Thanks Greens !!!

89 posts / 0 new
Last post
nicky
Thanks Greens !!!

 

Elizabeth May was on Power and Politics today claiming that the only reason the Green vote fell from 6.8% to 3.8% was that she was excluded from the debates. This seems to ignore the fact that in 2006 the Greens got 4.5% even though Jim Harris was not in the debates.

This little piece of self -indulgent disingenuity motivated me to have a closer look at the Green vote.  May was of course personally elected but the overall Green vote was cut almost in half. Instead of 15 second place finishes they achieved only  one (Dufferin Caledon).

 But the most significant impact of the Greens may have been assuring Harper of his majority. Here is a list of seats which the Conservatives won by margins less than the Green vote (which is in brackets.)

 Over Liberals:

Etobicoke Centre             0.05        (2.76)

Don Valley East                 2.2          (3.1)

Don Valley West               1.2          (3.20)

Etobicoke Centre             0.05        (2.76)

Mississauga East C           1.4          ((2.3)

Moncton                             4.1          (4.5)

Nippissing                           0.03        (6.02)

Yukon                                   0.8          (18.9)

Winnipeg SC                       1.7          (3.5)                                      

Over NDP:

Montmagny                       0.2          (2.9)

Lotbiniere                           1.4          (1.7)

Bramalea G M                   0.9          (3.0)

Elmwood-Transcona       0.9          (3.1)      

Saskatoon R B                    1.8          (2.1)      

Palliser                                  2.3          (2.9)      

Van Island N                       3.1          (5.1)      

So instead of a Parliament composed of 167 Conservatives, 102  NDP, 34 Liberals and four Boq (plus May) we might have had a Parliament of 151 - 109 - 43 - 4 - 1.

A case can also be made that the Greens deprived the NDP of two Bloq  seats :

Bas Richilieu                       2.4          (3.0)

Richmond -Arth               1.4          (2.1)

And four Liberal seats:

Westmount                        1.6          (3.7)

Lac St Louis                         4.1          (4.3)

Winnipeg North                                0.5          (1.8)      

Vancouver Centre           5.0          (15.4)   

In which case we might have woken up this morning to a Parliament of :

151 Cons, 115 NDP, 39 Libs, 2 Bloq and one other.

And an entirely different future for Canada.

Thanks Greens.

D V

Good for you & your digging, nicky. I shall refer to this post where I already posted, among some self-questioning and disgruntled Greens.

Freedom 55

The Greens contested the election just like the other parties. I also don't think one can assume that the votes they received would have otherwise gone to to the NDP or Liberals. There are many small-c conservatives who vote Green, so it's entirely possible the Green vote prevented some Conservative wins too.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

@nicky:

That is a good study. However, I agree with Freedom 55 that we can't assume Green voters were New Dems. I have always assumed they were either disgruntled Tories or Libs.

For sure though, they got 471 votes in Winnipeg North, and we got Kevin Lamoureux. Ugh!

knownothing knownothing's picture

Greens are right-wingers I hope everybody who votes for them knows this

Life, the unive...

They don't

JeffWells

The system is broken, but I don't begrudge any party the right to compete in it. It's the sense of entitlement we often accuse the Liberals of having, to presume those votes belong to us.

I don't like May, but I was proud her victory received loud ovations at the NDP election night party.

 

Life, the unive...

Nobody caused anything, other than voters who made their decisions.   That is what democracy is about.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Well LTU, that is a fair point, but I wish we could assume the Greens were lefties and for once, strategic voting really meant voting NDP. Any way you slice, we still have a fabulous night! I think that in Winnipeg North, the only riding for which I can speak with any "authority", note the use of quotation marks, the NDP vote still didn't materialize. It was very frustrating for  me. Next time for sure, especially if Beckie runs again.

Bubbles

Just got back, two days before the election, from a long overdue visite to friends and relatives in Germany. It was amazing to see the awareness most germans seem to have with regard to environmental problems when compared to most Canadians. And a willingness to work on reducing their environmental footprint.

