It is time for greens to join the Orange Wave
Today, two prominent members of the Bloc Quebecois came out in support of Jack Layton and the NDP. "Voting NDP is today the solution for escaping the cycle of minority Conservative governments," wrote a former Bloc riding association president and a former Bloc adviser in an open letter. The NDP popularity in Quebec is based on shared values of social justice and a commitment to the environment, values which are widespread in Quebec. Quebecers are recognizing that splitting the progressive vote is inimical to getting their ideals represented in Parliament. Now is the time for progressive environmentalists in English Canada to make the same choice.
The NDP has been the leading force in parliament to push for environmental initiatives. Jack Layton is the author of the Climate Change Accountability Act that commits Canada to implement the measures of the Kyoto Accord. The platform of the NDP reflects many of the most important goals of the Canadian environmental movement. Significant reductions in greenhouse gases, labelling of genetically engineered foods, an end to the expansion of the tar sands, no new nuclear plants, funding for greener homes and green investment - if even a portion of this plan were implemented, Canada would lose its place as the perennial fossil award favourite, to become a world leader in sustainable development.
Over the past few elections, there have been many calls for strategic voting. Most often this has turned into a call for Canadians to hold their noses and vote Liberal. Once in Parliament however, the Liberal record has been decidedly weak. Liberals supported recent Conservative budgets that carved away important sections of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Even on non-confidence motions, the Liberals have too often voted to protect the interests of corporations over the environment. Earlier this year, Liberals did an about face under pressure from Monsanto and Cargill to stop C-474, an NDP bill that would have required that new GE crops to undergo an economic assessment before being registered. Meanwhile, twelve years of the Chrétien-Martin government did nothing to abate climate change.
The NDP platform has weaknesses on several environmental issues. After all, it is the product of a broad-based political party representing many competing interests. Some point out that the measures they put forward on climate change do not go far enough to meet their intended goals. However, the NDP platform does provide a starting place from which those goals can be addressed.
This election, Canadians have a clear alternative with the growing popularity of the NDP. There is hope that Canadians could finally have a government that reflects the values we cherish, while preserving our environment for future generations. It is time for greens of all political stripes to paint their votes orange.
I don't know if this is a fair thing to ask. They have a right to their political party as much as NDPers do. We didn't buy the "Vote for Liberals to beat Harper", why should we go and do the same to an even smaller party...
That said, I am an NDP supporter and not a Green, and I personally think they should vote for us if they like what they see ;)
I've been an NDP supporter all my voting life, but I can't agree with what sounds like a call for strategic voting. I hated the call for strategic voting when the Liberals used to make it to our voters, and I don't think the NDP should be so arrogant as to start making it to voters of other parties. If former Green supporters want to vote NDP this time because they support the platform, that is great. But I think the appeal should be for straight out votes, not for strategic votes, which I see as dishonest and anti-democratic.
As for the NDP, I sincerely hope they beef up their neglected environmental platform, and bring back some of the ideas that could be found in earlier, stronger, NDP platforms going back to 2004 and before.
I think the decisions of the individual Green party voter (or potential voter) should be respected. I am quite certain they are aware of the option of "parking" their vote with any other party for short term gain in this (or any) election. While I, as a New Democrat, would be extremely happy to see significant portions of their vote move in my party's direction I don't think appeals to "not split the 'progressive' [sic] vote" sound any better coming out of our mouths than they do out of Liberal party mouths. The responsibility of any voter is to make the choice that best reflects what they think is in the best interests of themselves, their riding and their country. If they think the Green platform is superior to that of the NDP, then it seems to be they ought to be voting Green. There is a line between touting the virtues of one's own decision and fear-mongering to try and get others change theirs, let's not cross it. [Is this the point where I threaten to toss heavy, pointy objects at anyone who come here Tuesday morning to lament "if only they had listened to us... we would have won"].
Yeah. Or let the Eastern Squirrels loose on them.
Or toss "them" at Eastern grey squirrels... there are lots (although not and endless supply) of permutations.
Squirrel v. "if only" poster "Cage Match"!
Ken, I hope people learn to take these things seriously.
I'd like to see the NDP do well this time around, but I'm reluctant to expect supporters of the GPC to help make that happen on my account, if the NDP hasn't convinced them.
