Short term sacrifice for long term survival
Harper has a realistic shot at a majority, given the media attacks on Ignatieff for wanting to help precipitate an election.
If Harper gets a majority, our vote subsidy will be gone almost the very next day.
We need a Liberal minority with Elizabeth in parliament. If that happens all the dynamics of how the media cover us change.
We will suddenly be taken seriously with the added benefit that Harper will be gone from the PMO and very likely gone from Canadian politics althogether. The media only cares about parties with seats. Period.
So for this election only, we have to put every available resource into Winning Saanich via a local ground war and forget about votes elsewhere that -- let's be honest -- only split the progressive vote and help elect Cons ( they won 11 seats last time by less than 2,000 votes).
This strategy will cost us overall vote totals this time, but the alternative is a complete loss of vote subsidies, putting the entire party in financial peril.
I don't suggest this lightly. I have worked hard on Green campaigns and I have donated a lot of money to the party. We have the most rational vision. We are the only reality based party given what's happening in terms of climate and peak energy. HOWEVER, sometimes you have to engage in a strategic retrenchment in order to survive for another day when the Conservatives are less dangerous.
I encourage lots of commentary on this idea ...
My views are not to be taken as the official position of the Green Party of Canada
- Kelly Dueck's blog
- Login to post comments
Search
Recent Comments
- John Shavluk |
- Dan Grice |
- Matthew Clarke |
- Matthew Clarke |
- John Shavluk |
- 1 of 1858
- ››
Email Updates:
Media Releases
- Media Release | 08-Mar-2010
- Media Release | 08-Mar-2010
- Media Release | 05-Mar-2010
Comments
Electoral Reform
As we all know, the problem is we need electoral reform so that the number of Green MPs elected reflects its share of the popular vote. Are you suggesting not running in ridings where we will spilt the progressive vote? I don't believe that is what you are saying. So, we are going to split the progressive vote (assuming the GPC is progressive...). If we are concerned about that, we should merge with the NDP. Otherwise, we should ignore it and do the best we can in every riding and push for electoral reform. If our splitting the vote costs the NDP and Liberals some seats, perhaps they will show more interest in electoral reform.
End this wishy-washy advocacy for "Strategic Voting"
Kelly, I have to express my extreme displeasure with part of your blog. The Party needs to make it clear, and to stand behind the decision, that strategic voting is absolutely unacceptable and does not further the interests of the Party. End of story, period.
We experienced an electoral fiasco in the 2008 election, which in part caused our polling numbers to drop several percentage points on election day. We wasted an opportunity to educate Canadians on what the Green Party is all about and how we would do things differently in Ottawa if elected, and instead opted for bashing Stephen Harper and the Conservatives at almost every opportunity. We did this by sending wishy-washy mixed messages to Canadians during the last campaign. I was on the ground during the last campaign, as were many others who comment here, and we know quite well the confusion and damage which was caused by this messaging.
While I agree with you that electing our Leader is a priority, and that local campaigns should not expect a lot of support from the Party, you go much further with your call for "strategic retrenchments" and seem to suggest that it is appropriate for the Party to take a financial (per-vote) hit in this coming election. To me, it sounds as if you are advocating strategic voting.
The Party is committed to running candidates in all 308 ridings. As we are committed to doing so, it behooves us to do the best that we can in all 308 ridings, by providing all Canadians wherever they may live with the opportunity to cast a ballot for the Party of their choice, to vote for Greens because such a vote is a positive reflection of their own values, hopes and aspirations. Depriving Canadians of the option to cast a ballot for a party that they believe in would hamper our ability to point to ourselves and say to Canadians, "Look, we are different, we want to do things differently; we’re not going to play political games." At the end of the day, strategic voting is just another political game, as it tells Canadians who they should vote against, not for whom they should vote for. And that’s just not credible.
Strategic voting does not help our Party, and it will not help our Party. Only by offering all Canadians a positive choice at the ballot-box is in the interests of our Party.
So true Steve
Strategic voting is a poor substitute to a better alternative. As a party, we can easily run a strong campaign using the Conservatives own record against them. They stand on the wrong side of so many issues in this country, it is not hard to imagine a focussed campaign by any party should cost them dearly.
Just think about their poor judgement regarding: the budget surplus (now deficit), the CBC, the Wheat Board, arts funding cuts, medical isotopes, and the environment. Add to this their uncanny ability to leave confidential documents laying around and it becomes obvious that there is a better choice.
