If you want to see another Harper government, then vote Green. A vote for a Green candidate is a wasted chance to vote for a candidate able to defeat a Conservative candidate. If the Green vote goes up, the chances of a Conservative majority increase proportionately.
Alice Funke at Pundit's Guide reports that in the last election the Greens gained at the expense of the Liberals in 102 of 108 Ontario ridings.
One million people voted Green in the last election. If they had voted Liberal, NDP or Bloc there would be fewer Conservatives members of parliament up for re-election. Under the leadership of Elizabeth May, the Greens have become more attractive to voters. In the 2000 general election the Greens got less than one per cent of the vote. By the 2008 election with May as the new leader the Green total vote had grown to 6.8 per cent, up from 4.5 per cent in 2006, and 4.3 per cent in 2004.
Why is a vote for the Green Party a vote for the Harper Conservative government? The First-Past-the-Post electoral system rewards "efficient" voting. A regional party like the Bloc can win 49 seats with 10 per cent of the vote, because its voters are concentrated in those 50 ridings. The Green Party wins no seats even if it grows to a similar vote total as the Bloc because its voters are spread thinly across the country. In the 2008 election, while damaging the chances of Liberals and New Democrats, the best the Green Party could do was finish second in five ridings.
The Canadian Greens have been reluctant to lobby for proportional representation (to replace First-Past-the-Post), which is the only way a vote for their party would make any sense at all. Instead Elizabeth May proposes a referendum on the issue.
The Green Party could be anointing Green New Democrat candidates, or Green Liberal candidates to ensure that Conservatives had less chance to win. Instead, it has chosen to send into battle candidates without a hope of winning a seat.
Vote splitting of progressives has caused the New Democrats to lose excellent members of parliament in Saskatchewan (the spiritual home of the party no longer has an NDP member) to Conservatives, who ensure that real environmental problems are ignored.
Advertising
In Europe, the Greens work with other parties, enter coalitions, and participate in government. Greens have taken important ministries in Germany and France, for example. In France the Greens partnered with the Communist Party, and the Socialist Party of François Mitterrand. The French Greens have traditionally been part of the French left.
It is the capitalist organization of the production of goods and services, and exploitation of resources that is at the heart of the world ecological crisis. Yet in Canada the Greens proudly proclaim to be neither right nor left.
Green politics means first organizing in civil society, to ensure that no political figure can take the kind of anti-environmental stance now characteristic of the Conservative party. This is the tried and true method used by Canadian feminists to make an (unfinished) revolution in the treatment of women in Canada, including constitutional protection for equality under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It how rights for gay and lesbians were secured in Canada, and how Medicare was won.
All political candidates should be obliged to heed those well informed people, who think seriously about the future of our planet, and understand an ecological disaster looms. Until they do, a vote for the Greens means climate change, water shortages, air and soil pollution, and nuclear waste have a better chance of being dealt with by a government that does not believe there is a problem.
Do you genuinely care more about the environment than any other issue? Then the last thing you want as to do is see a Conservative government take power again. Paradoxically, a vote for the Green Party is a vote against the environment, because it helps a Conservative candidate.
Duncan Cameron writes weekly on politics and is president of rabble.ca.
I can't believe you are advocating a vote in the negative. To myself, progressivism has always been about the positive, such as constantly seeking positive change in society and the environment. The Green Party exists because the other Canadian parties have seriously dropped the ball in the past. Just like the NDP exists because the Liberals have focused on a centrist agenda throughout their history. Democracy at its best is voting for the candidate that best reflects your personal convictions and ideas. I am sad to see the president of Rabble enter into the politics of "winning".
To not vote green to simply defeat a Harper government in lieu of something different - and what that is remains uncertain - is a loss to the entire green movement. After achieving official party status and almost a million votes in the past election the Green Party has officially become a significant player in Canadian federal politics. I would prefer to continue to grow this movement as a legimate alternative rather than pander to 'anti-party' agenda that has no direction other than the negative. Positive change is often slow and most definitely isn't always about winning, please vote for a candidate and party that reflects your vision of Canada.