The greens might have lost some support, but in my view that has more to do with the fact that environmental issues in Canada have been pushed back into the dark ages.  In the end the environment will trump financial concerns, and the greens will be back in the sunshine. I visited a small village in the Black forest, Unterlenghenhardt, where close to 60 percent of the voters voted for the greens. Would be nice to see that happening here.

I am glad May got in.

eastnoireast

i take it you meant to title the thread  thanks fptp!!! ?   

because otherwise, following the same logic, think of all the seats the liberals would have won if the ndp had not run for election - you know, all the anti-harper votes could have gone to iggy et all, no fear of a coalition, etc - the ndp could have saved canada! 

but no, they had to give canadians a choice.  sooo selfish.

Winston

nicky wrote:

 But the most significant impact of the Greens may have been assuring Harper of his majority. Here is a list of seats which the Conservatives won by margins less than the Green vote (which is in brackets.)

You know, I hated this kind of reasoning when Liberals used it against us, and I hate it even more when we use it against the Greens. A vote for the Greens is a vote for the Greens - period.  If we didn't win those seats, it's because we didn't EARN enough votes to win them.

Yes, I know our FPTP electoral system is f*cked and needs to be fixed, but that is absolutely not a valid excuse for engaging in Liberal-style vote-entitlement admonitions! 

 

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

knownothing wrote:

Greens are right-wingers I hope everybody who votes for them knows this

 

Tories with Composters.

Doug

Interesting, but we can't make the assumption that Green voters would have just voted for some other non-Conservative.

genstrike

This analysis is also making the assumption that all green voters would have otherwise voted for the second place non-conservative candidate, or for the NDP in close NDP vs. Liberal or NDP vs. Bloc races.  For example, it assumes all Green voters in Elmwood-Transcona and Winnipeg North would have voted NDP, and all Green voters in Winnipeg South Centre would have voted Liberal - ergo the NDP is entitled to all Green votes in some parts of Winnipeg, but the Liberals are entitled to all the Green votes in other parts of Winnipeg.  This is absurd.

genstrike

Also worth noting:  I was browsing the history of Winnipeg North in wikipedia.  Apparently, Rebecca Blaikie in 2011 got several thousand votes less than Judy W-L even in her worst showings in this riding.  In fact, if you go even further back, both David Orlikow (NDP), Rey Pagtakhan (Liberal), Murray Smith (Tory) and Alistair Stewart (CCF) all on occaision won more votes individually than both Blaikie and Lamoureaux in 2011 combined.  When David Orlikow lost his seat, he still won 5000 more votes than Rebecca Blaikie won in 2011.  In light of the fact that the NDP won several thousand fewer votes than in previous elections, doesn't it seem a little absurd to be blaming the Green Party for the NDP's loss because they managed to win just a few hundred votes?

Trevormkidd

I know several greens who did vote strategically for either the NDP or Liberals in tight races and perhaps they should be thanked first instead of blaming those who didn't change their vote.  I also personally know at least a dozen people in Nip-Tim who were ABC voters, on the left, I don't think any had a party membership, and voted NDP because the wave left them feeling that the race was now in between the NDP and the Cons, instead of the Libs and Cons.  The Liberal lost by 14 votes.  An STV ballot would have come in handy in such situations.

Aristotleded24

genstrike wrote:
Also worth noting:  I was browsing the history of Winnipeg North in wikipedia.  Apparently, Rebecca Blaikie in 2011 got several thousand votes less than Judy W-L even in her worst showings in this riding.  In fact, if you go even further back, both David Orlikow (NDP), Rey Pagtakhan (Liberal), Murray Smith (Tory) and Alistair Stewart (CCF) all on occaision won more votes individually than both Blaikie and Lamoureaux in 2011 combined.  When David Orlikow lost his seat, he still won 5000 more votes than Rebecca Blaikie won in 2011.  In light of the fact that the NDP won several thousand fewer votes than in previous elections, doesn't it seem a little absurd to be blaming the Green Party for the NDP's loss because they managed to win just a few hundred votes?