Green influence is real and growing
Kelly, I respect your opinion and your right to publish it here. However, I couldn't disagree more with your contention that "Harper must lose at all costs" and "we need a Liberal minority". I think that the Bloc has the right slogan this year, two parties, same message. The liberals and the conservatives are running campaigns based on their leaders' personalities, because, as NDP blogger Robert McClelland noted at http://myblahg.com/?p=4589, the two party's platforms are virtually identical!
The Liberals will not do any better job of governing this country, nor of putting the brakes on green house gas emissions, nor moving us toward a better democracy, nor will they take us "more seriously", nor become concerned about anything except their own re-election. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
I thank you for your suggestion that you are going to put all of your efforts and resources into Saanich Gulf Islands. Thank you for your dedication to that. But don't tell the rest of Canada how to vote. Most of us are working hard to get them to vote Green, just like in SGI. There is a reason for that. In the long run (which is by far the more important perspective), we need to topple both of these parties, and we will only do that by incrementally increasing our support, our membership, our organization, our votes and our influence.
Of course, strategic voting doesn't help...
Of course, strategic voting doesn't help "The Party", but a CPC majority is about as good as poking your eyes out with a spork.
Steve, when you say, "The Party" has to make a stand on strategic voting, who exactly are you referring to? And who is the imposition directed at? The CPC's policies can cause real hardship for those who get caught in their sights. Are you suggesting this suffering is tolerable?
It's really in our best interest to do everything we can to develop pockets of support sufficient to elect MPs. If we continue to spread our support uniformly thin around the country we will consistently be burdened by this problem.
Wow, I can only infer from
Wow, I can only infer from the negative voting on my comment that members here disagree that a CPC majority is bad.
Support represents success
Bram, our uniform support is our greatest strength. What other party in Canada can claim to have uniform support from coast to coast to coast? You seem to suggest that we should give up on some support here in order to get more support somewhere else, but it doesn't work that way.
Our job is to push, push, push and keep pushing until we can be reasonably sure that our grandchildren will live on a planet whose CO2 levels are declining to manageable levels, that there are still an abundance of natural resources, including oil, for them to use, that there are adequate social systems in place, and to ensure that our democractic systems improve beyond those developed in the 18th century. Until that day, we need every shoulder at the Green wheel.
You fear a CPC majority, but every Conservative majority in the history of Canada (Borden, Bennett, Diefenbaker and Mulroney) was followed by the complete collapse of the Conservative party, requiring it to restructure and often merge with other parties to get back in. Canadians will decide what is best for Canada, and if we have to live with 4 more years of Harper, then that's their decision. It seems to me that we are catching on a little quicker this time, as voters do not seem very willing to be handing anyone a majority in the foreseeable future.
It is fears like this that lead to "negative voting" (voting for the person you hate to thwart the one you despise). I agree with Steve, in that we need to have a strong, consistent and memorable campaign about the benefits of "positive voting" (voting for the person who will do the best job for Canada .. the person you believe in). (By the way, we can all help in this by using the term, negative voting, because that's what it is!)
My suggestion is that we should not lead with our fear. Instead, we should lead with our vision for a better Canada.
Call me old fashioned. I'd
Call me old fashioned. I'd rather have actual success than something you claim represents success. It's a very romantic notion to claim that we're winning the war even if we are losing battles, but we aren't going to win seats by spreading our support thin.
With uniform support, we'd have to exceed 20% national support at the polls to have a chance at winning more than a token number of seats. I don't see that happening any time soon. In other threads, I've already expressed my concerns about saturation, which contrary to some people's pronouncements is being borne out in the polls nonetheless.
We can't spread OR gather
"we aren't going to win seats by spreading our support thin"
But who says we're spreading our support thin? Our supporters aren't like some kind of magical dust which we can sweep into a pile, or sprinkle evenly across the country. We don't control where they live and vote.
Other parties have their areas of strong (or weak) support due to their cultural nature. Obviously the Bloc is strong in separatist-happy Quebec and zero elsewhere. Conservatives are stronger in the conservative West and rural ridings. NDP are strong in union-heavy ridings like Windsor or Hamilton or some logging/mining areas, along with some very soc-prog urban ridings. The Maritimes are a perennial battleground between soft conservatives and soft liberals, as are the suburbs of Ontario. Green, on the other hand, is a value set that crosses regional and demographic boundaries. Some of our strongest ridings are granola-urban, but even stronger than that are some of our rural ridings like Okanagan-Shuswap or BGOS. The demographics of Guelph coudn't be more opposite to those of BGOS, yet those are our two strongest self-standing Green ridings.
