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.

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 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?

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.

Jim Harris has blogged about how the GPC has been instrumental in helping to win a court case that is a first step to removing the 2% voting threshold required for federal political parties to receive $1.75 per vote per year in federal funding.  Jim pushed hard for the GPC to get involved in this case when he was GPC Leader.  The decision has been appealed by the Attorney General but I think it is a great example of how the GPC can help to promote democratic reform in the country.  Well done, Jim!

It's one week to the mid-term elections in the US.  Some of you who have browsed my sidebar links may have noticed that I like to follow US politics.  I lived in the US for a few years and got my start in Green politics by doing volunteer work for the Green Party congressional candidate in Omaha, Nebraska in 2002.  But I wanted to link to an excellent website called Electoral-Vote.com that tracks the progress of the various US political campaigns [link].  It's worth checking out ...

Adriane Carr has resigned as leader of the Green Party of BC [link].  I had the opportunity to work closely with Adriane when I served on the GPBC council in 2003, and I was always impressed by her energy, her passion and her committment to Green values. 

I think Adriane's forte was public speaking:  her performance in the 2001 televised leadership debates in the BC provincial election led directly to the GPBC winning 12% of the vote.  In my opinion, this was a watershed moment for the Greens in Canada.  Adriane and her team showed Canadians that the Greens were a viable alternative to the old-line, "grey" parties, and her election successes set the stage for the subsequent growth of the GPC and other provincial parties.

Well done, Adriane, and thank you.

UPDATE:  Adriane has joined the GPC as our Deputy Leader.  Congratulations and good luck!

Need more evidence that the impact of the Green Party in Canadian politics is continuing to grow?  Check out this Toronto Star article:  [link].  Liberal leadership candidate Stephane Dion mentions the Greens (and, indirectly, Elizabeth May) in the second sentence of his opening remarks, which preface a 3000-word Q&A with the Star editorial board.

The Green Party has a great new Leader in Elizabeth May.  She brings extensive skills, credentials and passion to her new role.  It was clear when she spoke at the convention after winning that the delegates were fully behind her.  And by winning 65% of the vote on the first ballot she left no doubt that the party as a whole supports her as well.  I think we have an exciting few years ahead with Elizabeth leading the way ...

I applaud David Chernushenko's campaign as well.  It was great for the party that we had two very strong candidates running for the leadership.  We've already doubled our membership this year to 9000, in large part as a result of the leadership race.  I was very glad to hear at the convention that David is going to remain actively involved and I loved his line that the other parties calling to court him to run for them can "save their dime, and save their time" since he is committed to the Greens.  Of course, phone calls these days are $0.35 but who's counting.

Jim Fannon did not fare that well with only 29 votes (less than 1% of the 3000 or so cast).  I know he was disappointed with the result.  However, it seems clear that the party is rapidly maturing.  In 2004, John Grogan ran a "protest vote" campaign that was weaker than Jim Fannon's, and I believe he still won 10% of the vote against Jim Harris and Tom Manley.  I think Jim is a personable guy who has a role to play in the party, but my feeling is that he is still trying to figure out exactly what that role is (along with the rest of us - what a speech on Friday night!)

And let's not forget our fourth candidate NOTA (none of the above), which won 14 votes.  This could have been the surprise of the evening.  I would have thought that everyone voting could have found someone to like between Elizabeth, David and Jim.  Could the party have hand-picked three more dissimilar candidates to run for the leadership?

Recently Duncan Cameron proposed that a unite-the-left effort between the Green Party and the NDP would help promote a Green agenda in Parliament.  I believe that is an excessive way to go about things when the option of electoral reform is ready and waiting.  Then Green Party MPs can start working in Parliament with all other parties to promote and implement our policies.

I'm not sure how many people are aware that the Law Commission of Canada proposed such reforms to our federal electoral system:

Recommendation 1:

The Law Commission of Canada recommends adding an element of proportionality to Canada's electoral system.

This change and the other electoral reforms proposed by the LCC would help ensure that parties that have fundamentally different policies, objectives and values will not find it necessary to merge to achieve a few of their shared objectives.  The parties that do have representation in Parliament can and should make an effort to start implementing these recommendations now.