Duncan, I surely appreciate your sentiment re. the Green Party's misguided efforts and political positioning. You're sounding some serious strategic issues and I hope Elizabeth May and other Greens read and take heed.
Your enthusiastic position regarding the strategic vote, however, calls me to question. You are not alone, of course, as it is de rigour for progressive political/social columnists, I do appreciate.
I think the ground to this "strategic vote" is being lost in the fervour. Good intentions are unfortunately devaluing our currency, so to speak. In fact what you and the others are reinforcing is the two-party game. You know, like the one in practice by our neighbours to the south? I suppose all Rabble will be Liberal, and all those right-wingers vote Conservative. Nice.
Foresight is invaluable. We have to vision a few steps ahead, like in chess. That easy bishop may come at the expense of your queen, if you don't look where you're going. The punditry that is beating for the strategic vote (getting louder and stronger every day) ultimately supports, and in so doing are conceding, to a two party system. It is trading in hope for lessor despair. It is defeatist.
Instead of putting your noble, formidable thinking caps together to contribute to a truly progressive dialogue, or to hatch a plan for liberation, you're stitching a patchwork for bare survival.
There's more. You open your argument based on a reference:
"Alice Funke at Pundit's Guide reports that in the last election the Greens gained at the expense of the Liberals in 102 of 108 Ontario ridings."
And in so doing you are referencing an author and source that is likely biased. I quote direct from the Pundit's Guide website :
-------------------------------------About the Author
Alice Funke graduated from Carleton University in Political Science, and is a business intelligence specialist for the federal government in Ottawa.
During the 2008 election, she took a leave of absence and worked as a computer-assisted reporting consultant for the Parliament Hill bureau of the Canwest News Service.
-------------------------------------Again, you're not alone. I've recently read another progressive columnist referencing this site and author, regarding the strategic vote and how it favours the Harper Government.
I appreciate that it feels like a desperate-measures-for-desperate-times scenario, I feel the stickiness of it just as you and other Rabble folk surely do. But the two-party HOPE charade (trading dubious Leaders) can really only prolong the agony. Is it the best we can ask for? I for one refuse to believe that.
I prefer to imagine what might happen if everybody actually voted for the candidate who actually best supported their riding's interest. Or say the NDP win 35% of the vote and the Greens get 15% and yet both glean only minimal representation in Parliament...would that finally strike a chord with the electorate and provoke an irrefutable demand for structural, electoral change?
The possibilities are endless if we are open-minded. The other way-accepting, and even self-defining the limitations-can only degrade our democracy further still. If anything it serves to further prop the Why Vote? argument.
This is partisan, which I should expect, but also just plain silly, which is unfortunate.
The Liberals are making this same argument against the NDP right now (and always do) and it very often kills the NDP vote at the moment of election. Why stand up and discuss this poor election strategy to an NDP audience who may now think, hmm...maybe Michael Ignatieff has a point??
If the NDP is truly committed to action on the environment, and think strategic voting is a way to accomplish that, why don't they lead by example and get their candidate in Saanich-Gulf Islands to step down so Elizabeth May can clean house, and do the same in races where the Libs and Cons are in a tight race? That's leadership, folks, and if I were Elizabeth May, I'd reciprocate in ridings where the NDP is in tight races with the Cons.
THAT's leadership, getting results and getting action on the environment. That's green politics.
