Green Party Flops and disappoints in BC
May 13, 2009 - 1:11pm
Double Jeapardy
VANCOUVER - The Green Party suffered a double disappointment tonight with their failure to win a single seat in the legislature and the defeat of BC-STV.
Realistically the Green Party should look at merging, or at least entering into an electoral coalition with another party, if it wants to be relevant. Given the death of electoral reform in B.C. it has no reasonable prospects of electing any members on its own. All it does is act as a spoiler.
"summed up by federal deputy leader Adrian Carr, who told supporters that "we have the principles of the 21st century"
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Again, that is/was their whole purpose for their existence since 2000.
Hmmm..... Although the title is "Green Party Flops and disappoints in BC", I see the only people posting are not in the least disappointed. A little schadenfreude perhaps?
No, I am disappointed. I do think that a Green Party has a valuable contribution to make to the political discourse. I would much rather have an electoral system that allows the Green Party an opportunity to participate, and gives those who choose to vote for the Green Party an opportunity to see their votes actually mean something. Unfortunately it looks like most B.C. residents do not share this preference.
At the end of the day, elections are about wininng seats, not about "raising awareness" or speaking your mind. You can do those all those other things without actually running for elected office. If you are going to run for elected office, your goal should be to win that office. If, after careful consideration, you find that you or the party you support are not going to be in a position to do so, you should look to find a person or party who is in a better position to win a seat, and who holds values closest to yours. Then you should support that person or party, and try to use your voice to further influence them if they get elected. It may be that this means the "right Greens" return to the Liberal Party and the "left Greens" go back to the NDP, so long as they find a way to try to make their votes more meaningful.
I think it was only disappointing to the unwitting supporters of the Green Party, and that is the point. It was not disappointing to those who are using the GP to their own ends.
I may not be dissapointed, but I can still be realistic enough to look at it from someone else's shoes.
With Gordon Campbell as one alternative, and 'axe the tax' BCNDP on the other side, in terms of what the Green appeal is reputed to be, 8% is pathetic.
How does a party collapse from 16% to 8% almost overnight??? Soft votes? Polls where people are happy to give their opinion but not the least interested in walking to a polling booth??? Or overplayed hype, as has been the case for many a GP candidate. To much expectations to meet the hype. One candidate who was supposed to be a contender finished with 13% of the vote. That is not contender status, but also ran status of a non competitive party.
I don't hear much about it anymore, but I remember back when I was a child, if my parents were polled, they used to give the answer to the pollsters of the parties they Wouldn't vote for, just to mess up the polls.
Anyone know which poll came closest to the election results in terms of percentage or seats???
Angus Reid in terms of popular vote %'s.
Mustel in seat counts I think.
One thing for sure this election showed exactly who the Green Party are, as will their joining with the BC Liberals, coming soon to a House committee near you.
"No, I am disappointed. I do think that a Green Party has a valuable contribution to make to the political discourse. I would much rather have an electoral system that allows the Green Party an opportunity to participate, and gives those who choose to vote for the Green Party an opportunity to see their votes actually mean something. Unfortunately it looks like most B.C. residents do not share this preference."
This.
It's a fact that people change their vote from Green to NDP / Liberal because they know their Green vote would ultimately not count for anything. Sterk is right in saying that the electoral system gives her party, and any 'other' party, the shaft. If we had a real democratic system, and people know their votes actually counted equally, the Greens would have had at least 10%
Pffft that is unknowable
It's a fact that people change their vote from Green to NDP / Liberal because they know their Green vote would ultimately not count for anything. Sterk is right in saying that the electoral system gives her party, and any 'other' party, the shaft. If we had a real democratic system, and people know their votes actually counted equally, the Greens would have had at least 10%
But if the current system is so "undemocratic" why do you think that 60% of British Columbians just democratically voted to keep it?
robbie_dee,
1. Laziness - "Oh, the STV system is sooooooo difficult"
2. Scare tactics - "Your vote will be chopped into a billion pieces!"
3. Those people who know FPTP keeps the establishment in power, and see no reason to change.
4. Because STV, although a serious improvement, is also quite flawed. No electoral system should be that complicated. One vote should count equally, no matter what.
5. Old people.
6. Because people are stupid.
Actually, the turnout was around 52%, robbie_dee, the worst in many years. If this trend continues, as I think it will, then next election in BC we can expect to see LESS than half the voters vote.
Voters in BC, like voters in Canada and in many other advanced capitalist countries, are - for whatever reasons - expressing their views by not voting at all. In this recent election, I place the responsibility for that primarily at the feet of the leading parties, who failed to galvanize the public enough to counteract this trend. Let me just add that I'm not preaching pessimism and I made sure to vote myself.
I see that neither the winning Liberal leader nor the 2nd place NDP leader took any responsibility for this. It's not their department, or something. Gah.
I'm sorry but there is just no positve way to spin, or to blame others for a leader getting only 16% of the vote in their own riding. That is a failure of leadership for a party that presents itself has some kind of alternative. It isn't about PR or the slanted voting system, which are all true to an extent for other Green candidates, when a leader gets that kind of vote. That is pure and simple a failure to connect with voters and a platform that does not resonate with the core constituency the party suggests it represents.
I suppose the best measure of how the Green vote collapsed is that in even in W Van-Sea To Sky, the NDP nosed ahead into second place...
I am just happy to see that more people are getting , and have gotten, what the Green Party has become, and what it is being used for.
I see that neither the winning Liberal leader nor the 2nd place NDP leader took any responsibility for this. It's not their department, or something. Gah.
It is not the job of a party leader to increase overall voter turnout. It's their job to get enough people to vote for their own party to win.