I just hope that people who vote Green are aware they are fiscally conservative party and not anti-capitalist.
What I'm now wondering is if, with both Harper and Ignatieff strategists potentially implicated in the Layton smear, large blocs of old-time COnservative and Liberal voters might not swing, in the last two days, to the Greens as a way of expressing their disgust towards the old parties WITHOUT voting NDP.
Is it possible that, in spite of herself, Elizabeth May could end up as Leader of the Opposition to a Jack Layton NDP government?
I agree with bagkitty. Expecting the Greens to abandon their party and vote NDP to strengthen the progressive vote is no more palatable than asking NDPers to vote Liberal to keep the Tories in a minority.
Anyway, apart from the fact that the Greens aren't progressive on so many issues, strategic voting is, IMHO, is a cynical abandonment of personal conviction and ideals, and haven't we all had enough of that?
Not one poll that I have seen gives the Greens even one seat, so it's fairly obvious that voting Green is an exercise in futility. Why not park your vote with the one progressive party in Canadian politics - the NDP?
@Rebecca:
I like it when people agree with me
it is hard finding adherents to my vendetta against the Eastern grey squirrel... for some reason people think they are "cute". Your sling-shot is on its way to you as you read this.
Not one poll that I have seen gives the Greens even one seat, so it's fairly obvious that voting Green is an exercise in futility. Why not park your vote with the one progressive party in Canadian politics - the NDP?
Elizabeth May leading in Saanich-Gulf Islands
I think that's more accurately "leading within the margin of error", assuming of course that you trust in internal poll.
You know...at this point in the election campaign, I almost wish that were true mmphosis.
Sadly, the Green Party has cried wolf too many times with this sort of "internal polling release" for anyone to take their release seriously.
I do not care about vote splitting, I do not care that she might be leading in her own riding. Elizabeth May and her crew decided to run on a campaign of 'politeness in politics.' What an utter abject failure Elizabeth May and the current version of the Green Party have become. Did anyone really expect this to catch on with any large number of people? What the heck were they thinking? We are in the midst of increasing climate chaos; the industrialized West is now on its third failing front in the Oil/Gas War (1st failing front is Afghanistan, 2nd failing front is Iraq, and the 3rd is Libya). All fronts of this war have actually aided/provided gifts to Al Qaeda and its clones. At any moment, if one particular cell makes a successful attack on oil ports in either Saudi Arabia or Bahrain, the price of oil could double or triple overnight. With every minute, with every day the need to get off fossil fuels and to develop a serious renewable energy program involing solar, wind, geo-thermal, wave, etc, becomes ever more pressing. The Green Party of Canada should have made that its primary thrust with a seriously aggressive grassroots media campaign. That has not happened. It has not happened because most of the social movements that have contributed to the development of what has become the Green Party are woefully maldeveloped and misdirected. It has not happened because the current Green Party of Canada seems to be an adjunct or not-so-silent, tacit partner of the Liberal Party. I do not care about rumours about how Elizabeth May is supposedly abrasive to her own circle (like that matters and as if that is something that could be ascertained - most Green types are too fragile to handle any form of discourse that involves words with hard consonants). I would have been thrilled if she had taken a knife to Ezra Levant's throat and told him to stop interrupting her. She did not fight hard for environmental issues, period. That is it and that is reason alone not to vote for her or the Green Party anywhere in Canada. Fight hard for the central issues of our times or get out of the way. We need to push her the cliff, period.
Not one poll that I have seen gives the Greens even one seat, so it's fairly obvious that voting Green is an exercise in futility. Why not park your vote with the one progressive party in Canadian politics - the NDP?
Elizabeth May leading in Saanich-Gulf Islands
A pundit on P&P - from E. May's riding no less - said the Greens have a 'slim chance' of beating Lunn - just a couple of days ago.
I think she has the best chance of beating the con. A strategic ABC vote in SGI would be for May.
Although the Greens stand to win only about half as many votes as in the last election, this may well be the difference that allows half a dozen Conservative MPS to squeak through. This is particularly worrisome in BC with its plethora of marginal ridings and where the Greens are polling 9% and 12.5% respectively in the latest Leger and Ekos polls.