It's a sign of your party being frustrated when you're blaming another, smaller party for your woes.
only a vote for the conservatives is a vote for the conservatives. voting for any of the other parties is a vote for those parties. "splitting" the progressive vote will happen until "progressives" can all hold the same ideas. which wont happen. if the liberals take power because people vote for them it is not as though any real improvements will take place. look at the last stretch of liberals in power if you want to see inaction on environment or the erosion of personal freedoms or the spread of the military, security, and prison-industrial complexes (love for NATO, spread of the tar sands, undertaking the coup in haiti, invaded afganistan). when we really look at it, the liberals are not even a "progressive" party unless war, policing, indentured migrant labour, and disrespecting indigenous rights is now somehow progressive.
now, as long as people believe in this idea of strategic voting, they will never understand what real democracy is. urging people to vote "strategically" is telling them to not vote for what they want to, and in many circumstances voting for something that you do not argee with (or in the case of voting liberal may be something you utterly can't stand - iggy is a "humanitarian" bomber).
your comment on May wanting a referendum on changing to proportional fits very well with her understanding of democracy and wants to do one of the only things that actually represents the voice and the true wishes of the people - a referendum - to change from FPP. Referendums represent an opportunity for fuller participation from people in choosing more directly one more aspect on how they are goverened. and while you may come back with some comment about media manipulation, poorly written questions on the ballot, or miseducation campaigns, it does not make my point less valid. i feel people should also be framing the questions about how they are to be goverened as well deciding on the system for choosing this goverance. plus lobbying is expensive (and pretty ridiculous), and to do so on the cheap requires capacity that has not yet been mobilized at grassroots levels, and likely wont be as the greens do not represent most of those in the grassroots social and ecological justice movements.
the reasons the greens dont work with communists, socialists, or other parties here in canada is because they do not share many of the same core values (the reds dont want the greens), and the communists and socialists who engage in canadian parlimentary processes are even less organized than the greens. the greens did not cause the NDP to lose in sask, weak leadership (an inevitability with leadership...) and policy, and failures to rally the unions, working class, migrants, farmers, and students are what caused the NDP to lose. this just shows that the greens are gaining momentum in sask if nothing else. maybe you should blame the ndp for splitting the left...
and in a "democratic" society, choice is good (right?), and since once every 2-4 years is not enough, i would argue direct involvement is even better. many parties with all types of ideas need to be engaged and a change in electoral process need to be made to stop the ability for any government to take such ill-informed, racist and xenophobic, anti-women and ecologically devastating stances in the future that the conservatives (and the liberals in many cases) have taken in the past and are acting on in the present. if all those fools who voted liberal voted for the greens, the bloc, the communists, the marxist-lennininsts, the wild rose party, the reformers, the marijuana party, the rhinos, independents, or the ndp, there may have also be many fewer harper clones in parliament.
you will never be happy in a parlimentary democracy by voting for anyone who does not represent you. being scared into voting for someone that does not represent you because that person does not have enough support other wise to beat a different person who also does not represent you (and is likely to be somewhat worse) is not a social organisational system i want to live in. if no one represents you or you do not believe in the system of governance or choosing who governs you, do not legitimize the process by voting. vote on the streets on May 1st (international workers day) and every other day of the year (like may 2nd, 3rd, 4th...) and take direct contol over your communities, your relationships, your health, and your lives.
Good points timidgenius.
Screw you, Duncan. Everybody understands that Harper is a monster, but don't add to the problem by suggesting we ought not follow the democratic process of voting on our values.
This is a complex issue, especially given our abysmal electorial system, but I object to abusive comments, like "Screw you, Duncan." Discussion should be civilized even when the issues are contentious and opinions strongly felt.
Carl Rosenberg
Vancouver, BC
I am so sick and tired of being told NOT to vote for MY values...those of us who DO vote GREEN, are voting strategically! We're voting for a Party that cannot grow without our votes! If the NDP represented my values I would vote for them, but they don't!
Let's take the Canadian commercial seal hunt as one BLATANT example. The ONLY party that has taken a firm stand against this shameful embrassment to our country is the Green Party. The NDP actually canned Rick Smith from a brief appointment on the east coast due to backlash from the pro-seal hunt lobby, given Smith's former work with IFAW. Talk about cowardice, and betrayal of Canadian wildlife, not to mention a lost opportunity to offer fisherfolk license buybacks and retraining in 21st century employment opportunities.