Gordo did his job, Carole James didn/t do hers.
No Canwest, the BC CoC and the Green Party did Gordo's job for him. Plus of course the riding gerry mandering.
Listen to CBC Radio 1 live at 9 am local time for a discussion with Elizabeth May, Garth Turner, and someone else [Jim Travers] from the Toronto Star. They talked briefly about STV.
Go to www.cbc.ca/radio if you want to connect to a local radio station across the country. I'm going to Winnipeg now. Not literally.
Ya, 2 people and 1 newspaper that I want to listen too! :rolleyes:
What gerry mandering? You mean the party that got the most votes didn't win? No, that only happened in 1996.
BTW doesn't the NDP have allies that are supposed to get its members to vote for us? You know in places like Kootenay East and Prince George?
The creation of the "new" ridings and some riding having twice the amount people as others ridings do.
In some areas you are just not going to have a NDP vote until things get really bad.
The religious vote in places like PG, are currently block votes for the BC Liberals. When combined with the capitalist vote, the NDP will not prevail. However, if they get disenfranchised with the BC Liberals and start to move to the new conservative party, well then the NDP could prevail.
Kootney east, has a lot of empathy towards AB politics just like Peace River does.
However, Kootney Eastmay have more chance of changing than does Peace River.
Well now, the Green part and its supporters certainly did not disappoint Tzipi Berman's most favorite capitalistic, non-environmentally friendly people.
...That said, it turns out the best proxy stock for the British Columbia election was none other than Plutonic Power Corporation - most known as being the company behind the Bute Inlet run-of-the-river project. The shares of Plutonic jumped up about 20% on May 13th with no other news than the BC Liberals winning the election
http://bc2009.com/
Wonder if Sterk and Berman own stock in this corp?
That riding (or predecessors) has been represented by the NDP in the past. It's nothing like Peace River which really is an extension of Alberta both economically and socially. So has Prince George.
These are swing ridings, not unwinnble ridings like Peace River, Kelowna, etc. The NDP didn't win them because the NDP didn't run a winning campaign.
Prince George today is nothing like it was when the NDP won.
Kootney East has more Albertans living there than ever before.
Stay tuned for the Nova Scotia election.
The Green Party has apparently convinced enough breathing people to allow their names to be placed on the ballot in all 52 Nova Scotia ridings.
The local Liberal candidates must be happy about that!
But then again, last time, the Liberals tried to parachute a candidate from Shelburne into the riding of Queens, which had voted Conservative since 1953, but the guy forgot to sign his nomination papers, and he wasn't able to run.
Queens went NDP for the first time ever in that election.
Stay tuned!
Ah the paper candidate scam of the Green Party happening again?
Voter turnout was 50%.
Whenever I hear about NDP supporters complaining about the Green Party it makes me feel proud to be a card carrying member of the Greens. 1.5 million eligible voters did not vote and the dippers complain about the 125,000 people who supported the Green Party.
Seriously, get a grasp of reality. Blame Apathy, not us Greens!
Blame your own semi-conservative platform that embraced law and order and through axes at the environmental community, and shunned electoral reform.
Blame your campaign strategists that decided to run attack advertisements and talk about how Gordon Campbell is bad rather than asking voters to vote FOR your party.
The Green Party will be running next election and the election afterwards. After each election, the same rhetoric comes out, and some people forget that the Green Party has been around since the early 1980's, running candidates time and time again, whether it is 11% or 3%.
While the Greens always hold out the hope of winning seats, it is not why we run.
We run to give a voice to those who feel ignored by the other parties and disenfranchised.
We run because we have a defined set of principles that other parties have not fully embraced.
We run because despite lacking the million dollar war chest from unions or big developers to run attack ads or open fully staffed campaign offices, our candidates and volunteers set up tables on busy street corners, go into universities to talk to students and attend high school debates,campaign in bars and at festivals so as to bring young voters back into the fold, and stand in the rain passing out photocopied brochures at bus stops.
We run because we do not want debates where candidates read of a series of talking points rather than answering questions.
We run because we cannot afford polls to determine what side to take on which issue during a campaign, and instead base our policies on what scientists, economists and experts say is necessary to preserve life on this planet for the next hundred years.
Now you may not agree with us, and you don't have.
You may see our progress as futile and our party as unwinnable, but if we give one voter the ability to vote their conscience rather than stay at home or convince one young voter that it is worth taking 30 minutes to votes, they our party has succeeded and can made a difference.
And if you have an issues with that, well, you just have issues.
On another point, the Green Party's low showing of 8% is directly related to voter turnout among those under 35. Had the Canucks not lost the night before and the election actually made the front page of the newspapers or the lead story on the radio, the support would have been over 10%.
In the BC Student Vote, the BC Greens pulled 27% and won pluralities in 12 ridings. This is indicative of our support base, we pull 25% of younger voters but since voter turnout is low, it is negate.
Also, the idea that Green voters flee on election day to other parties is not true. Since we don't have a well oiled voter identification and GOTV machine, it means that we don't have the ability at 5 pm on Election day to run around and drag our supporters to the polls, we can't solidify are base like others. (We could use a few $500,000 donations..) Usually, our teams hit the streets and focus on doing our best to let everyone know it is election day to increase voter turnout. In one of the by-elections, despite finishing in last, we had some of the media outlets thinking we were going to win because we were the only ones campaigning on election day!
Well said demagogue.
__________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
LOL!
This is the best Green excuse EVER. EVER.
"It was hockey's fault".
Oh lordy. I have to go shut my door.
Please keep it shut.