Of course, it is somewhat a myth that Greens have such uniform support. We are strongest in BC and Alberta (!) and strong in Ontario, but weaker in the Prairies and very weak in the Maritimes. (And almost extirpated in NL). Quebec Green support has fluctuated wildly and is hard to guage. Our support merely seems more uniform because it occupies a narrower band (3 - 13%) than that of other parties. Looked at alone, there are strong provinces or regions where we have 4-5 times (400-500%) the support of our weaker regions. That's not what I would consider uniform.
Our strong candidates run (with only a couple of exceptions) where they live, and are often strong because of their local ties (and teams). Trying to relocate them to match up strong candidates with strong ridings would likely fail. Right now, only our leader is fully mobile, with our deputy leaders able to target their best-bet regional ridings (Carr in BC, Genest in QC).
Money-wise, our strongest ridings have the best local fundraising and spend $40,000+ each of local money per election. The central party can supplement this, of course, and in the last three elections extra funds were given to or spent on select target ridings rather than having all money spread evenly across the nation. So it's not true to assert that the party spends uniformly. There is, of course, national advertising but there are also regional campaigns. I would not consider some national advertising to be a bad idea; if it raises our vote nation-wide, it at least pays for itself. Plus, it is impossible to truly target one riding's voters - the best is to come at them from a variety of modalities (TV, radio, print, mail) and "channels" (since you can't assume everyone just watches their local station and reads their local paper). In Barrie, for example, I think the national Star, Sun, or Globe may have more subscribers than the hometown Barrie Examiner, and people watch a lot of network or specialty cable TV rather than our local "A".
If one were to see a uniform national campaign as having the effect of adding 5% to each riding's vote, then it would not elect any Greens. But if such a campaign could raise by half the Green vote in each riding (from 2% to 3% or 20% to 30%), then the effect would be to elect several.
Between elections, of course, the party can to some extent choose where to focus on growth. However, the central party can't make local ridings grow by fiat - they have to build on existing strengths. Which means the ridings that already have strong support are best able to attract party resources, such as leader's visits or training events. Although some in the most decentralist camps might wish the party to spread all resources evenly, or even to give the most help to the weakest ridings, this has so far never really been the practice.
The truth is that the party is limited in effectiveness either by lack of resources or poor planning (or a mix of both), so a successful concentrated "beachhead" growth plan has not yet been fully executed, although some attempts (mainly through selective candidate loans/grants) have been made. Over time the tendency of stronger ridings/provinces to grow more than weaker ones will show where our strengths lie. It would actually take some pretty special magic to have our support grow evenly across all ridings, and I don't expect this to happen even if we were to have this as our goal.
One decision which goes against effective strength-building is the leader's preference to conduct her tour by train. While this shows putting our values into practice, it means that she primarily visits those ridings with VIA service rather than the ridings that could most effectively use a leader's visit. For the most part, those ridings don't overlap.
Are you saying we can't appeal to "small c" conservatives?
Dear Kelly,
Sorry to say but this is going to be unsympathetic reaction #4. Let me put it this way. Einstein is quoted as saying that the definition of insanity is "doing the same thing again but expecting different results." If I've mangled your words then I apologize. But it seems like you're saying we follow the same strategy as last election, only we try harder? As other have said before this is another form of "Jiminy Cricketism" and will only end up burning out our candidates and hard working volunteers.
Here's a fact that everyone should read and ponder for its implications.
Last election what were the two largest blocks of voters that changed their affiliations?
The answer is:
#1 LIBERALS who switched to "STAY HOME"(i.e. didn't vote)
#2 LIBERALS who switched to "CONSERVATIVE"
There's also the extra 300,00 who voted Green, which was the only party to actually grow.
So presumeably a right leaning Liberal leader like Ignatieff would put the Liberals back in minority territory. Fair enough, and let him do that. I'm more concerned about growing the Green vote, reaching our supporters, and starting the important community organizing and education that is needed for this movement to succeed.
Also don't assume we can't appeal to small c, progressive, or generally open minded conservatives (yes there are quite a few of those people out there). Maybe you can think of some our values that would overlap?(i.e. Fiscal Responsibility, Participatory Democracy...)
