.  It was not an unreasonable strategy to try - once.  But we can see in BC that when Adriane was not elected, and there wasn't a strong base to fall back on, then voters decided to move on. I would like to see the federal party avoid making that same mistake.

 

Let's consider the parallels that exist between the GPC in 2007 and the GPBC in the early part of this decade.  We have low membership numbers and resources that are spread thin.  As a result, most voters have probably never spoken with a GPC volunteer providing details about the party and asking them to join.  Our policies are different enough and complex enough that this community interaction needs to be done before we can generate more widespread support. 

 

Like Adriane, Elizabeth is a charismatic and respected leader who has already lifted the profile of the party.  These are assets that the party can capitalize on, but until we are able to talk directly to voters they can only bring the party so far.  And we are still a couple of years away from having done that in most ridings.

 

I've outlined a strategy that I believe will help the Green Party overcome these problems in a way that could allow us to win Parliament by 2020.  This strategy is based on building a broad base of support across the country.  There are no guarantees of success, but we already have an example of a situation where a concentrated effort by the Greens to elect a handful of candidates has the potential to compromise the longer-term success of the party. 

 

This is not to say that we shouldn't try to elect Adriane or Elizabeth (we should).  However, I think we need to balance those efforts with the recognition that work on the ground that results in incremental percentage-point increases in our core level of national support will do more good for the party in the long term than electing one or two MPs in the short term.

 

(by the way, Mr. Dion never asked me to withdraw or alter any other ridings than those of the leaders.) 

 

I think this is because it is in the strategic interests of the Liberal party to get Elizabeth elected, above and beyond any of the public reasons being promoted by Mr. Dion.  In particular, I think the Liberals recognize that her election could serve to slow or derail the evolution of the federal electoral system to a system that includes a measure of proportionality.

 

Despite our best efforts, there is a very real chance that in the upcoming election the GPC will again elect no candidates under first-past-the-post.  I keep making the point that we should run to win because it strengthens my next point, which is probably controversial.  That is, not electing Green MPs in the next election will be more strategically beneficial to the GPC in the long term than electing MPs.  It is not that I don't want us to win, but I think this statement is a fact.

 

My analysis is based on the fact that it is entirely possible that the Bloc will elect 40 or 50 candidates to Parliament, and we will elect none despite winning around the same percentage of the vote.  This will impress upon the minds of voters the unfairness of the electoral system in the minds of Canadians, and the leadership of the other parties will actually have to do something to fix the problem.  Once it is fixed (which means a measure of proportionality is introduced), then the Greens will certainly elect a couple of dozen MPs, at the minimum. 

 

A proportional electoral system is strategically bad for the Liberals and Tories in particular, since it likely means they will never again be able to form a majority government.

 

On the other hand, if Elizabeth does win as a result of the deal, then it will weaken the argument that changes are required.  The Liberals and other parties can continue to pay lip-service to the idea of electoral reform, while pointing to Elizabeth and saying "hey, the system kind-of works," allowing them to put off real reform for years to come. 

 

A comparative example is the Leaders' debate.  In 2004 and 2006 the other parties worked to exclude Jim Harris from this debate.  It was do-able then, but a scant one year later the idea of excluding Elizabeth from the next debate is ludicrous.  Certainly I think there are some strategists in the other parties who are going to try to exclude her, but to many of the rank-and-file members and MPs in those parties this will be seen as unacceptable.  Most Canadians understand that fair is fair, and the leadership of those other parties are going to have their hand forced on the issue. 

 

The same situation regarding the broken electoral system will be in play in 2009 if no Green is elected in 2007.  This scenario will be to our strategic advantage and to the disadvantage of the other parties.  I think it clearly illustrates how unnecessarily futile it was to make the token agreement to not run a candidate against Mr. Dion.  It's like paying for repairs to a broken-down car that we don't even own, and would love to see taken off the road altogether.

 

Across Canada, Greens will be running against Liberals.  We have significant (huge, when one considers NAFTA and other policy areas) disagreements.  

 

This is a good example of why the party shouldn't count on Liberal supporters voting for Elizabeth.  Many could choose the other parties, spoil their ballot or not vote at all.  Certainly, a number of voters in the riding will feel disaffected and resentful of Elizabeth for limiting their choice.  In my opinion, that is not a good way to show how their MP will represent their interests.