The reality is the election became a page 3 story and it was young voters in particular who did not come out. If you underestimate the affects of media on a modern election, then my friend, you have no place being on a political discussion board.
Like it or not, you and I are amongst the 1% of the population who actually bother to discuss politics. In 2004-2005, there was a hockey strike. In 2001, 1996 and 1991, the Canucks were eliminated before the start of the election. In 1986, the election was in September.
Okay. It's shut. But I guess the Internets slipped out somehow or something.
So you're really saying that "young people" were all set to vote Green, except that the day before the election, the newspapers didn't remind them???
I live in Ontario, where we get notices reminding us to refresh our voter information, notices telling us that the information has been refreshed, notices telling us where to vote and even notices reminding us to bring ID. And that's just the government. At least three parties will contact us, usually by phone, but sometimes in person, and remind us to vote. Even if the Greens can't afford to be one of those parties, it's the same election on the same day, so if I want to vote Green, the Liberal reminder that the election is on a certain date should still be effective, yes?
I'm sorry, but any voter who has no idea when the election is, and misses it because his crucial reminder was bumped by a picture of some guys in skates isn't really all that committed to the Green message. If nothing else, I think you really have to admit that those voters are really just voting Green because it's an international brand that they recognize, and because it sounds good.
"I strongly believe in the Green message and support the Party and its candidates, and I would have voted for them too, but no adult reminded me of when the electifying happens and stuff!"
"I live in Ontario"
Well, that explains everything, the leafs suck.
Seriously, why spam a thread if you have actually no clue what is actually happening on the ground.
Because I don't need to live on the left coast to know that the "sun in my eyes" excuse you offered for the Greens' lacklustre share is nonsense.
You also don't have to live in the left coast to understand that there is a correlation between voter turnout and media coverage.... or do they not have TVs and Newspaper is Ontario?
Oh, we have them too. They just aren't our sole means of knowing that there's an election.
Not everyone marks their calendar with a "it's voting day" or pins there voting card to their front door.
The Greens had some of the right ideas and I was happy to vote for them purely on their superior position on crime and justice(since the NDP has become a rightwing reactionary embarrassment on this file) but they were becoming incoherent in their attempt to be 'not right or left' by the time the election appeared and for a party with youth appeal their leader was a pretty poor choice. I think at some level they understood that their best opportunity for gaining votes was on the left and they did a decent job at the beginning of the campaign and during the debate at positioning themselves there. Sterk's decision to brag about her right leaning voting history and lack of affinity with NDP values in the final week of the campaign was more than a little off key if this strategy was going to be successful though. If the Greens are just another neoliberal party with an attractive name I think they'll probably fade away soon enough and be devoured by the 'Why Bother Voting' movement.
Have you never given any thought as to why millionaire Reform supporter Jane Sterk was chosen as leader, if the Green Party has the alleged youth base it says it has?
As for the comment; "I think at some level they understood that their best opportunity for gaining votes was on the left", I would say that is a hilarious understatement, using the "we're a merry bunch of amateurs" meme to shunt aside the reality, that their whole purpose of existence is/was to try and fracture the left vote in order to allow Gordo and corporate interests to remain in power.
Listen, they have been around for over 25 years, there is no accidental awareness, or fuzzy understanding of what they need to do to try and gain votes. It is a very easy thing for them to do, to try and pretend to be oh so progressive crime wise. They do not have to worry about actually getting anywhere, so their platform can be whatever it wants to be in order to appeal to the undiscerning few on the left who are required to split the vote. That is why they allegedly appeal to some youth, who see the name and few token things (that never have to be applied) that would appeal to them, and thus the susceptable youth never take any factual accountability of truth to the Green Party's "progressive" and "environmental" claims into consideration.
remind, are you still peddling the hare-brained conspiracy theory about the purpose of the Green party being to steal votes from the NDP? Find some evidence or give it a rest.
I think 'undiscerning' is a good description for people on the 'left' who support this type of reactionary rhetoric:
Or, which man portrayed himself tougher on crime.
When Oppal said the Liberals plan to add 168 new police officers province-wide, Farnworth said the NDP would double that number.
When Farnworth said he would fight gangs by going after proceeds of crimes, such as luxury cars and monster houses, Oppal thanked him backhandedly and pointed out the Liberals brought in the Civil Forfeiture Act to seize proceeds of crime.
[snip]
Farnworth replied the Crown should appeal more adverse bail decisions by judges.
"No offence is too small to be charged," cried Farnwsorth.
Police say the teen has had 75 run-ins with the authorities in the past year but can't be held in police custody while awaiting trial because he is too young.
New Democrat MLA Mike Farnworth criticized the B.C. government, saying it's the sort of case that makes people lose patience with the justice system,
Farnworth said B.C.'s attorney general should urge the federal government to toughen the laws dealing with young offenders.
"I find it really disturbing that a 13-year-old can have 75 run-ins with the police, and clearly, red flags aren't being raised," he said.
B.C.'s 'lenient' sentencing regime in line for review NDP critic says time for study is past
"I'm concerned that this is more window dressing than actual substantive action,'' Farnworth said of the throne speech promise. "The attorney general says he's not even sure that there is a problem. Well, the fact is, if you look at certain types of crimes -- for example, bank robberies -- there are studies and reports already done that say sentencing is significantly lower for those types of crimes than in other provinces.
"We don't need studies. We need action.''
But Simon Fraser University criminologist Rob Gordon said B.C. lacks "hard data" about how its sentencing practices stack up against other provinces.
NDP House Leader Mike Farnworth echoes Solicitor General John Les on cost of inmates' phone calls
On May 18, Farnworth told the Straight he "does not have a problem with prisoners having to pay 90 cents for a phone call" within the B.C. Corrections Branch.