Matthew Piggott
Kitchener Centre
I refuse to be played like a violin
It is not for the Green Party to throw ourselves under a bus to favour any other Party over ourselves. We have a Parliament, and the Conservatives cannot act without the confidence of the house, and the support of some of the opposition.
For us to commit hari kari based upon fear mongering is totally inapropriate. It's for the Party's sitting in the house to determine what bills gain support, not the smallest, and unrepresented Party. Since the Liberal, and/or Bloc, and/or NDP have seen fit to support CPC legislation, said legislation passed. I categorically reject the suggestion that i should reward Parliamentary gamesmanship by voting for negative reasons.
By subscribing to the repugnant strategic voting myth, you betray not only yourself, but your' posterity, our past and present supporters, and the Party you have worked so hard for. We are not responsible for the failure of the old line Party's. Our electorate votes for us because they want and NEED something different to turn to. To try to manipulate our supporters into supporting another Party is not acceptable.
Strategic Voting = No More Green Party
It is that simple. I have NEVER voted Liberal and can't picture myself doing so anytime soon. If the party pushes hard for people to vote for other parties (and we did see a lot of that last time from certain quarters) then this party will die off within another election or two.
People who push for strategic voting seem to believe we need to live in a 2 party system ala the USA. However, look down there and see what has happened - 2 terms of Clinton in the White House and no health care reform. Now Obama and it looks likely that health care reform will again be watered down or killed. Why? Because in a two party system each party only worries about losing votes to the other party. So if you are the 'left wing' party you try to push yourself as far right as you can to steal the other guys votes. If you are the 'right wing' party you do the same the other way (thus explaining why Bush's crew was hit hard last election - they didn't push far enough left to stay in).
If we are down to the CPC and Liberals just watch a Liberal party cut transfer payments, taxes, and spending. Screw the environment if they feel it gets more votes as well. Oh wait - that is EXACTLY what we've seen and are seeing. The Liberals are now supporters of the tar sands projects, they now are talking of cutting the debt without increasing taxes (thus drastic cuts elsewhere are required), and basically have a Conservative running their party.
Anyone who thinks that a Liberal minority or majority will govern drastically differently from a CPC minority or majority is in for a major shock if it happens.
Wellington-Halton Hills
First off, the topic of
First off, the topic of strategic voting is neither a platform item nor a policy item, it's an administration issue for the party. So as far as that goes, do we even have an instrument that would enforce a "no strategic voting" election strategy for GPC spokespersons / candidates?
I think people are more likely to vote strategically if you simply discuss it, regardless of what is decided on the matter. But no matter what, unless you're the candidate, telling people they "can't" vote strategically will probably just annoy them.
I was misunderstood, but thanks for the comments anyway ...
I want to clarify a couple of points because I think I was misunderstood. (Also, sorry in advance for the fairly long post ... I know they can be a pain.)
1. I am not advocating the abandonment of any ridings. We must run a full slate again or risk being labelled a regional party.
2. I am saying that rather than put dollars into ridings that we have no hope of winning, we put those dollars into Saanich-Gulf Islands and rely on physical volunteer labour and other low-cost methods in the weak ridings. Put the dollars into radio and local paid media in Saanich-Gulf Islands and get extra BC volunteers from ridings where we don't have a chance on the ground helping Elizabeth, things like that.
A vote for Elizabeth is worth just as much from a subsidy standpoint as a vote for an unknown candidate in a solidly conservative riding, but that last vote for Elizabeth that puts her over the top and into the House of Commons literally changes everything.
Our system only rewards narrow deep support. (don't believe me? look at us versus the Bloc. We get a pretty similar level of popular support on a "national" basis, but we get nothing and the Bloc gets everything -- even becoming the official opposition, once. Also the Reform party won by getting support in Alberta, then the Prairies, then the West, then rural Ontario ... next thing you know they are the official opposition. The next thing you know they have two straight minority governments and closing in on a majority. They did not go shallow and wide, they went deep and narrow. They know how our system works. They want to win because they know that the only way anything happens in this country is that you have to get power. The "movement" ... they would say that's for hippies. You have to win elections.)
We will get PR when we get a few seats and work with the NDP to force a Liberal Minority to agree to move on it. Until then, it's dead in the water, as far as the punditry and mainstream media is concerned. People like my folks (in their late 70s) who live in Saskatchewan where PR hasn't come up have never even heard of the concept -- but they will hear about it fast if we get a seat or two.