Instead of discouraging people of conscience from voting GREEN, why not focus on getting people out to vote who don't normally even bother? Instead of blaming those who do want change, and ARE VOTING STRATEGICALLY for Green values, and Green representation, get people out to the polls who need convincing that that right is really worth something!
The fact is, if everyone who is Green at heart were to vote Green, instead of falling for counterspin like yours, we would be much farther ahead in this country than we are. Elizabeth would have been in the debate, and kicked butt!
It's time to stop spinning our wheels, let alone going backwards by keeping the debate between Tide and Cheer alive at the expense of REAL alternatives! You have only reminded me how important it is that I VOTE GREEN.
I don't know where to start except to say that I deeply resent being cited as the source for an article that erroneously argues everything I do not believe, and which the author knows I do not believe.
I have never said that any party should not contest an election.
I don't believe in strategic voting. At all. No party rightfully owns a seat, nor is owed a vote they don't deserve.
And I don't think people like Duncan Cameron or Alice Klein have any business telling people that they voted the wrong way in the last election, or that if only they had voted some other way, armageddon would have been avoided.
Possibly the only thing more offensive than that is the ad feminem argument of Gabriel Sinduda that I should be suspected of some bias because a certain news agency hired me.
If you dispute my numbers: show your work. If you disagree with my arguments (well, it would help if you read them first, because I never argued people should vote strategically, or that one party *cost* another party the seat they supposedly rightfully owned), then provide counter-arguments, please.
I've argued against strategic voting in two elections now. If anyone would like to read my arguments instead of accepting what the commenters above say about them, the posts can be found here:
http://www.punditsguide.ca/2011/04/why-the-conservatives-love-the-strate...
http://www.punditsguide.ca/2008/09/think-twice-about-voting-strategicall...
I note that I am not alone in making them, as the well-respected blog democraticSpace is no longer producing a strategic voting guide for the very same reasons.
Duncan Cameron would have a lot more credibility if he spent his column inches arguing for or against specific items in the Green Party's platform, such as the carbon tax or income splitting, in my view, but I wish he would not appropriate my name in the service of any argument in favour of strategic voting any more.
Alice Funke at Pundit's Guide reports that in the last election the Greens gained at the expense of the Liberals in 102 of 108 Ontario ridings.
Also, I never ever said the Green votes came "at the expense of" any party. There is not enough data to draw that conclusion. I would have simply written that the Green party increased in ridings where the Liberals decreased.
Given that these simple facts can't be gotten right, why should anyone believe any recommendation being made by Project "Democracy"?
I agree with West Coaster. I am voting Green because the Green Party represents MY core values.
People should know what you stand for. They should also know what you won't stand for.
Vote Green. It's Time.Read Rabble, and get what you don't want. Crappy editorials that are a wasted space.
I want parties to run positive campaigns, take real stances on issues like marijuana legalization, electoral reform, and internalizing prices. Every election, I think, maybe this will be the election when the big parties grow up. WRONG.
I feel happy walking out of a voting booth. I know, despite having no representation, I voted for the country I want, not the country I'm going to get.
If someone else wants to vote for something they don't believe in for the point of being efficient, that is there own choice.
I'm not going to waste my one chance every 4 years to lie at the ballot box.
You want my vote, you earn it.
Ever since I can remember my first election as a child, even when I wasn't old enough to vote, I remember people talking about voting strategically. When will this stop? When will we start to fulfill the democratic ideal of voting for what we believe in?
We can continue to vote strategically, and we can continue to get the same politics in Ottawa. Make no mistake, the Liberals will not take the steps needed to make Canada sustainable any more than the Conservatives will. We have to start taking the steps to move towards a new Canada now, there is too much at stake.