The exact same words were uttered a week earlier in a Straight interview with John Les, Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General.
Farnworth, Port Coquitlam-Burke Mountain MLA, was responding to a Straight interview request following several stories on how much B.C. inmates are charged to make calls from prison. (They cannot receive calls.) He also admitted he had "not really heard anything before" on the issue in his time as MLA.
"I don’t have a problem per se, as long a minimum number of calls are allowed," he said.
Farnworth did not know inmates can place free calls to lawyers and government agencies, but said, "That’s good, great." However, he did not think 90 cents was a bad fee for a phone call.
"It’s prison, not daycamp," he said.
Over the past several weeks, the Straight heard from lawyers and advocates for female inmates—such as the Elizabeth Fry Society and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association—all decrying the call structure as "prohibitively expensive" and a "discriminatory tax".
Inmate Betty Krawczyk has also complained that the cost, noting that she earns less than $4 per day in prison.
Fair enough, if that's the type of thing you like to vote for remind, but I'll pass. Its not the Greens' fault they provided a different voice on crime and justice from the Liberal/NDP consensus. If they had been removed from the equation, you just would have had even more people not voting.
I see Farnsworth got re-elected, eh? 10,443 to 910 for the Green Party. And i ask who do you think youth at risk in BC would have a better chance under the BCNDP or the BC Liberals?
And again I will point out, seeing as how you have ignored it what 3 times now, that the Green Party platform called for a whole NEW level of police force in BC that would have created well more than 300 new police. So I am not sure what point you are trying to make here?
If a child has 75 encounters with the police at the age of 13 something is wrong, and seeing as how the BCNDP platform laid out the fact they were going to create programs for youth at risk for entering a life of crime, and other anti-poverty initiatives, I would see them as being pro-active not reactive.
And I have no issue with inmates being charged 90 cents per "personal" phone call. Their calls to professionals are free, and they pay no long distance fees either. Just a flat 90 cents per call. In the real world we all have to pay phone charges to make a call, just because you are in jail does not mean you should not have to pay too.
Moreover, had the BCNDP been in power Betty Krawczyk, would have never ended up in jail in the first place. One wonders at the sheer silliness of contentions sometimes.
And I would have to see the claims of E Fry and the BCCLA to see what they were actually decrying as discriminatory, were they decrying the fact that women get paid less than men in prison, so they cannot afford the 90 cents, whereas men can because they get paid more, or just what.
So did Gordon Cambell eh? And Stephen Harper. Rightwing assholes get re-elected all the time.
If it was just the BC Liberals saying prisoners should have to spend a quarter of their wages in order to make a phone call to their family, I think you would have no problem seeing what's wrong with this picture.
I would have always said the BC NDP but Farnworth is a creep and he seems to be the new voice of the BCNDP on the issue and I don't see a lot of countervailing voices speaking out.
Replacing the RCMP.
Just more that isn't possible though according to you, BC's provincial politicians need to just shut up and take it even though we are on the front lines of the destructon prohibition is encacting on our communities. Sticking up for BC and our interests is just a bridge too far and its better to have Farnworth doing Stephen Harper impressions...
Taking crime seriously as a problem is not a right/left issue. YOu might be surprised by how tough criminal laws are or have been in such place as the Soviet Union, China, Cuba...and yes Sweden and the Netherlands. Sweden actually has much stricter laws and heavier sentences for anything to do with drugs or drinking and driving than Canada does. So go figure.
remind, are you still peddling the hare-brained conspiracy theory about the purpose of the Green party being to steal votes from the NDP? Find some evidence or give it a rest.
May I?
The Green Party's constant promotion and coverage in the right-wing corporate media far beyond its popular vote is clearly evidence to me that it is being used to split the centre-left vote.
That there are well-meaning naifs within the party who believe they're registering that the environment is their primary concern is undisputed; that they serve a far different purpose for reactionary conservatism is equally indisputable in my opinion. Note that Stephen Harper allowed Elizabeth May into the leadership debates without a single member of Parliament ever having been elected for the Green Party - a horrible precedent. (Perhaps the Nationalist Party can participate next time?)
This decision was supposedly based upon their polling popularity; polling that is deliberately inflated in the MSM by their inclusion (serving as a recommendation, or at least suggestion) in polling questions. A half dozen other parties have existed as long or longer than the Green Party that do not receive such inclusion in the polls. Why? Because they don't serve the purposes of the corporate PTB in the way that the Green Party does. Note as well that Green Party polling results are never matched by their percentage of the popular vote - further evidence that the party is being deliberately promoted in the MSM.
This is not conspiracy theory, it is simply the logical explanation. Why else would their popularity be consistently inflated and overstated to the public?
If you have an alternate explanation, I'd be happy to consider it.
Thanks LTJ, exactly.
Plus we need to also cast our gaze upon leaders chosen, and how they came about to be chosen and where they actually hail from politically. That they create so called "progressive" platforms means squat seeing as how they know they would never be called upon to impliment them. They are simply a tool, to bring into their fold "well-meaning naifs" that are naive enough yet to buy into it. And the MSM sells the false package to them.
"Note that Stephen Harper allowed Elizabeth May into the leadership debates without a single member of Parliament ever having been elected for the Green Party - a horrible precedent."
WHAT A REVISIONIST BIT OF NONSENSE. Harper did everything in his power to prevent the Greens from being in, it was only once he was outed and 75% of Canadians turned sour on him that he begrudingly dropped his protest. No other party has been invited that runs over 300 candidates consecutively and receives federal funding.