Furthermore Leger says only 18% of Green voters say the Cons are their second choice. Ekos says it is only 11%.
In an election this close the Green vote could well mean the difference between a Harper majority and a Harper defeat.
Ha Ha the cons are so desperate their asking supporters to talk libs into voting for them...Libs probably beat them with a broom...typical con always trying to get other people to do their dirty work...
The libs have that golden opportunity to permenantly wipe that oswald smirk from Harpers traitorous mug forever and possibly ship him off to the Hague where he belongs for future processing gulp gag ...
The libs can actually come out of this election looking real good if they stick it to Harper...at least losing with some form of integrity and respect.
This is a big opportunity for the greens also..sure give May her seat but the rest vote NDP..she'll have her voice,along with the libs an NDP ...
I believe once the cons are ousted and the NDP take over they will find so many crooked things that have gone on ,the conservatives may never recover....But first they must be Krushed.
Krush The Kon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0eQgUpkJ1Q
Cut and Run
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns8LD5Q8ecc
Although I'm voting Green in the only riding that has a chance to beat a Harperite (May's riding) environmental voters elsewhere should say NO to the Harper environmental disaster, and that means voting ABC for the chance at a likely NDP-led non-Harper coalition.
Without proportional representation voting Green is just a protest vote, the point of which could be made much better by writing a couple of letters for proportional representation and for environmental justice.
Anyway, apart from the fact that the Greens aren't progressive on so many issues, strategic voting is, IMHO, is a cynical abandonment of personal conviction and ideals, and haven't we all had enough of that?
Gee, so for you "strategic voting" ranks, kind of like, supporting the NATO action against Libya? Or even lower?
Get off your high horse please, Rebecca. I have consistently voted in my riding with a view to preventing a Liberal win. I hold my nose and vote for Mulcair - a raving Zionist apologist - because he's the best of a bad lot and because he helps with my particular goal. I have voted in the past for the Bloc, not because I support their aims (I don't), but to try to help break the erstwhile Liberal stranglehold over certain sections of the Québec electorate.
More broadly, you must think the "Anyone But Conservatives" line - which has attracted so many young voters in my own sphere of work, never mind across Canada - must be the depth of cynicism, right? Better for someone to pick a party - Liberal, NDP, Bloc, Green - or Conservative - and stick to it, out of some kind of "principle"?
What should I do if I'm sickened by the attacks on Libya, the continued occupation of Afghanistan, the shameless support for Israeli apartheid? Should I abstain - because otherwise, I'm abandoning some kind of "principle"? I'm not allowed to support the Anyone But Harper movement - a very very real movement, Rebecca, whether you choose to recognize or like it or not?
You think the many Quebeckers who will vote NDP for the first time tomorrow will do so out of some kind of "principle"? God I wish life was so simple as to arrange itself conveniently along phony partisan lines.
Where is it written that when casting one's vote, it must be to elect some party, rather than to help avoid the ascendancy of some other party or individual?
ETA: I got so far into my rant I failed to notice contrarianna's much briefer and more eloquent refutation of Rebecca's dismissal of ABC as "cynical abandonment of principle" or something. Bravo, contrarianna!
All these strategic voting ideas are based on bad arguments. Look at your local campaign. Don't let arrogant people from far away tell you to do. Judge for yourself. Vote for yourself.
... Look at your local campaign.
Agreed, essential.
Don't let arrogant people from far away tell you to do.
Agreed, I'll do what you tell me (hey, wait a minute, how far away do you live!).
Does that also include the Beloved Leaders and their door to door salespeople who incessantly tell you to vote for them?
Judge for yourself.
Absolutely.
Vote for yourself.
Vote for the best possible outcome, not a party t-shirt.
As Jerry Seinfield said once of loyalty to ever-changing sports teams:
"In the end we're just cheering for laundry"
I don't live very far from you at all contrariana
, but even so: Judge for yourself. Vote for yourself.
I generally disagree wih most the 'strategic voting" calls, particulary since most seemed so skewed toward the Liberals but I do think eMay is actually the closest to Lunn in Saanich-GI and voting for her might be a reasonable option out there this time.
I just hope that people who vote Green are aware they are fiscally conservative party and not anti-capitalist.