 

There are also a couple of flip sides to Elizabeth's arguments.  For example, I think we need to consider what might happen if she doesn't win despite the deal.  Certainly, an argument will be made by nay-sayers that "the Greens can't win even if and when the other parties bow out."  Voters and the media will likely re-consider our ability to make good strategic judgements.  It is entirely reasonable to run to win and not win, especially if progress is shown.  Voters continue to be attracted to the party despite the fact that we haven't yet elected an MP. 

 

Another point to consider is the value that we would gain by winning straight-up, against the odds and with no accommodations from other parties.  Although it is difficult to predict if we will elect an MP this election, I think an elected Green MP is almost certain to happen by the end of the decade.  Why put an asterisk next to this first victory?

 

Campaigns of Greens across Canada must be stronger and we must elect a solid caucus, not one or two MPs in the next election.  Thus, it is clear we are not "endorsing" Liberals. 

 

It would be great to elect a number of candidates, and I've seen here in Calgary strong candidates being attracted to the party with a conviction that they can win.  But in my opinion, this deal doesn't really advance their campaigns.  It could become an issue that will distract from their more important messages when they talk to the media and voters.

 

The Green Party is emphatically against strategic voting.  But in the archaic first past the post system, how else is the Green Party to work to ensure the democratic will of the majority is heard?  How else can we signal cooperation, not competitiveness, is our core value?   How else can we signal cooperation, not competitiveness, is our core value?  

 

There is a misplaced sense of urgency in this paragraph.  Yes, the system is broken and yes, the crises facing the planet need to be fixed.  But a deal that marginally increases the chance of electing a Green MP in 2007 is not the key to fixing these problems.

 

The implementation of many Green Party policies will have a significant impact on Canadian society.  As such, widespread cooperation between parties and widespread support from Canadians will be required.   But the objectives expressed by Elizabeth are already written into the party's DNA.  I could offer many examples of how we are willing to cooperate rather than compete, but I'll just pick this quote that is written right into our constitution:

 

"To commit ourselves, and encourage everyone, to promote enhanced and socially engaged caring and compassionate values through research, dialogue, and example, as well as through increasing awareness of our own capacities to be caring and compassionate for others, ourselves, and life’s rich diversity"

 

I also think Elizabeth has underestimated the impact she is already having on the Canadian political scene and in the media.  Her election will be a milestone for the party, but the costs for that election need to be balanced against the increased influence and profile she will have as an MP.  I'm not sure that this increase will be that great, and as such I'm not sure that this deal strikes the right balance.

 

Your support through letters to the editor, etc would be appreciated.  Thanks for your support, for your patience, and if you have misgivings, for your openness to the potential for real change.  We live in interesting times and they just got a lot more interesting.  

Elizabeth  

 

We all know that to hope that someone lives in interesting times is an ancient curse.  As mundane as it may sound, I think the key to making the world a better place is not to try to make things more interesting.  In fact, I think making the world a better place is not a lot more complicated than walking and talking. 

 

Canadians recognize the urgency of the problems facing nations around the world, and they want to choose the most effective way to address these problems.  If we want their support, which I think we can get, then we need to meet them and tell them why our policies will work the best.  Electing Elizabeth will help us reach that end but there are no shortcuts to the years of work that will be required to build a broad base of support by personally connecting with each voter.

 

I've outlined above the principled, tactical and strategic reasons I don't support this deal.  However, I'm open to real change to the point that I hope I'm proved wrong.

Good news for Green supporters:  "The poll also suggested the Green Party continues to show momentum across Canada, with 13 per cent support nationally, tied with the NDP for the first time in Decima's polling, the agency said."

 

The GPC has their sharp new website up and running.  Check it out.

Professor Evangelos Michelakis at the University of Alberta has discovered a molecule that can help treat cancer:

A small, non-toxic molecule may soon be available as an inexpensive treatment for many forms of cancer, including lung, breast and brain tumours, say University of Alberta researchers ... In findings that "astounded" the researchers, the molecule known as DCA was shown to shrink lung, breast and brain tumours in both animal and human tissue experiments.

Wow!  Great news, right?  Well, maybe not:

But there's a catch: the drug isn't patented, and pharmaceutical companies may not be interested in funding further research if the treatment won't make them a profit.