"Moreover, had the BCNDP been in power Betty Krawczyk, would have never ended up in jail in the first place. One wonders at the sheer silliness of contentions sometimes." - Remind.
When the NDP was in power, Betty Krawczyk was thrown in jail in the first place. .
I think Harper wanted EMay in the debate all along. Why wouldn't he? Giving her added credibility would help split the opposition vote even more than before, she had the potential to upstage her ally Dion - and on top of that her histrionics in the debate mostly made Harper look good beside her and made the whole debate process into an irrelevent circus. There has been a lot of debate as to whether the so-called Green Party cuts more into the Liberal vote or the NDP vote - but it takes almost nothing from the Tories - so from Harper's point of view - what's not to like?
The Green Party's constant promotion and coverage in the right-wing corporate media far beyond its popular vote is clearly evidence to me that it is being used to split the centre-left vote.
That there are well-meaning naifs within the party who believe they're registering that the environment is their primary concern is undisputed; that they serve a far different purpose for reactionary conservatism is equally indisputable in my opinion. Note that Stephen Harper allowed Elizabeth May into the leadership debates without a single member of Parliament ever having been elected for the Green Party - a horrible precedent. (Perhaps the Nationalist Party can participate next time?)
This decision was supposedly based upon their polling popularity; polling that is deliberately inflated in the MSM by their inclusion (serving as a recommendation, or at least suggestion) in polling questions. A half dozen other parties have existed as long or longer than the Green Party that do not receive such inclusion in the polls. Why? Because they don't serve the purposes of the corporate PTB in the way that the Green Party does. Note as well that Green Party polling results are never matched by their percentage of the popular vote - further evidence that the party is being deliberately promoted in the MSM.
This is not conspiracy theory, it is simply the logical explanation. Why else would their popularity be consistently inflated and overstated to the public?
If you have an alternate explanation, I'd be happy to consider it.
So you think that the MSM are influencing polling companies to artificially inflate Green support so that Harper will have an excuse to include them in the debate? You're using your ridiculous conspiracy theory to defend Rmind's ridiculous conspiracy theory. Is Harper involved in the same conspiracy as Campbell? Do you think you're helping your credibility by comparing the Green Party with the Nationalist Party?
I'd be happy to answer your questions if you'll have the courtesy to answer mine.
...I'm still awaiting your alternate explanation.
"Moreover, had the BCNDP been in power Betty Krawczyk, would have never ended up in jail in the first place. One wonders at the sheer silliness of contentions sometimes." - Remind.
When the NDP was in power, Betty Krawczyk was thrown in jail in the first place. .
Oh yes I forgot the BCNDP was in power in 2007 went she was sentenced to 7 months in prison.
Just as I thought, ReeferMadness has no other explanation.
All he could manage was the artificial joining of the MSM promotion of the Greens with Harper's inclusion of EMay in the debates, as if one were a planned prerequisite for the other, in order to make my argument appear ridiculous and conspiratorial.
Better luck next time, RM.
BTW, in terms of MSM coverage, I'd like you to consider the fact that the MSM pretty much completely ignored Mel Hurtig's National Party (no relation to the aforementioned Nationalist Party) in '93 while even then recognizing and covering the Greens disproportionately.
Hurtig had a national #1 bestseller at the time, and less than a year after forming the party managed to field 171 candidates.
The FTA and developing NAFTA agreement were the primary issues of the election, and the focus of both the party and Hurtig's bestseller, The Betrayal of Canada.
Hurtig himself won 12.8%. In comparison, Elizabeth May, with an established party behind her, managed less than 2% of the popular vote in Central Nova the first time she ran as party leader.
Uh LTJ, Harper was the LAST party leader to say he didn't oppose EMay's inclusion in the debates AFTER Layton and Dion.
During election campaigns the Federal NDP have polled higher then what they've managed to match by their percentage of the popular vote. Is this evidence of something too?
Anyways, I agree that EMay was hyped by the media but that wasn't true of the BC Greens in our last provincial election. Sometimes polling companies only released information for the top two parties.
I think the whining about the Greens splitting the vote while voter turnout continues to drop like a stone is kind of ridiculous.
That's just a matter of optics. Harper had nothing to gain by being the first to accept her; indeed, that would have been an argument against her inclusion for many.
That's a red herring. All the parties fluctuate higher or lower on occasion. Only the Green Party is consistently significantly higher in MSM polls than in the popular vote.
Just as I thought, ReeferMadness has no other explanation.
All he could manage was the artificial joining of the MSM promotion of the Greens with Harper's inclusion of EMay in the debates, as if one were a planned prerequisite for the other, in order to make my argument appear ridiculous and conspiratorial.
Better luck next time, RM.
Oh, OK. So the MSM are colluding with the Green Party and all of the polling companies to artificially inflate Green polling numbers. All to get Elizabeth May in the debate. And you know about it but Harper doesn't. How could I possibly make that appear ridiculous and conspiratorial?
There are any number of rational explanations for Green Party polling to be higher than the vote including:
The point, LTJ, is I don't actually know why Green support is lower at election time than polls between elections. But you've not presented one shred of evidence to support this right wing conspiracy theory.
It is more number 1.
The Greens regularly poll 25% in the under 18-30 range, but the turnout amongst younger voters is half of the rest of the population, so it disproportionately hit the Greens.
Additionally, without a historic voter identification and the resources (financial and human) to field hundred of election day GOTV phone banks, the voter turnout varies. Which is also why the federal Conservatives, with their strong CIMS software and large dollars, tend to get higher votes than their polling numbers would indicate. The NDP is good at pulling their votes in swing ridings and tend to build up strong GOTV machines in BC, but they have a lot of dead zones where their numbers equally deflate.