Right on kn.The Libertarian ethic rules. Around here, Green Party candidates tend to be "financial consultants" and their ilk.
What I don't understand is "progressives" calling for adherence to Marquess of Queensbury rules even while the Conservatives kick and gouge. ' Tis nobler in the mind...
I'm all for Conservatives and Liberals voting Green this time.
So am I. But to be fair the NDP isn't exactly socialist anymore either and, despite my dislike for eMay personally, the Greens are still better than the Reformatories. If they are clearly the frontrunning challenger in that one riding then it might be worth the strategic vote. I do prefer the local NDP SGI candidate, but keeping Harper from a majority is also in the NDP's interest. In everyone's, left of Harper. Any uncertainty about local results best just go with the Orange wave, but RealPolitiks aren't a straightfwd line.
I respect any individual who makes a decision, for whatever reason, to support a certain candidate in a particular riding. However, I reject as undemocratic any call to vote strategically by others in a broad number of ridings. And for no other reason that you will almost always get it wrong and cause the exact result you are trying to avoid. In short it is stupid.
Not necessarily 'stupid' and not at all undemocratic. As someone noted every vote is 'strategic' to some point. I for example am still not particularly overwhelmed by Jack Laytons message, but he is the best chance we've had in...well, my whole life. I too reject strategic voting in most cases because it can indeed backfire and usually falls short, particularly if the voter influenced is only aware of overall voting trends. Particularly now since the NDp has finally surpassed the Liberals as the best fallback anti-Con vote and are still seen as stronger in anti-neo-con policies.
For the record, I've also detected a slight but distinct pro-Liberal bias is some of the so-called strategic sites. Some. However. If the local voter is informed and aware of the local trends and traditions, and the NDP candidates (or Liberal or Green) are usually so far back that another anti-con may have a better chance, then that to is fine in my books. I'd consider the same if I was still living in the Gulf. Other Progressives maybe more concerned about what Harper might do with a majity anyhow than what Layton promises.
So let's please not get too too partisan here. It could very well turn more potential swings against us than for and could itself have unintended consequences. The final choice is as you agree up to them. We'll find out who in fact was (or should have been) the best choice for the anti-Gary Lunn vote soon enough.
Telling people how they should vote is the very essence of anti-democratic.
Like I said I respect any individual who makes an informed decision to support whomever strikes their fancy, for whatever reason (including a vote against) in their own riding. That's their choice and we should all respect it- even if we disagree.
What really twists my shorts though is these sites, most of which made their decisons to support candidates BEFORE the election even started, based on the last election and broad calls to vote strategically by people who don't know a rats ass about the ridings they are wanking on about. In situations like this whirlwind of a campaign those calls are actually dangerous as they are far more likely to have caused the exact result they say they want to avoid. As an aside as a rural resident I also really resent these urban puffed up elitists telling me what is and isn't possible in my rural riding and lecturing us on what a 'proper' progressive should do.
Stop. I'm not telling people how to vote anymoe than you are. None of know the final results till its...too late. The reasons progressives may vote may vary though, for perfectly valid prog reasons. So I'm just saying if you think May is indeed the one to bring down Lunn (and thereby increasing the chance of a post-election Lib-NDP-X alliance) then I say go for it. Luckily i'm now in an area that looks to be very definitely going Oange so i don't have to make that hard choice.
Regarding the rest, yes, I had some rather tense arguments myself with frigtened NDpers on another list serve, making your points about the unreliability of some if not most the "anyone but Harper" strategic sites. A couple don't even Try to keep up with recent trends and one at least is clearly (but not clearly enough Im afriad) pro-Liberal. Not one NDPer listed as needing Liberal or Green support East of Manitoba, for eg. My current riding was originally forecast as Liberal best-bet but a couple did alter that projections later.
Now, I'm going to be late for a post-election party (I hope) so i best be off again.
It seems to me that Elizabeth May is enjoying a better outcome than either Ignatieff or Duceppe. Sometimes success is more than its apparent scale of victory. The 4% of Canadians who tossed a Green pebble into the pot are no more comprimised than the 6% who tossed their's in for the Bloc. I wouldn't expect sophisticated politicos to comprehend why some people choose to swim against the current, or cling obdurately to an ideal-- that's the stuff of Romance!