I was watching CTV last night and this story left me speechless.  One commentator noted that she was aware of other times that good drugs were left undeveloped since there was no profit in it.

If ever there was a story that highlighted the hollowness of a purely for-profit, market-based viewpoint on the world, then this is it.  This philosophy gained traction in recent decades with Republicans in the US and big-C Conservatives in Canada.  It is no coincidence that individuals who successfully rose to executive positions in an industry that was developed in the same time-frame as this economic model would see the bottom line as the only thing to consider when they write their strategic plans.

There is a parallel here to what happened with the Conservatives on climate change.  Their economic philosphy is like a set of blinders that prevents them from seeing the bigger picture, and leaves them scrambling when changes in the national mood catch them off guard.  Without the blinders, it was fairly easy to see that we were heading towards a political climate that would demand real action on the environment.  But they kept trying to protect their wealthier supporters, and they got hammered on the issue.  There is good reason why such politicians are often called reactionary.  Canadians want leadership, not finger-in-the-wind political calculations on such issues.

I think Canadians instinctively understand that the profit motive is the something that they dislike about Conservative values.  In fact, I think it is quite likely that it will prevent the Conservatives from ever again positioning themselves to form a majority government.  When a conservative talking point such as "let the market decide" is applied to social constructs such as public health care, things start going wrong.  Again, this story illustrates that in spades.

As it happens, there is nothing inherently wrong with fiscal conservativism.  As readers know, the Green Party has a socially progressive, fiscally conservative platform that tries to reconcile the idea of fiscal responsibility with the idea that the purpose of government is to foster the public good.  This idea also has parallels in the business world.  For example, doctors and lawyers are highly-trained and highly-paid professionals, but these professions also have long-standing traditions of doing volunteer or pro bono work.  In large part, I think this is because these professions developed before flawed market-based economic theories started taking precedence over compassion and common sense.

At some point, large corporations need to start paying more than lip service to the progressive concept of giving back to their communities.  It is wrong to funnel the lion's share of their profits to top executives.  Ultimately, neither they nor the public good is served when an inexpensive cancer drug is left undeveloped while individuals in the community watch their friends and their family dying of cancer. 

Develop this drug, and fast, please.

UPDATE:  Visit Scott's DiaTribes for more commentary on this blog posting.

A new poll from Strategic Council for CTV and the Globe and Mail has the Greens at 8% and has increased speculation that there won't be a spring election, since no party has a lot to gain.  Given that such an election would be the third in four years, there are probably many voters and politicians who will be happy enough to give this one a pass.

I just found a website that maintains a rolling, weighted summary of poll results for Canada's federal political parties.  Kudos to Paul at Paulitics for putting it together.

It doesn't take much browsing around the internet or reading the newspapers to learn that all political parties have their fair share of critics, nay-sayers and others either angry or dismissive about the policies and actions of those parties. This is the nature of politics, and healthy debate is an essential component of a strong democracy.

There comes a time, however, that a debate can cease to be healthy. In my experience with the Green Party, unhealthy situations can arise when an individual has a certitude about their opinions that causes them to view differing opinions with hostility and suspicion. Our rapid growth has exacerbated the problem, since the changes, new people and new ideas that come with such growth can be alarming to those used to the status quo. In some cases, an individual may start to believe that a person or group holding a different opinion, or taking an action with which they disagree, could only be doing so because they are corrupt, incompetent or because they otherwise want to do the party harm.

In practice, things are never so black and white. Every decision made by party officials is made in the context of a multitude of circumstances that need to be examined in light of how we can best achieve the stated Constitutional purpose of the party: to advance the party’s platform, policy, values and basis of unity, and to contribute to the welfare of Canada. Given the ever-changing political and organizational environment in which the party finds itself, it is impossible that all of the actions taken by the party will conform to the wishes of any given individual.

There are a number of options available to individuals who think a decision is leading the party down the wrong path. Decisions made by units of the party other than council (e.g. EDAs or Provincial Associations) can appeal to council, and any resultant decision of council that does or does not change the original decision is binding on these other units. Council decisions of any kind can be reversed or amended by future council decisions. Councillors and other elected officials can be voted out of office. And the ultimate authority for decision-making is when members are in a General Meeting; such meetings are historically held every two years. If an individual cannot convince any of these groups to correct a decision, then it is most likely that the original decision accurately reflects "the will of the members" and should stand.