"Moreover, had the BCNDP been in power Betty Krawczyk, would have never ended up in jail in the first place. One wonders at the sheer silliness of contentions sometimes." - Remind.
When the NDP was in power, Betty Krawczyk was thrown in jail in the first place. .
Oh yes I forgot the BCNDP was in power in 2007 went she was sentenced to 7 months in prison.
No, the NDP was in power from 1991-2001, when Betty was sentenced to a year in jail for protesting clear cutting in the Elaho Valley.
So Green Party supporters are liars? That's all you've got?
And you go on to agree with me that the Greens are better known than supported, ignoring the reason for that?
Let me add another possibility for you: The Aspers aren't threatened when you hug a tree. The Greens are a harmless and safe diversion away fron the truly political.
The question is, what is their slight-of-hand diverting your attention away from?
And, of course, pollsters are unaware of this, and unable to account for it in their models?
Oh, OK. So the MSM are colluding with the Green Party and all of the polling companies to artificially inflate Green polling numbers. All to get Elizabeth May in the debate. And you know about it but Harper doesn't. How could I possibly make that appear ridiculous and conspiratorial?
Once again you've created artificial linkages, completely misrepresenting my argument. There is no need for conspiracy and collusion in my explanation. Each set of players serves only their own interests.
Absolute fabrication! Her first arrest came in 1993 along with 849 others, no jail time. her next trial started in May 2000 and she was sentenced to a year in jail in Sept but actually served 3 months, because we all fought to get her out, and no way in hell did the BC NDPers have control of the party in 2000. Hence the destruction of the party in next election, it had been highjacked pure and simple.
I'm not sure what part is claimed to be a fabrication, when the NDP were government or what her sentencing was. Likewise, for the Saskatchewan NDP throwing Marc Emery in jail in 2004 for 92 days for possessing 2 grams of pot and passing a joint.
Anyways, I don't believe this is party policy or an NDP law and order agenda, but if you are going to make outrageous claims that Betty would have never received jail term under the NDP, you have to be mindful that she did.
Similarly, stop making false assertions that the Green Party wants dramatically more police. GPBC policy was to not renew the service agreement with the RCMP and move towards a police force with civilian oversight and responsible to British Columbians. If no other party wants to challenge RCMP mismanagement and outright fabrications, then it is once again a reminder of why the Green Party serves a meaningful purpose in our elections to raise issues that other will not, and to give fed up voters a party that at least listens to their concerns.
And, of course, pollsters are unaware of this, and unable to account for it in their models?
Some do. Angus Reid for instance, with their online polling adjusts sample sizes for ages to reflect the voting percentage and thus tends to poll the Greens lower, but most polling companies do not scale their results based on demographic turnout to the same extent. Instead, they ask people whether they are likely voters to try and get the same results. Either way, polling companies can not account for voter identification and election day GOTV campaigns. The lower voter turnout is expected, the higher the margin of error should be. For instance, the Greens got around 18% in the federal election in the downtown core, while an under the radar provincial by-election two weeks later in Vancouver Burrard had them drop to 4% in the same neighbourhood, and then bounce up to 9% in the provincial election in the same polls.
Another good example would be the Green results in 2008 in BC were 9.4 per cent for the party with a 61% voter turnout, despite having huge strategic voting campaigns and four way contests in each riding, while provincially, with little in the way of a strategic voting push, less candidates, and a 50% voter turnout, the results were 8.8%.
A new provincial police force would mean A LOT more police, the RCMP would not cease to exist in BC because there is a provincial police force. Nor would a provincial police force guarantee anymore accountability
The Sask NDP did not throw anyone in jail, the RCMP did.
Betty was thrown in jail by an idiot pretending to be NDP, end of story.
Well, you still have a bunch of idiots pretending to be the NDP, so what has changed?
If you think the RCMP has any accountability, you really must spend too much time on these chat boards. They are corrupt, self serving, and feel they are above the law. Ian Bush, Robert Dziekanski, and numerous tasering should be enough to make any progressive yearn for a made in BC solution to law enforcement.
So Green Party supporters are liars? That's all you've got?
First, it's not all I've got. If it was all I had, I wouldn't have put in the other two possibilities, would I?
Second, it was only a suggestion. As I said (and you left out of the quote), I don't know. Obviously you don't either and just make stuff up.
Third, if people who claimed to be green supporters are lying, then they weren't really Green supporters, were they?
I never said that but it's almost certainly true. Is there some dark, conspiratorial reason behind it? No. There are Green Parties around the world and they are universally known for environmentally conscious policy. They don't have as much support here because Canada doesn't have as strong an environmental following as some other countries. Also, we're saddled with an ass-backwards electoral system.
The question is, what is their slight-of-hand diverting your attention away from?
I don't know the Aspers or what their position is on tree-huggers. What I do know is that your theories make you sound like you're off your medication.
Let me point out one last thing. Even if anything I say is wrong, it doesn't necessarily make you right. If you're making accusations, come up with proof. Same for remind.
For 1, LTJ, we know the Green Party lies, it had to admit to doing so in respect to the polls they supposedly commissioned, but did not use any type of creditable firm, if any firm at all, and released the phoney results to the media, Daniel Grice, or mimeguy, was on here stating that that should not have been done by the Green Party. say nothing of the evidence we have had here about EMay's fabrications.
Slight of hand deflection is the correct term btw. They have been provided proof, in the form of Jane Sterk, and every credible environmentalist and former party head who left after realizing who they are. But some apparently refuse to see.