Not trying to cause trouble. Not meaning to criticize any one individual. Not asking us to commit Hari Kari. Just trying to think about our long-term goals through a short-term lens because -- this time -- things really are different. I think one of the other posters on this thread stated, in another thread, that Harper is a menace to our country. That is exactly my point.
Can't really be done
Your suggestion that "rather than put dollars into ridings that we have no hope of winning, we put those dollars into Saanich-Gulf Islands and rely on physical volunteer labour and other low-cost methods in the weak ridings" is actually pretty much the opposite of what we can and should do.
Canada's Elections Act has a little rule called spending limits. Each party/candidate can only spend the limit in their riding - it varies by population, for SGI it is $92,000. That's what the party is allowed to spend promoting Elizabeth, and that's what they'll spend.
But our party's federal election budget is somewhere between $1 - 2 million. That leaves a heck of a lot of money to spend on regional or national advertising, or direct to other key ridings. It is not kosher to try and somehow "aim" all this extra money at Elizabeth & SGI. To do so would be to break the letter and spirit of election laws, would get us in legal trouble, and put us in league with Mr. Steven "In-and-Out" Harper.
On the other hand, there is no limit to how much volunteer effort can be directed to a riding. That is the one way we can really "load up" on SGI. The party can ask that all available volunteers relocate to (or call into) SGI.
There must still be caution. If the party pays expenses for volunteers to get to or live in the riding, those count towards the $92,000 limit. Ditto for the salaries of any party employees or contractors working on the SGI campaign.
One big benefit of SGI over Central Nova is the latter was pretty far from anywhere, meaning it was hard for volunteers to get there. SGI is right next to Victoria and a couple of other Island ridings, and within day-trip distance of the greater Vancouver area. That means a lot more volunteers will be available to supplement the limited amount of staff and advertising budget.
Now, there is no spending limit outside of elections. But because an election may come very soon, and because a certain pain-in-the-butt is delaying Elizabeth's nomination and spending, there may be little more than a few days to try and spend it. A good pre-writ campaign would take weeks or months, not days. Choosing SGI in May rather than September would have allowed for a more effective pre-writ summer. Oh well.
Harper is only as much as menace as the House lets him be. The best way to deal with that is not to urge the overthrow of Harper, but to get Greens in the House with him to keep him - and all the other parties - honest. The easiest way to overthrow Harper is through negative voting, but all that does is reward parties for being slightly less bad (if they even are). What a waste of a vote! The best use of a vote is to support whichever party offers the best platform. Since no two platforms are the same and there are overlaps between all of them (right now, especially between Liberal and Conservative), there is no such thing as "vote splitting".
There is plenty which can be
There is plenty which can be done. Can't we train professional campaign teams who can be dropped into targeted ridings? By professional, I mean volunteers who earn a living learning how to volunteer effectively. Nothing helps an election more than professional campaigners. We can't afford to do this for all ridings, but certainly we can afford it for targetted ridings.
Plus we can do what other parties do, target the local good and bad sources within the riding. Nurture the good, get the bad to move on. We don't do any of this.
Not sure what you mean
This is basically what I am saying - that we have to focus volunteer efforts, not money. Money is subject to limits, volunteers aren't.
However, I don't know what you mean by professionals who earn a living by volunteering. Who is paying this living? If the party (or campaign) is paying, then it counts against the spending limit. Not only salary, but if the party is providing accommodations or meals. Even full-time volunteers have to eat and sleep. You might try to avoid this through billeting and such, but technically these are non-monetary contributions which should be accounted for in the limit.
I also don't know how one gets the bad to move on. Even if they don't live in the riding, they can still cause major roadblocks. (cf Stuart Hertzog). Which brings us back to the pre-writ period, when the party can spend as much as it likes on volunteer training (and identifying supporters). That is, if there isn't someone whinging that each such dollar is a violation of his grassroots rights.
Between elections people can
Between elections people can be employed by the party in such a fashion that they might learn how to be good campaigners. During an election, they'd sort of be expected to volunteer, but they'd be quite professional at it, seeing as how that's their day job.
Relying on local volunteers is great, but they need supplementation for key ridings.
Done and done
To a certain extent this is already being done. However, the party has a very limited budget (based on their own internal priorities) to have more than a handful of people in this role. The closest analog are the regional organizers.
To be most effective, such folks would have to be willing to relocate at the drop of a hat to the target ridings (winnable by-elections or top ridings based on local conditions in a general election). Finding such folks - who are willing to work for what we can afford to pay (especially since they'd be working "for free" during elections) isn't easy.