At any time a member or unit of the party can appeal to the party's five-member Ombuds and Appeals Committee (OAC), who, at their discretion, may or may not agree to consider the request and make recommendations about how to correct the situation. Although OAC recommendations are not binding they carry a lot of weight in party circles.

Unfortunately, these well-defined processes are not always followed by those who have concerns. I've known party members and officials who have withdrawn or limited their volunteer work with the party due to harsh and unfair criticism of their decisions and motives. In some cases false information about these members has been published. Others have received threats of various kinds or attempts have been made to harm them in their personal or professional affairs external to the party.

Let's examine in a little more detail some different examples of how a disgruntled person can handle a decision with which they disagree. The first set of examples will examine what happens when the disgruntled individual uses improper actions because their certitude about what is right causes them to be suspicious about the motives of others:

Example 1: Let's assume the person being accused is actually corrupt or otherwise wants to hurt the party. In this case, the corrupt person being accused is unlikely to be bothered by such accusations, and will continue on as before. They may welcome the accusations, knowing that such in-fighting can only harm the party. In this case, it is likely that the situation in the party will continue to deteriorate.

Example 2: Let's assume the person being accused is not corrupt, but is incompetent to some degree. In this case, it is possible that the individual will withdraw, which may seem like a victory to the disgruntled person. However, this victory comes at a steep price. The person who withdrew may well have been simply been in the wrong position at the wrong time. In many cases such a person, if treated with respect, understands that they might be able to better help the party in a different position. But if they are forced out, it is less likely that they will be willing to do other volunteer work for the party.

Example 3: Let's assume the person is capable and the decisions they are making are actually helping the party to grow. They recognize that an effective way to contribute is to get actively involved as an elected party official or committee member. As a result, they are more involved in decision-making and face a higher likelihood of making a decision with which a disgruntled member disagrees. Having a disgruntled member try to force out such a capable volunteer is probably the worst of all worlds.

In all cases, forcing someone out using improper actions may be acceptable and desirable to the disgruntled member, but it is harmful to the party as a whole. Whether or not the person who withdraws is capable, they have a right to their opinion. Also, elected councillors have a constitutional right to make decisions on behalf of the party outside of a General Meeting. Efforts by an individual to undermine that right ultimately serve only to weaken the framework on which the party is built.

The second set of examples will examine what happens when a disgruntled individual decides to try to use due process to correct decisions with which they disagree. In the following cases we can also assume that, rather than going on the offensive, the person would use most of their time to prepare a better solution to the problem and then present this option to those officials who are authorized to correct the original decision. They may also take legitimate steps to remove or censure the person by petitioning the OAC or council, or by working to elect someone better to the position held by an elected official.

Example 4: Let's assume that the person who made the bad decision is corrupt. It is likely that they will ignore any good recommendation and the disgruntled person trying to use due process will have to go up to the next level of authority to present these recommendation. Some time will be wasted, but at some point along the way it is likely that a good recommendation will be implemented. Additional effort will likely be required to remove such an appointed or elected official using due process.

Example 5: Let's assume that the person who made the bad decision is incompetent to some degree. It is possible that the person will not implement a good recommendation, but if the disgruntled individual is capable and continues to pursue the matter in a respectful and impartial manner, it is possible that the situation can be resolved with a minimum of hard feelings and wasted time. However, since an appointed or elected official has a right to make decisions (even if others consider them bad), then the disgruntled person may need to do additional work to replace them.

Example 6: Let's assume that the person who made the decision is capable. In this case, it is likely that they are willing to listen to good recommendations on how to fix problems, and will work to get them implemented. In some cases, there will be differences of opinion between two capable people. In this case, it is entirely reasonable that the elected or appointed official be allowed to stand by their decision.

The following table summarizes the above examples. It also ranks each situation on a scale of 5 to -5, where 5 represents making a good decision agreeable to all in the first place; 0 is the status quo; and -5 means the actions taken make things worse:

 

 

It should be clear that in all cases the best solution for a disgruntled person who wants to try to correct problem is to use due process. Although I think this is generally understood in theory, I hope that examining the practical downside of trying to use other, improper methods to correct problems will reinforce the importance of due process. Sometimes due process takes time and this can be frustrating. However, it is essential that members of the party treat others within and without of the party with respect, if we hope to rise above the mudslinging and partisanship that characterizes much of Canada's political discourse.