Demagogue, never said a word about the RCMP being accountable, pleases stop pretending I DID. In fact, I have indicated they were co-opted by the CoC and Rotary Club fascists long ago here, years in fact.
When has there been an intentional lie? What proof?
Two polling firms in BC gave results that were off by 8%? Was one of them lying?
Was the NDP lying when they spread the one that showed them tied with the Liberals?
Elizabeth May's fabrications? Are they any difference than some of Jack Layton's over the top statements and accusations that he has made in the last few years. Or Carole James flying over an IPP which the previous NDP government approved on earth day to try and earn media points by blaming Campbell for it.
There is a difference between someone intentionally saying something that one knows is untrue for the purpose of misleading people (a lie), and saying something wrong which one believed was true, but may turn out to be wrong or not complete.
Remind, seriously, you can disagree with the Green Party on policy, which is fair enough. You can claim that the Greens are not left wing enough or are not pro-labour enough which is fine. You can claim that Greens are idealists or have some of their priorities wrong.
Just like it is fair enough for the Greens to criticize NDP policy on issues which we disagree with. Or for the Greens to take issue with their attacks on the carbon tax, when the Greens thought is should be increased.
If you watched the TV debate, it was Carole James attacking the Premier for not adding enough police. It was Jane Sterk, correctly pointing out that the war on drugs and underfunding of school programs was the source of violence and talking about bringing in a livable income.
You don't have to go around making up accusations of fabrication or conspiracy to make a point, it does not do your own partisan interests any good.
I can easily agree - because you have yet to illustrate that my explanation involves a conspiracy.
I provided my rationale with supporting facts. Occam's razor is at work here: the most logical explanation is the most likely.
And your's aren't even complete thoughts.
You don't have to go around making up accusations of fabrication or conspiracy to make a point, it does not do your own partisan interests any good.
The BCNDP and social activists have clearly stated well before the election that Gordo's cutting of police funding, courts and prosecuters, over crowding of jails, gutting of programs in jails, as well as other social programs, and destroying the guaranteed annnual income that used to exist in BC under the NDP, have ALL contributed to gang violence and its attendant activities.
That you are taking it out of historical and indeed current context clearly indicates your partisanship, moreover, Sterk is wrong, it is not the "war on drugs" nor the underfunding of school programs which are at fault, there are several at fault isssues, and she does a great disservice by focusing on the lesser aspects, of what is going on.
The gang warfare in the greater Vancouver area over drug turf, is mainly amongst 20-30 years olds, not school aged children being deprived from after school programs because of cuts. Though of course there are teenagers in school involved too, just as there always has been.
The BCNDP have always had guarateented annual income, what Sterk proposed is not new. She was just regurgitating what is a long held NDP policy and pretending it is hers, to suck people, such as yourself apparently, in. Which is too funny considering that she personally does not believe in the welfare state, so we know if had she any power at all she would never have implimented any such thing. Easy to say what you think some want to hear when you never have to be responsible for actioning it, eh?!
Tell me; why do you think a millionaire Albertan and Reform Party supporter, who also idolizes Gordo, would want to be the leader of the BC Green Party?
They were/are only tough for the little guys. Murder millions of people, and you get away with it.
Remind, I think your comments in regards to Jane Sterk are rather mean spirited. Jane has ran with the Greens in 2004, 2005, before being elected as a city councillor where she pushed the community to bring in sustainability measures. She was not some mysterious force who came out of nowhere in 2007 to win the leadership.
She was a former high school teacher and public health councillor, who started a small computing company with her husband which grew to about 60 employees before they sold it.
That is one of the things I find so abhorrent about some who declare themselves to be social democrats, how willing they are demonize anyone who has any measure of success.
Why would succeeding at a sustainable, non-destructive private enterprise be seen as negative virtue?
Even Carole James has stated that " traditional political divides in this province should no longer shape our relationship", and while I don't agree with all of her stances, she is absolutely right in distancing herself from many of her colleagues who view free enterprise as inherently wrong.
I provided my rationale with supporting facts. Occam's razor is at work here: the most logical explanation is the most likely.
What rationale? What supporting facts? The only "fact" is your claim (still unsubstantiated by the way) that Green support is higher between elections than at the polls. I've suggested several alternative possibilities, none of which require subversion or conspiracy.
And you don't understand Occam's razor. It says that, all other things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually right. If Occam's razor applies at all in this case, it works against you.
Absolute fabrication! Her first arrest came in 1993 along with 849 others, no jail time. her next trial started in May 2000 and she was sentenced to a year in jail in Sept but actually served 3 months, because we all fought to get her out, and no way in hell did the BC NDPers have control of the party in 2000. Hence the destruction of the party in next election, it had been highjacked pure and simple.
So, the NDP can do know wrong. And when they do wrong, they're not the NDP?
Too bad , I do not care, what you think.
Sterk is am Albertan Reformatory who worships Gordo and Reform ideology, except, and only except, as it pertains to gays.
Plus you have your facts wrong, she started the company with another, and then it split, she sold her share and started another, and sold that too, she is a millionaire several times over, and who did she have her measure of huge success over? her employees, no doubt.
I am not against free enterprise at all. Being one part time myself.
It is her ideology and politics and her playing the Green Party supporters for fools which I do not like.
Remind, I think your comments in regards to Jane Sterk are rather mean spirited. Jane has ran with the Greens in 2004, 2005, before being elected as a city councillor where she pushed the community to bring in sustainability measures. She was not some mysterious force who came out of nowhere in 2007 to win the leadership.
