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.

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.

I've been working on a new essay that examines the problems currently faced by the GPC, and how these problems can be fixed. I've identified about 30 key problems that are divided into three main categories: political, organizational, and cultural. After writing up an analysis of the first three organizational problems I can see that finishing all 30 will take some time, so I thought I'd present the problems and solutions in a "serialized" format as they are finished. I don't have a specific time-frame in mind for the next set, but keep watching the blog for updates.

The articles that have been published to date are below.  The ranking represents my opinion about the relative importance of the problem compared to other problems facing the party.

Fixing political problem #1:  The Canadian electoral system
Fixing political problem #2:  Building a national party 

Fixing organizational problem #1:  An inexperienced council
Fixing organizational problem #2:  Strategic planning
Fixing organizational problem #3:  Activating volunteers

Fixing cultural problem #1:  Suspicion

As the new council works on planning priorities and budget for 2007, I'd like to encourage them to consider what they can do to foster policy development.  As outlined in my roadmap essay I consider establishing a successful policy development process to be one of the five key building blocks necessary for our long-term success.

Over the past couple of years many GPC members likely became familiar with a "3M" organizational structure promoted by David Scrymgeour:  that is, we should focus our efforts on the areas of membership, message, and money.  I believe that the training and tools put together by David to support 3M are very useful and have helped many EDAs increase their effectiveness.

One of the things that prompted me to write the roadmap essay were some thoughts about how the 3M strategy could be modified to better reflect and support the GPC organization at the national level.  In particular, there is no clear place for policy development in 3M.  This is unfortunate since our policy defines who and what we are.  Here is the first part of Article 4 of the GPC constitution: 

Article 4 - Purpose:  It is the purpose of The Party to advance The Party’s platform, policy, values and basis of unity, and to contribute to the welfare of Canada, Canadians and the community of life in Canada ...

I think it is difficult to figure out where policy fits into the 3M because, as the above paragraph makes clear, the purpose of the party as a whole is significantly different than the purpose of non-political organizations (or even local EDAs).  In any case, here is the link to the section in the essay where I discuss how policy development can be integrated into 3M.

In order to ensure our long-term success, the central party and council need a plan to ensure that policy development is fostered in the same way that a plan is needed for the 3M activities. Note that I am not suggesting that council work on policy itself.  That is the job of Shadow Cabinet and interested members. But council should ensure that planning, processes, procedures, resources, etc are in place in the same way that they are put in place to support 3M activities.

Elizabeth May understands the importance of policy development and that is why one of the first things she did was initiate her cross-Canada policy series, an idea which I strongly support.  In 2007, we need to expand on this idea by ensuring that enough resources are in place whereby the nitty-gritty details of policy can be developed on an ongoing basis.  In 2004, a Wiki was used, but it eventually started to suffer abuses.  With some effort, these problems can likely be corrected and complemented by other vehicles that allow all interested party members to engage in the policy development process.

Those who follow the polls may have noticed that sometimes we are around 9-10%, sometimes we are around 6-7%, and other times we are only around 5-6%.  What gives?  There are numbers enough for anyone who wants to trumpet that we are doing well, or that we are doing poorly.

I think the key thing to look for is the company doing the polling:  Decima Research has the highest numbers, Leger Marketing is in the middle and SES Research typically has us on the low end.  Each company will use a polling methodology that is fairly consistent from internal poll to internal poll, but is not necessarily consistent with polls from other companies.

What I suspect is happening is this:  in the 2006 election our high-end polling numbers solidified around 6-7% in the weeks prior to the election.  But on election day we only got 4.5% - about 2/3 of the high-end numbers.  This is the traditional percentage of votes that smaller parties like the Greens are able to convert to votes on election day.  A key reason for this is that we only have about 10,000 members, or an average of 30 or so members per riding.  So it is hard to implement effective get-out-the-vote (GOTV) campaigns in most ridings. 

Some of the polling companies are probably taking this into account, and some are not.  SES pollster Nik Nanos (who gives us the low-end numbers) spoke at the GPC convention in Ottawa in August and emphasised that GOTV is something that could give us big gains.  As our membership numbers and general level of acceptance by the Canadian electorate continue to increase, and we become increasingly able to develop and implement get-out-the-vote (GOTV) campaigns (as seen in the London North Centre by-election) the percentage of vote we are able to convert will increase.  It may well be that the low-end numbers from SES are already too low. 

For planning purposes, I suggest that the party take the number at the middle of the bell curve of numbers from all companies.  Or, since we like to focus on the bigger numbers, we should only use 2/3 of the high-end numbers from companies like Decima.  Then when we get to 15% from Decima or 10% from SES we can be more assured that we will hit double-digits on election day (and won't feel disappointed if we don't achieve the high-end numbers we are hoping for).

An aside:  When polling numbers are close news articles typically say the race are too close too call.  But I enjoyed this article from way back when from Kevin Drum that explains that a better way to think of poll numbers is in percentages, based on the margin of error (MOE) in the poll.  The chart from the article is below.  The percentages in the body of the chart represent the likelihood that candidate/party A is ahead of candidate/party B, given the percentage lead and the MOE:

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.

Some of you may have read my earlier post about the "State of the Party" poll I asked the old council to complete at our last in-person meeting in Ottawa in June [link].  The idea was to get a rough idea of how the party is doing in 16 key areas.

Prior to the General Meeting in August Jim Harris set up a two-day strategy session and invited a "who's who" of Greens from across the country to attend - provincial leaders, elected Greens, leading EDA reps, and so on.  I took the opportunity to conduct another SOTP poll and a little more than 30 strategy session attendees participated.