There are a few people already who tend to make their way to by-elections or leader's ridings, sleep on the couch, and volunteer their growing experience. They aren't paid between elections, either. But there are only a handful of them, and using them to win ridings would require a dozen or a few dozen.
Always something to aim for, however.
Regarding negative voting
Bram, it's not an issue of administration, it is an issue of respect and of long term growth. You can't tell people how to vote. Period. Telling people how to vote is disrespectful to them. Telling them to vote anything other than Green is disrespectful to this party, and antithetic to the needed growth of the party. Our job is to educate and inform. It is the voters job to decide who should have power.
My position on negative voting is clear, and you have not addressed any of the points which others and myself have raised, so this will be my last post on this thread.
In summary, if you equate electing a Liberal with "success" then I would urge you to join the Liberal party. I am sick and tired of Greens who ride along with their hands firmly on the brakes while the rest of us are working hard to pedal this thing up the side of a mountain. It is a lot of work, and it can and will be done in its time. Frankly, it would be a lot easier if members who advocate for negative voting demonstrated their values by going and helping some other party, and stop distracting everyone with this short term thinking. Then, when you find out that your new emperor has no clothes, come on back and start peddling.
I haven't addressed any of
I haven't addressed any of your points because I am not advocating for strategic voting. I want to point out that it is a serious consideration that voters may want to vote strategically whether you like it or not. Regardless, it does not allay fears that a CPC or Liberal majority is worse than another minority. Developing pockets of concentrated support prevents this entire problem, but we'll have none of it! We must advocate universal failure; if we were succeed somewhere there would be no more mountain to pedal up I suppose. You can pedal up the mountain if you choose, but the problem isn't up there. So when you get there, I'll have to ask you to come back down and get to helping us regular folk.
Ranting that strategic voting will mean an end to the GPC is disdainful. I refuse to believe the GPC is so close to demise that we're one strategic vote away from dissolution. If it were true, maybe we should have put more thought into the problem by now. In fact, maybe we should have put more thought into the problem anyway.
I raise your sick and tired with an I am sick and tired that whenever anyone wants to discuss a matter of serious importance here that there is gross intolerance, it's antithetical and certainly is not a reflection what could be achieved with thoughtful debate. An argument that devolves into telling someone to leave the party is contemptuous.
When you ask someone if they will vote Green, and you get the sense they want to but may vote strategically, I really hope you've got something better in your pocket than: your second choice is so bad that your last choice might as well be elected.
Strategic failure
The point is not that negative voting (against instead of for) will destroy the GPC; it won't. Nevative voting will always happen as long as we have FPP. It is a factor we must always anticipate and message against, and it will always reduce our vote somewhat (as it does for the NDP in many places, and for other parties depending on their local factors).
The point is that for the Green Party, leader, candidates, spokespeople or members to ADVOCATE or even CONDONE "strategic voting" would destroy the party. Our supporters look to us for direction; we must always ask them to vote Green, never ask them to vote for something lousy to prevent something perhaps worse. They may choose to vote negatively, that's their choice, but it should never be our advice. Were it to be, there would be no point in us existing.
In FPP a person can only mark a ballot "for", not "against". As Greens, we should thus be urging a vote for us, which is a vote against all the grey parties. For us to provide a suggested ranking "We're the best, but he's the worst, so even if you don't vote for us, don't vote for him" is to condone or advocate negative voting - and to undermine our own raison d'être.
This tempest is not a teapot
@Kelly
I appreciate that you want us to get a couple of seats so things will change. Me, too. The problem is that we need to be extremely careful about what we say, because this is politics and this forum is in the public eye.
When anyone says "Harper must lose at all costs", they are advocating negative voting. They are saying, well it doesn't really matter if we don't get any seats this time as long as the really, really bad guy doesn't win. It says, "if you want to help the planet, lop of the biggest head of the Hydra". But we all know the story from Greek mythology .. the hydra just grows another head while the remaing heads keep things going.
So that is why it is so important for us to be precise in our communication. You can say "vote Green" or you can say "Harper has to go", but you cannot logically say both. We need people to vote and continue to vote Green election after election after election. Each vote has a voice, and we want to demonstrate to Canadians that we are continuing to grow with each election. Remember, the Green party was the ONLY party in Canada to get more votes in 2008 than in 2006. Every other party, including the Conservatives, lost votes. We will get to 20% and beyond, but only if we continue to push.