Shame on anyone who says that someone is wasting their vote by voting for what they believe in. On the contrary, anyone who believes in the Green party of Canada and does not vote for them is wasting their vote. The Green party will only continue to grow as a movement when people continue to back them at the polls. And our unjust electoral system will only change when it becomes clear that Canadians are not being represented. Imagine if the Green party doubles their votes from the last election and receives 2 million votes yet still has no seats in the House of Commons. This will become an issue of democratic deficiency that cannot be ignored.
Wow. There's a lot of bourgeois individualist hand-wringing going on in this thread. "How dare someone tell ME not to vote on MY values!" Well guess what folks, there's more at stake here than your precious democratic consciences; I think its important to remember that as relatively comfortable as many of us are, a lot of people will actually do some real-world suffering if the Conservatives get a majority. Part of being a responsible democratic citizen is being able to think outside your own immediate interests -- and yes, that means your values too.
Realistically, there are three possible outcomes to this election: 1) Con majority 2) Con minority 3) Liberal minority. (Granted the last isn't very likely.) This may sound odd, but I don't think election campaigns are the best time to make real progressive gains. Mr. Cameron is right: if you care about the environment (or are concerned about the growing inequality, divisiveness, and militarization of our society), your number one goal should be to prevent a Conservative majority. It really is that simple.
Hi Alice,
I wrote that you were likely biased, and I stand by that. Your two recent employers are the Harper Government and CanWest. It doesn't take a Noam Chomsky to find some shred of bias in that.
I respect your argument ("Why the Conservatives Love Strategic Voting Sites" http://www.punditsguide.ca/) as you may well be sincere in your testimony in support of truthful voting. That doesn't mean that I don't differ with your argument.
Facts and figures do not seal the deal on matters social and political. You cite such data as though it provides the keys to unlock the future outcome of a dynamic event. You might as well predict next month's weather. There are so many chaotic and inquantifiable factors that figure in. And frankly, I really doubt that the Conservatives "Love" those sites.
Your bias is built in to your epistomology, your world view. Your work culture informs your bias. And besides, isn't the very notion of punditry suggestive of a biased point of view?
Now then, what's "ad feminem" anyway...?
Gabriel, are you really so intellectually lazy as to believe that every federal public servant supports the policies of the government of the day? Or that everyone who does work for a news organization agrees with the philosophy of its proprietors? Who do you work for that you can be so high and mighty in your criticisms of others?
Spend a few seconds on Google and embarrass yourself with what you didn't know about me before you wrote that utter nonsense.
"Ad feminem" is a feminist construction of the term "ad hominem", the kind of argument that attacks attributes of an individual rather than the calibre of their argument, something you've just been massively (and erroneously, and actually hilariously) guilty of just now.
Alice Funke at Pundit's Guide reports that in the last election the Greens gained at the expense of the Liberals in 102 of 108 Ontario ridings.
Also, I never ever said the Green votes came "at the expense of" any party. There is not enough data to draw that conclusion. I would have simply written that the Green party increased in ridings where the Liberals decreased. Given that these simple facts can't be gotten right, why should anyone believe any recommendation being made by Project "Democracy"?
It seems I did write that sentence in the one blogpost probably being quoted here. My apologies. It was a careless way of précising earlier work of mine that was more carefully written, so I really can't blame someone for not being able to read my mind on that one.
On the other hand, I'm still very strongly opposed to strategic voting for all the reasons stated.
I agree with Alice at Pundit's Guide and I have never found her to be bias but stating the facts and thus food for thought and reflection. I completely disagree with Cameron in suggesting strategic voting.
What he doesn't tell you is that he is shilling for the Liberals. It was quite true that "Alice Funke at Pundit's Guide reports that in the last election the Greens gained at the expense of the Liberals in 102 of 108 Ontario ridings."
But there is some sense of karmatic justice in that. Liberals made a deal with Liberals in the last election and essentially in my ringside seat, May became the "cat's paw" against the Layton's NDP. The Liberal Star also played along giving her lots of air time for a party with few votes, but giving her air was so she could bash Layton in the press rather than the Liberals look bad.