In practice, there will continue to be some individuals whose suspicions will cause them to attack and accuse. My recommendation to those who find themselves on the receiving end or are otherwise upset by such actions is to try to rise above it. Over time, ordinary members will see that the person doing the attacking is being unfair and harmful, and their influence will wane. In my experience, you will also earn the respect of those who are making positive contributions if are you able to handle such situations gracefully.

This is one of a series of articles examining how to fix key problems facing the GPC.

Columnist Chris Selley at Macleans has picked up on an incorrect meme from Richard Warnica at the Tyee that the Greens are "on the left" of the NDP:

Here is Macleans:

But as Vancouver's The Tyee pointed out last week in an interview with Layton, his party now finds itself surrounded by green. On its right, the theoretically rejuvenated Liberals are led by a man who named his dog after a climate change accord; on the left there is Elizabeth May's suddenly relevant Green Party, ready and apparently able to cherry-pick left-leaning votes.

And here is the Tyee:

On Layton's right is Stephane Dion. The long-shot former Liberal cabinet minister wrapped himself in green before marching to the head of his party in December. Now he can't make a public appearance without flaunting his dog Kyoto, and showing off his enviro chops. On Layton's left is Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green. The party has great brand recognition to go with its growing profile as the go to party on the greenhouse file.

It's been said many times before, but it bears repeating:  the Greens are socially liberal (e.g. on the left) and fiscally conservative (e.g. on the right).  We are far from being to the left of the NDP on most issues, and in fact we are regularly criticized by our own left-leaning members for being too far to the right.  Furthermore, our environmental principles pervade everything we do in a way that transcends traditional political left-right categorizations. 

I understand that reporters don't always have the space to get these points across, but I think that simplifying things to the point of saying that the Greens are "on the left" of the NDP is inaccurate and confusing to both readers and voters.  So, a friendly request to Chris and Richard:  please consider the above points when you characterize the Greens in future articles.

MINOR UPDATE:  Changed "fiscally responsible" to "fiscally conservative" to better make the point I intended to make.

The oilpatch wants nuclear power ... but a picture says more than a thousand words:

    

Scare-mongering?  A little.  If the picture doesn't concern you, then the over-abundance of other risks and problems associated with nuclear energy and nuclear waste might.

Nuclear is not a solution to global warming.  Energy reduction is seven times more cost-effective.

Up 3 points on the Bloc, and within 3 of the NDP.  But the telling point may be the asterisk at the end of the press release:

*Beginning with this quarter, Focus Canada is including the Green Party in the list of choices offered respondents when asking which party they would be inclined to support if an election were held "today."  This party has become sufficiently established with an appreciable number of Canadian voters, and with the Canadian media, to warrant this change. It is notable that this party: a) increased its share of the vote over the past two elections and now qualifies for public financing through Elections Canada; b) was competitive in the recent Ontario by-election, finishing second, ahead of two of the other major parties; and c) has a new leader who has been successful in gaining a public spotlight in the national media. Finally, the rise of the environment as a major national issue on which the next election will be fought makes it likely that the Green Party will receive added attention by the national media, if not by voters.

I am often surprised with the dismissive attitude some analysts take towards the GPC. Here is Henry Jacek, a political science professor at Hamilton's McMaster University, in an article about Jack Layton published today in the National Post:

"The Greens are going nowhere," he says. "Wake me up when they win a seat."

The Greens can and will win a seat, and soon. It will take a few years for us to have a larger impact in Parliament, but being so dismissive in the face of our steady increase in polling numbers and increasingly prominent national profile doesn't strike me as very good political analysis.

The important story here is not that we may or may not win a seat in the next election. Rather, the story is that if we can continue to make progress over the next few years there is the potential for a significant shake-up in Canadian society as a whole. Since we are drawing our support from across the political spectrum we will have the widespread support necessary to make our policies a reality.

Canada has the potential to be a world leader when it comes to economic, environmental and social innovations. Right now, the grey parties in Parliament are causing Canada to lag Europe and other areas of the world in all manner of policy-making. If rich Canada, of all places, can't be a leader, then how can we expect poorer countries to take the basic steps necessary to protect the environment?

Jacek and other nay-sayers may be snoozing, but the Greens are ahead of the curve when it comes to preventing a global environmental nightmare.