Demagogue, you're wasting your time. For many NDP supporters, their devotion to the party is akin to religious zeal. It's ironic that some of them are so critical of religion because for a lot of them, the NDP is a religion in itself.
The Green Party is seen as threatening because it offers a differerent view of the world that might appeal to some who would otherwise vote NDP (as well as those who wouldn't bother voting at all because they won't support the NDP). These conspiracy theories are pathetic in that they appear so desperate.
No actually reefer, it is saddening to think that some people cannot see the forest throguh the trees, and how they are being exploited, to the detriment of society and the environment. In fact, I have long ago decided that Green Party zealots here, have absolutely no interest in the environment nor social issues and only with promoting the Green Party in order to acheive maximum pocket filling, by keeping the BCLiberals and federal Conservatives in power.
RM - you continue to repeat what by this point you know is a blatant lie - that there is something conspiratorial in my explanation. There is not - there is only the self-interest of the biased corporate media, the corporatist political parties, and the pollsters who serve them both. No collusion is required beyond the standard consensus shared amongst colleagues and the wish to provide customer satisfaction.
On the other hand, your explanation(s) depend upon:
The dishonesty or flakiness of young voters
The dishonesty or flakiness of poll respondents
The consistent incompetence of pollsters
And that the MSM must be oblivious to the ongoing inaccuracy of the polls they commission
Which way does Occam's Razor cut here???
RM - It is rather amusing to see you complain about NDP partisanship, as you clearly slander and misrepresent others in order to defend your own partisan choice.
But I do understand - it is simply that self-interest I've been speaking of. You and your party benefit from the bias of the corporate media, so why would you care to acknowledge the reason behind it?
The greatest political fights are always between similar ideologies. In Russia, the Communists and the Socialists went to war.
The greatest political fights are always between similar ideologies. In Russia, the Communists and the Socialists went to war.
True enough.
No actually reefer, it is saddening to think that some people cannot see the forest throguh the trees, and how they are being exploited, to the detriment of society and the environment. In fact, I have long ago decided that Green Party zealots here, have absolutely no interest in the environment nor social issues and only with promoting the Green Party in order to acheive maximum pocket filling, by keeping the BCLiberals and federal Conservatives in power.
You need to be more clear, Remind. I'm not sure if you're accusing me of being "exploited" (i.e. stupid) or if you think I'm involved in this conspiracy to keep the BC Libs & Federal Cons in power by promoting the Greens.
Either way, you're wrong. I've never been a member of any party and, seeing what membership seems to do to people, probably never will be. For reasons similar to those given by melovesproles & others, I think the Green Party policies are better than those of the NDP. If they change, I'll rethink.
I am also deeply disturbed at the horribly dishonest way that no STV conducted its campaign. And no STV, despite protestations to the contrary, was largely NDP insiders. Further, I've come the the conclusion Carole James and whoever is advising her have played games with voting system reform. The NDP membership may have endorsed it but the NDP has done NOTHING to promote it. And I will NEVER vote for a party that won't support democracy. If you don't like it, tough.
Now, carry on with the crazy theories.
RM - It is rather amusing to see you complain about NDP partisanship, as you clearly slander and misrepresent others in order to defend your own partisan choice.
But I do understand - it is simply that self-interest I've been speaking of. You and your party benefit from the bias of the corporate media, so why would you care to acknowledge the reason behind it?
I have no problem with partisanship - it's blind zeal that disturbs me.
I have no party. My interests are simple. I'd like to see a voting system that will reflect the democratic intentions of voters. Even NDP voters. I know some of you find democracy scary.
how is zero seats for 8% of the vote a benifit?
RM - It is rather amusing to see you complain about NDP partisanship, as you clearly slander and misrepresent others in order to defend your own partisan choice.
But I do understand - it is simply that self-interest I've been speaking of. You and your party benefit from the bias of the corporate media, so why would you care to acknowledge the reason behind it?
I think it is ok to vote for the federal ndp. Denice Savoe and other federal ndp mp's in BC came out strongly in favour of a yes vote. They spoke at meetings in favour of it!
Oliva Chow was in favour too. (She tried to pressure James to side with yes but she was ignored). Really in the broad scale of things, the provincial NDP have acted as traitors to the NDP cause. The Federal NDP needs voting system reform to get anywhere.
The dimwits who run the provincial ndp do not yet realize that they are in exactly the same position as their federal cousins. We now live in an Alberta situation. The provincial NDP will forever be the opposition, with or without the existance of a green party.
No actually reefer, it is saddening to think that some people cannot see the forest throguh the trees, and how they are being exploited, to the detriment of society and the environment. In fact, I have long ago decided that Green Party zealots here, have absolutely no interest in the environment nor social issues and only with promoting the Green Party in order to acheive maximum pocket filling, by keeping the BCLiberals and federal Conservatives in power.
You need to be more clear, Remind. I'm not sure if you're accusing me of being "exploited" (i.e. stupid) or if you think I'm involved in this conspiracy to keep the BC Libs & Federal Cons in power by promoting the Greens.
Either way, you're wrong. I've never been a member of any party and, seeing what membership seems to do to people, probably never will be. For reasons similar to those given by melovesproles & others, I think the Green Party policies are better than those of the NDP. If they change, I'll rethink.
I am also deeply disturbed at the horribly dishonest way that no STV conducted its campaign. And no STV, despite protestations to the contrary, was largely NDP insiders. Further, I've come the the conclusion Carole James and whoever is advising her have played games with voting system reform. The NDP membership may have endorsed it but the NDP has done NOTHING to promote it. And I will NEVER vote for a party that won't support democracy. If you don't like it, tough.
Now, carry on with the crazy theories.