But a funny thing happen on election day when the Greens ate mostly into the Liberal vote rather than the NDP vote. So justice was served because be careful for what you wish for (well not, because it screwed them) because it just might be true.
To finish, I agree here that strategic voting is crap. People need to vote for what they want and not what they fear.
And both Cameron and Alice Klien are just shills for the Liberals but aren't honest with their intentions. Alice Klien in the last election ran the "strategically vote for the liberals" votefortheenvironment. Now it's votefordemocracy but it's the same people behind the scenes. Last time, the liberal connections were more apparent and outed (liberal partisan). This time, it's just Alice's name with secret others. Sure we can guess.
The only ones pushing strategic voting are the Liberals, so ignore ignore ignore or nothing will change with Liberal/Tory same old story!
I agree with Alice at Pundit's Guide and I have never found her to be bias but stating the facts and thus food for thought and reflection. I completely disagree with Cameron in suggesting strategic voting.
What he doesn't tell you is that he is shilling for the Liberals. It was quite true that "Alice Funke at Pundit's Guide reports that in the last election the Greens gained at the expense of the Liberals in 102 of 108 Ontario ridings."
But there is some sense of karmatic justice in that. Liberals made a deal with Liberals in the last election and essentially in my ringside seat, May became the "cat's paw" against the Layton's NDP. The Liberal Star also played along giving her lots of air time for a party with few votes, but giving her air was so she could bash Layton in the press rather than the Liberals look bad.
But a funny thing happen on election day when the Greens ate mostly into the Liberal vote rather than the NDP vote. So justice was served because be careful for what you wish for (well not, because it screwed them) because it just might be true.
To finish, I agree here that strategic voting is crap. People need to vote for what they want and not what they fear.
And both Cameron and Alice Klien are just shills for the Liberals but aren't honest with their intentions. Alice Klien in the last election ran the "strategically vote for the liberals" votefortheenvironment. Now it's votefordemocracy but it's the same people behind the scenes. Last time, the liberal connections were more apparent and outed (liberal partisan). This time, it's just Alice's name with secret others. Sure we can guess.
The only ones pushing strategic voting are the Liberals, so ignore ignore ignore or nothing will change with Liberal/Tory same old story!
Sir, I see your point, but...
"Greens gained at the expense of the Liberals in 102 of 108 Ontario ridings."
GOOD! Sure, we need Harper out, but the Liberal Party is not a good replacement. Remember Adscam? Remember the promise to eliminate GST? The Grits are as corrupt & full of crap as the Tories. Do you really think Liberals will reform first-past-the-post? Speaking of crap...
"The Green Party could be anointing Green New Democrat candidates, or Green Liberal candidates"
There is no such thing as a Green Red. Have you ever painted? If you learned colour theory you know green & red are colour wheel opposites. You CAN make grey when you mix them (IF you get those opposites perfect), but mostly you get 'crap' brown.
W B Maclean says it best. Averting a Conservative majority will by no means be any better for our environment, nor would a minority Liberal government. They both support the tar sands, they both support other environmentally detrimental resource extraction industries. The environment needs a new voice, and if it takes a Conservative majority for the Green party to gain a stronger hold in federal politics, I say so be it.
Come on people, what Duncan is saying is true and you know it. The Green Party will elect Zero people but they will take votes away from New Democrats and Liberals. If they were plannning to vote for the Harper Conservatives than I would aruge their Pot has been spiked with something.
Duncan speaks the truth and those on the left who like to get together in Starbucks and talk politics, or who are content with debating the bigger issues over wine and cheese are free to do so but you aren't going to change a damn thing is the Harper Conservatives are in Government.
Do you guys get what they are going to do if they get back in? What's the chance their will be a CBC afterwards? How about limits on Abortion? What about the War Resisters who are still fighting deportaton back to the USA because the Conservatives won't give them Santuary, do you thing they give a damn about "Postive voting".
