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.

 

 

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.

Old London vs Green London ...

    

Credit to Hannah McKinnon at the Global Youth Climate Movement.

As mentioned in an earlier post the GPC has started an online petition for Canadians who want to try to ensure that Elizabeth May is included in the Leaders' debate in the next federal election.  A couple of days ago I read the first editorial I've seen supporting Elizabeth's inclusion in the Winnipeg Sun.  I'm sure there will be more, but here is the comment that caught my eye:

It is no longer fair, or even rational, to keep treating the Greens as a fringe party.

The point I wanted to make is that rationality is often in the eye of the beholder.  If the criteria for making a rational decision on who gets included in the debate is an objective answer to the question "What is best for Canada and Canadians?", then clearly the Sun's analysis of the issue makes sense.  The Greens should be included in the debate.

However, the individuals on the broadcast consortium that have decided to exclude the Greens from the last two debates have done so on "editorial" grounds.  This is because the question they are trying to answer is not the one being asked by the Sun.  Rather, they are asking "What is best for the interests I represent?"  So, to understand the reasoning behind the exclusion of the Greens, one needs to understand the point of view of the individuals making the decision.  When the decision is examined from that point of view it starts to become more clear.

The first reason that could explain the decision is that the individuals representing the consortium members (e.g. the CBC, Global, CTV, Radio Canada, and TVA) support other parties.  Consider the following:  In 2004 Peter Kent was the consortium representative for Global.  In the 2006 election he ran as a candidate for the Conservative Party in Toronto.  If Peter Kent supported the Conservatives in 2004, then a rational decision for Mr. Kent would have been to exclude the Greens.  It is almost certain that including us would be to the detriment of the other parties in both the short term and in the long term.

A second, and more subtle reason to exclude the Greens is what is referred to in the technology industry as a "disruption" of the status quo.  Here is the first sentence in the Wikipedia definition on disruptive technologies:

A disruptive technology or disruptive innovation is a technological innovation, product, or service that eventually overturns the existing dominant technology or product in the market.

I believe that same concept can be applied to the rising influence of the Green Party on the Canadian federal political scene.  We are a disruptive "product," and I think it is entirely possible that we will overturn the existing dominant "products" by winning Parliament at some point in the not-too-distant future. 

The problem with this disruption is that the dynamics of the existing political marketplace are well understood by the media, business, the non-political parts of government and so on.  Once we start electing MPs we are going to change this dynamic in ways that are unpredictable.  The individuals who are making the consortium decisions have risen to a level of seniority based on their understanding of the existing political model.  Successful media and business organizations have become successful within the existing model.  As such, it is rational for them to try to minimize the potential disruptive force to this model that the Greens represent.  One way to do this is to try to slow us down by minimizing public understanding of our "product".

Needless to say, I think that the best interests of Canadians should come ahead of the best interest of media organizations when it comes to our federal elections. But so long as the decision about who to include in the debate is based on subjectively rational grounds rather than, say, objective and measurable grounds, then there will be no guarantee that the Greens or other new parties will ever be included in a Leaders' debate.  It may take a change in Canada's Elections Act to fix the problem.

There has been much debate and discussion about the meaning of Elizabeth May's strong showing in London North-Centre.  My feeling is that the results and exposure will add about 1 to 2 points to our future "first-choice" national polling numbers.  However, as this poll taken after the Liberal leadership convention shows, we are still subject to the vagaries of external events and statistical variance, like all other parties.

The more significant (and more difficult to measure) impact of LNC will likely be in voters who move us from "fringe party" status in their minds to the category of "strong second-choice".  Our Campaign Manager George Read has pointed out that there are four steps that an organization must go through in its development:

1. Be Noticed
2. Be Understood
3. Be Trusted
4. Be Preferred

The movement through these stages will be a necessary process for most voters, and by moving us to "second-choice" status it means that we are understood and trusted.  We are likely to sit at that level in their minds for a while as they learn more about us and determine whether we should become their preferred choice.

If and when Elizabeth gets into the Leaders' debate during the next federal election I think we can expect at least an additional 2 to 3 point jump in our first-choice vote.  In the 2001 election in BC Adriane Carr's performance led to a jump in Green Party support to 12%, so certainly anything is possible.  By all accounts, Elizabeth handily won the debates in LNC, and this may have set the stage where a strong performance in the Leaders' debate combined with a solid overall campaign could be enough to pull the GPC into the double digits.

Some readers might think that the above numbers are rather modest after a 25% showing in the by-election.  However, we need to recognize that the party was able to concentrate our resources in a riding in a way that won't be possible in the next general election.  What I do believe is that the GPC can and will elect an MP sometime soon.  But just as important for our long term success is continuing to make slow and steady progress in building the national infrastructure of the party. And a national increase of a couple of points per riding means a lot in that respect.

Until we do elect an MP we shouldn't let others define our growth in terms that suit them rather than in terms that reflect the new reality that the Green Party has brought to the Canadian political landscape.  We are the fastest growing party in the country and, in my opinion, we are exactly on track for a Green Party majority in 2020.  But a lot of preliminary work has to be done beforehand.  We should measure our success against our own goals and objectives, and remind those who question our progress based on the single, somewhat artificial benchmark of whether or not we have an MP, that Rome wasn't built in a day.

I've been getting caught up on my news reading and came across this news article published prior to the by-election in London North Centre.  "No Tory `chivalry' as Greens' new leader seeks seat," the headline proclaims.  The article goes on to state:

... the Tories already have their preferred candidate — former London mayor Dianne Haskett — and the practice of allowing new party leaders to run unopposed in by-elections will not be extended to May, elected as Green Party leader in late August.

The Toronto Star touches on the theme again in the sidebar to this article.  So I thought there was a modest amount of irony involved when the by-election results came in and Elizabeth finished second, beating third-place Haskett by over 500 votes.

There are many lesson to be learned from the LNC race, and these articles illustrate two of them.  The first lesson is that we can't expect any favours (we didn't get any when we were excluded from the 2004 and 2006 leaders' debates, either).  But the second lesson is more interesting, and that lesson is that we don't need favours to win. 

I think our "natural" support level in much of the country would hover around the 25% that Elizabeth won, if and when we can put enough boots on the ground (I've built this assumption into my Green Party roadmap essay).  We saw the same thing here in Calgary when one of our candidates in the 2004 provincial election won 25% in the polls she personally canvassed.  We are still some time away from being able to run the type of campaign Elizabeth did in all 308 ridings, but any riding that does will be campaigning with a solid basis of support.  All of our ridings need to focus on recruiting members and volunteers so we can turn that support into votes on election day.

Elizabeth May is running as the GPC candidate in today's federal by-election in London North Centre.  She has generated a lot of momentum as outlined in this CBC news video and these endorsements.  Check out Elizabeth's blog for more info.  Good luck Elizabeth!  We are all rooting for you to become the first Green Party MP ...

UPDATE:  Elizabeth was a strong second-place finisher with over 25% of the vote [link].  From everything I've heard Elizabeth's team ran a great campaign and we are continuing to attract voters from across the political spectrum [link].  I think these results will translate into more votes across the country in the next general election, as voters increasingly understand the strength of our candidates and policies.

I mention in my internal election campaign materials that I coordinated the GPC's first successful attempt to run 308 candidates in 2004. This success would not have been possible without the efforts of dozens of staff members and volunteers. Click the link to read the original email bulletin that thanked some of our key contributors and confirmed we had achieved our full slate - it was an exciting time! Many of the individuals named in the email contributed as much time and effort as I did during that campaign, or more, and I wanted to thank them once again.   more »