The quick and dirty summary is that these key Greens provided a snapshot of our progress that was slightly more pessimistic than council - on average the responses were about 1 point below the old council's perceptions.  Overall, the two sets of data tracked each other fairly consistently.  However, on two key issues - how the party is doing overall, and how well we did in the 2006 election - strategy session attendees rated things about 2 points below council.  Click the "more" link below for a chart with full details.

(An aside - when I was prompting the strategy session to complete the poll I joked that now was the chance to provide the new council with realistic data about how they thought the party was doing, since the old council ranked everything 10 out of 10.  A couple of people came up to me afterwards and asked if that was true.  It seems like the old council might have been viewing things with a certain rose-coloured tint, but we weren't quite that bad!)

As could be expected there was a fair amount of variance in the raw data for each question.  The most notable range were the responses to the question of how solid our policy was.  Of the 34 responses every single option from 1 through 10 was chosen, resulting in a standard deviation of 2.4.  I am happy to note that Elizabeth May is working to get a series of policy fora up and running, and I hope that these sessions will help to improve our policy across the board.  As I discuss in my roadmap essay [link] we are rapidly approaching a point where our ability to attract new members and win more votes will be tied closely to the strength of our policy and election platform.

I'd like to encourage the new council to conduct their own poll on these issues.  I also think it would be a very interesting exercise to conduct a party-wide poll by sending an email out to our members with a link to an electronic poll for them to complete.  Collecting this sort of information is helpful in analyzing our progress over time, and it can also be used as a resource in strategic planning discussions to help determine how and where we should focus our resources.

   more »

At our June council meeting in Ottawa councillors did a short exercise to take a "State of the Party" snapshot. Each councillor was able to rank from 1 to 10 (where 1 is bad, and 10 is good) how they thought the party was doing in 16 different broad areas. The idea was to do a sort of poll where the results that would help to indicate where the current council thought we were doing well, and where we thought improvements were needed.

If this poll was conducted by the new council on a regular basis then I think it will help the party to analyze how we are doing over time. I think it would also be useful to regularly poll members with the same questions. Low polling results by all groups would indicate obvious problems. Discrepancies in the results would indicate other possible problems. For example, if council thought we were doing well in an area and members thought we were poorly than it might indicate something to look into. In addition, I think this information will be valuable when it comes to our strategic planning efforts.

Councillors weren't asked to provide written input but certainly that would be another useful exercise for both councillors and members. Mike Nickerson did something like this in Ontario and I thought the results were useful and interesting. But again, the advantage of the "snapshot" view is that the responses can be given quickly and the results can help to provide a high-level overview at a glance.

Click the link for the results ...   more »

In my last posting I analyzed parts of Murray Dobbin's recent article about the GPC. In the article Dobbin stated that running a Green in every riding helps elect Conservatives and defeat NDPers.

On the surface this contention does not seem accurate to me, especially given the bashing the Greens take from some NDP supporters for being too right-wing. Reviewing the many differences between NDP and Green platforms is probably enough for many to understand that Green voters are not primarily wayward NDP voters. But let's consider the facts for those who want more support for the contention that Green Parties draw voters from across the political spectrum.

To start, consider this poll done prior to the May 2001 provincial election in BC.  The Green Party of BC jumped to 12% in that election and the poll shows that they weren't pulling their support exclusively from the NDP. Here is the relevant quote on page 8:

Green Party voters – the "softest" support of the three main parties – are split between the BC Liberals and the NDP as their second choice. Twenty-seven percent would vote BC Liberal as their second choice and 24% would vote NDP. A further 12% of Green Party voters say their second choice would be Unity BC. Thirty percent of Green Party voters are uncommitted to a second choice party.

The BC Liberals are right-wing and the Unity BC party is very right-wing. So the second-choice split is 39% right, 24% left, and 30% uncommitted.

I have also seen a 2002 Ipsos poll on BC provincial politics that showed that 44% of Greens would vote NDP as their second choice, 15% would vote Liberal and 15% Unity (30% on the right) and 22% are undecided. But this poll was done at a time when many people were angry at the Liberals over the right-wing policies they were implementing in BC and I think that partly explains why second-choice NDP support jumped from only 24% in May 2001.

I haven't seen any polls that provide this detailed breakdown federally. However pages 11 and 12 of this poll released shortly before the June 2004 election shows that second-choice support is not high for any given party - the NDP is the highest at 18% but the Greens aren't that far behind at 11%. The previous week the numbers were 24% for the NDP and 18% for the Greens:

All in all it is just not clear that our votes would go to the NDP if the Greens weren't running and it is time to put that tired meme to rest. My rough estimate based on the BC polls and from talking to our supporters is that we get 1/3 of our votes from the right, 1/3 from the left and 1/3 from voters who would not otherwise vote.  We need to do some get-out-the-vote work for the non-voting group to help bring our election day results closer to our pre- and post-election polling results.

Neither left nor right, but forward.

The Green Party of Canada has been working on transitioning from an organization that has a "working" council to one that has a "governing" council. As part of this transition I believe council need to start thinking in terms of "roadmaps" for the party. For example, if we define how and where we should prioritize in the coming years then it will be easier to give direction to our Executive Director about how budget funding and resources should be allocated. I've recently completed the attached essay with some thoughts on this and other GPC matters.

Here is the introduction to the essay.

The Green Party of Canada has come through an incredible period of growth over the past three years. Two successful elections have raised public awareness about the party and have brought us over $1,000,000 per year in federal funding. Many of you are probably asking: What next? How do we continue to grow? This essay is an attempt to explore these questions and start to build agreement about the best way to proceed.

Click on the "more" link to view the entire article or click on the attachment to download the essay in a 2-column formatted PDF file.

I hope you find the essay thought-provoking and I look forward to your comments.
   more »