The following paragraphs appear halfway through a Globe & Mail article titled "Green movement getting a blue-chip hue" (probably soon to disappear behind their subscription firewall):

At the same time, a remarkable 7 per sent of corporate executives said they'd back the Green Party if an election were held right away. Gandalf Group principal David Herle said business leaders appear to have passed a "tipping point" where they have realized that "the economic upside is on getting with this [environmental] program, not on fighting it."

This is good news, but it isn't so remarkable.  Some pundits continue to portray us as left-wing but the Greens have been attracting voters from across the political spectrum for some time now.  The numbers for business leaders exactly parallel our polling numbers in general.

The departure of MP Wajid Khan from the Liberals to the Conservatives has left the NDP holding the balance of power in Parliament:

Khan's move across the floor gives the Tories 125 seats, leaving the Liberals with 101. The minority government would now need the support of 29 opposition MPs — the same number the NDP has — to pass legislation in the 308-seat Parliament.

So, let's revisit the promise in the article I linked to in my last blog post:

Updated Tue. Dec. 27 2005 5:47 PM ET  Canadian Press  OTTAWA -- Should Jack Layton's New Democrats hold the balance of power after election night, the price for its support is sure to include a move to a new voting system - one that could give Canadians a steady string of minority governments. ... "I don't want to be two votes short," again, Layton said recently. "I want us to have the ability to achieve what we came here to do. . .and proportional representation will be a big part of any discussion."

Is the time now right for pro-rep, Mr. Layton?

I see that Murray Dobbin closed out 2006 with another article about why Canadians should vote for the NDP. Fair enough. But Dobbin revisits some of his long-discredited arguments about the NDP relationship with the Green Party:

[The NDP] could propose a deal that would see Greens withdraw from winnable NDP seats in return for bowing out of Elizabeth May's Nova Scotia riding and pledging to make proportional representation a key plank in its platform. That would avoid the 2004 scenario where Green support defeated seven NDP candidates and elected Conservatives instead. There might be no deal to be made, but it needs to be tried.

There are enough invalid assumptions and arguments in this one paragraph that I'll respond to them one by one.

It could propose a deal that would see Greens withdraw from winnable NDP seats in return for bowing out of Elizabeth May's Nova Scotia riding

The Green Party and the NDP are two separate parties with distinct platforms and ideas. Canadians have a right to review both platforms and vote for either party as they see fit. It is undemocratic to support a backroom deal that would deny some Canadians this right, and it seems most likely that voters would turn against both parties if such a deal was struck.

Also, the idea that multiple Green candidates would need to be withdrawn in return for the withdrawal of a single NDP candidate shows that Dobbin's proposal can't be taken seriously. The Greens are within striking distance of the NDP in many national polls, and the NDP finished third with only 20% in the Cape Breton--Canso riding where Elizabeth is most likely to run.

and pledging to make proportional representation a key plank in its platform.

This has been a key plank of the NDP for the last two elections:

In an interview with The Canadian Press, Layton's eyes shone at the prospect of moving the country towards a voting system of proportional representation. That was key party issue in the 2004 campaign, but was pushed aside when the NDP came up two seats short of holding a real balance of power in the last Parliament.

Despite being a key plank, the NDP has never made any serious attempt to move forward the idea of proportional representation. If the issue was really important to a party with elected MPs then there are many concrete actions those MPs could take to move things along.  But in practice, the NDP uses the pro-rep argument to make political hay while ignoring the clearly identified need for electoral reform. The Greens have every reason to believe that the NDP would find another reason to not follow up on any promises about pro-rep, should it suit the NDP's political calculations after the election.

That would avoid the 2004 scenario where Green support defeated seven NDP candidates and elected Conservatives instead.

As I outlined here and here it is unlikely that support for Green candidates caused any NDP candidates to lose their elections.

When I read Dobbin's articles I keep thinking that he and the NDP leadership in general can't see the forest for the trees. As much as anything, it is the raw political calculations, empty promises and manipulation of facts that is causing Canadians to tire of the NDP and the other "grey" parties and move their support to the Greens. They see in us an opportunity to start anew, with a focus on making things better for everyone rather than making things better for a specific interest group, whether that group be business or labour. It will be a lot of work to follow through on these expectations, but we are getting more help by the day.