Also put that all aside and look at the Green Platform forget the granola and the tree hugging stuff, look their policies on the Economy. They support Income Splitting which benefits the wealthy and the stay at home mini van crowd that usually support the Conservatives. It does nothing for working parents or single mothers.
How about Corporate Taxes, nope they don't support an increase in those either. The Canadian Green Party is not a left wing party, I'm not even sure what they stand for, but of course it doesn't matter because repeat after me -THEY WILL WIN NO SEATS-
Come on people, what Duncan is saying is true and you know it. The Green Party will elect Zero people but they will take votes away from New Democrats and Liberals. If they were plannning to vote for the Harper Conservatives than I would aruge their Pot has been spiked with something.
Duncan speaks the truth and those on the left who like to get together in Starbucks and talk politics, or who are content with debating the bigger issues over wine and cheese are free to do so but you aren't going to change a damn thing is the Harper Conservatives are in Government.
Do you guys get what they are going to do if they get back in? What's the chance there will be a CBC afterwards? How about limits on Abortion? What about the War Resisters who are still fighting deportaton back to the USA because the Conservatives won't give them Santuary, do you thing they give a damn about "Postive voting".
Also put that all aside and look at the Green Platform forget the granola and the tree hugging stuff, look their policies on the Economy. They support Income Splitting which benefits the wealthy and the stay at home mini van crowd that usually support the Conservatives. It does nothing for working parents or single mothers.
How about Corporate Taxes, nope they don't support an increase in those either. The Canadian Green Party is not a left wing party, I'm not even sure what they stand for, but of course it doesn't matter because repeat after me -THEY WILL WIN NO SEATS-
Duncan, are we supposed to be so stupid that we can't check our own ridings' statistics? Do you propose that we vote "strategically" based upon federal statistics? How stupid is that? The result would be a two party system, or worse, the "Conservative" majority you threaten us with.
Imagine a riding where the NDP is stronger voting Liberal because of the National statistics. Now explain why that would be any different for those of us in a strong Green riding voting Liberal or NDP, just because the national statistics would suggest it. You should have used common sense and advised us to look at our own local statistics, and then decide to vote strategically.
For those who want help deciding who is the best candidate to defeat the "Conservatives", you could recommend that they look up Catch 22 or Project Democracy, for their riding by riding recommendations.
Best, Steve
Bravo , Mr. Cameron.
Here in SGI Elisabeth May is poised to come in third at best, what is certain is that damn Lunn is going to be back in again.
.
Note that even Michael Byers has changed his opinion on strategic voting since advocating an electoral coalition a year and a half ago.
And he lives in Saanich-Gulf Islands.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/04/20/cv-election-vp-myers.html
also, if the ndp and libs really supported strategic voting they would pull their candidates in SGI and have may go head to head with the cons, the greens could reciprocate as well.
but again, its all rubbish.
Alice...
"Gabriel, are you really so intellectually lazy as to believe that every federal public servant supports the policies of the government of the day? Or that everyone who does work for a news organization agrees with the philosophy of its proprietors? Who do you work for that you can be so high and mighty in your criticisms of others?"
Actually Alice, there are some among us who choose not to shill for the outright hegemonic culprits in this world. It's something called personal integrity. Walking the walk.
I take issue likewise with so-called experts on climate change who are forever on airplanes.
It's like putting a "clean air" bumper sticker on your van.
And "progressive" liberals who claim to care about the homeless and critical housing shortage while flipping their homes, taking advantage of the housing "market" and gentrification.
And so on.
You might have chosen to play ball and so rationalize your choices but where I am apparently "intellectually lazy" you are "soul lazy" I guess.
Time to wake up and smell the pollution. You probably puff a whole lot of carbon into the atmosphere to conduct your business and support your habits. Just a guess. Daily commutes, alone in a car?
Just guessing.
Google doesn't tell me anything about a person that means anything to me. How they live their life does. The choices they make, on a daily basis.
"There are no passengers on Spaceship Earth. We are all crew."--Marshall McLuhan
"Know Thyself."