(apologies, I said the last post was my last post on this thread ....)
we are the strategic vote !
we are the strategic vote
we are the strategic vote
Say it
at least till you get it.....ok?
Get it through your heads though before you ever go out there representing us !!
I agree with what has already been said about us being ourselves and forgetting this complete stupidity expressed in the past by picking favorites from the looosers we face.
If for nothing more than the federal funding alone .....we go earn every dam vote and of course try to hold the million we are already entrusted with.
I just came back from growing the party in saskatchewan and alberta where I recruited members, spoke to groups and even came up with two new candidate hopefuls in calgary.
"Like a hand on a brake" was perfect and correct.....
you others ...get in the back and shut up with this strategic crap unless you just mean for others to do so to give us green votes.
Do not take my style as an excuse to just ignore my intent please.
Yeah I know.....welcome back John
Oh and by the way... who now "still" disagrees with my "old" statement about no election?...LOL
Ole jack ...yes ...will as I said now crumble for any improvement to the employment insurance.
Only stupidity will bring another election...so it is possible... I know but not very likely.
Cheers
Every vote is important
A few points from my point of view:
- every vote should be respected no matter why that person voted the way they did. If they voted GPC or Liberal etc because they wanted to get rid of a Conservative government or they didn't want Harper in power so be it. I give the benefit of doubt that every voter has the best interests of the country at heart.
- I believe the best strategy for GPC is to concentrate limited resources in strategic riding. No Green MP's mean limited Green influence on legislation.
- the real untapped voting pool are not conservative voters, liberal voters etc the real support Greens can target are the 30-35% of Canadians, particularly young voters, that don't vote at all
- (off topic) I don't believe we ran a candidate in all 308 ridings. In the district of Humber - St. Barb Baie Vert in Nfld (where I am originally from) I don't believe they ran a Green candidate last time
That's it. these views are my own.
excellent point
Thanks for making this very important point about the 40% of people who aren't voting.
The best part about convincing new voters to vote for you is that you're not "stealing" anybody's vote (as if any party owned a vote!) .
There is also a large group of permanent residents who have not yet achieved their citizenship (and thus can vote) who would be open to voting for us. This is easier because voting paterns have not been entrenched and every party is essentially new.
This subject condensed to a one liner
Here is what it comes down to:
"Are you going to vote for something(Green) or against something(Conservative/Harper)?"
Read the above and become informed, but this is the essence of what we're talking about.
Matthew Piggott
Kitchener Centre
42 % + 7% is much more than harper has
Yes I agree
These are some of these mentioned and what has to be said and done with them
August 8 2009
"""Bob
"""I would vote if there was a party worth voting for. No point voting Conservative, Liberal or NDP. None of those will change things to a noticeable degree. They're pretty much the same except for their names. Voting Green is pointless because there is no way that enough supporters of the three main parties are ever going to switch over, so there is no way they will ever get anything but a meaningless tiny percentage of votes anyway."""
THERE IT IS !!!!!
THE PART YOU DO NOT GET !!!
its you !!
nothing more than u required.....all the u's and their 10 friends in their circle
now I will explain
look at the numbers
http://www.elections.ca/scripts/OVR2008/default.html
we were the only ones to go up with the most ever spent by the others in the worst turn out in history
YOU ARE THE KEY !!
WE DID IT BY ATTRACTING ......""""ONLY NON VOTERS """"" !!!
42 % did not vote.........
42 % is 6% more than what harper has...and we got 7% ALREADY !!!
WAKE UP AND DO YOUR PART AND WE DO NOT NEED THE ENTRENCHED HYPOCRITES IN THE OTHER PARTIES !!
but I am sure we will even get some of those as well...
I mean if you do your part !!!!!!!!!!!!
WAKE UP BOB !!!
I AM JUST YOU TOO
IT WILL WORK AND I HAVE PROVED IT ALREADY
IT YES DOES TAKE FAITH ...BUT SO WHAT DOES NOT THAT IS WORTH IT ?""
http://forums.cannabisculture.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1560076&page=all
(I have to use alias's at this point at emerys site...oh yes we cannabis is one of them...its a long story )
PS any of you sharp tacks notice "recent comments " only means one day now ???????????
Go look
Nice ...eh?
what fear... what hypocrisy ...what soon to be again losers maybe? I say....
people are smarter than given credit
some should learn that