What has been the population trend for Winnipeg North over this time? This could mean one of 2 things. It could mean that voter turnout is declining in Winnipeg North. Or, if the population is declining, it would stand to reason that the number of ballots cast would decline as well.

genstrike

Aristotleded24 wrote:

What has been the population trend for Winnipeg North over this time? This could mean one of 2 things. It could mean that voter turnout is declining in Winnipeg North. Or, if the population is declining, it would stand to reason that the number of ballots cast would decline as well.

I don't think it is possible for a riding to lose 50% of its population through redistribution.  Usually, aren't riding populations kept relatively constant during redistributions to ensure that everyone (outside of a few quirks like PEI) has more or less the same population:MP ratio?

I think it is more likely that as one of the poorest ridings in the country, the voter turnout is depressed because especially in the neoliberal era, politicians of all stripes haven't really been serious about addressing things like poverty and racism.  Also, as a candidate, Rebecca Blaikie was a terrible fit for that riding.

nicky

I don't contest the right of the Greens to run in an election. I also do not assume that ALL of their votes are readily transferrable to any single party. Furthermore I accept that the Green party is more right wing than the NDP on economic issues in particyular.

I was trying to make a different point in initiating this thread and will elaborate just a little to keep the discussion going.

Although the party may be relatively conservative on some issues it is still well to the left of the Conservatives. And its voters tend to be evn more to the left. If you look at the crosstabs in the various polls you will see that the demogaraphics of the Green voter are closest to those of the NDP voter. Income, age, sex, urbanity. The polls also showed that the NDP and the Liberals were both preferred by Green voters by large margins over the Conservatives.

For example the last Leger poll gave these second choice numbers amongst Green voters: NDP 31 Lib 14 Con 12. Ekos : NDP 40.3 Lib 17.4 Con 11.

Some people I know think that it is cute or trendy to vote Green (the $2 subsidy and all that) even though they are appalled at a Conservative majority. I think it is fair and proper to point out to them that by voting Green they have helped the Conservatives attain that majority.

Eric Grenier in the Globe today decries the NDP for splitting the Liberal vote in Ontario and thereby allowing Conservatives to win. This is a bit rich given that the NDP outpolled the Liberals. He completely ignores the effect of Green vote-splitting, something that I think the electorate must understand.

D V

The original post here did say, "may" (!).

The spot I brought it to the attention of some (ex-/)Greens was http://www.christindal.ca/2011/05/03/the-state-of-the-green-party-of-can... .

My lament is GPC central's not having heeded my strong urging that electoral reform, when they had media spotlight a few years back, be put on the front burner (my favourite being re Senate, but whatever). The main political place for Greens was and still is to bring up neglected angles & issues, to be picked up by others (most famously, e.g., the Dion "green shift"; see my old blog posts at page http://greenparty.ca/node/4324 , starting with, "Shift my tax!; or, Here's your party, Mr. Simpson" ). Now the electoral reform business is pushed back years, unless Harper & Layton get together to (dangerously) abolish it, (Liberal ghosts and all).

We lost the goalie MP (to a cardboard cut-out Con.), and our household members were unsure whether to endure the nausea of voting for his party, or personally sticking with the Green whose dutiful running we had had a lot to do with. We split on that.

When do the new Commons seats get added, so there can be future argument about splitting in some more ridings?

 

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

I fully agree with those who admonish people here for the assumption that a Green vote is a vote taken from the left. That said, the opening post does illustrate the impact the CBC's Vote Compass might have had by steering nearly all NDP voters towards the Green camp.

observer521

It would have been very irresponsible if you oppose Harper, to vote Green in a close riding.

nicky

In post #19 above I mistakenly cited Eric Grenier as the author of the Globe article. It was in fact Patrick Brethour's article, "Canada's new electoral divide."

D V

Isn't this one for nicky's list, in its own category...

"«Nous avons décelé des erreurs entre les résultats déclarés au central par téléphone et les résultats inscrits sur les feuilles. En ce cas, c'est le résultat écrit sur la feuille qui prévaut, note M. Lapointe. C'est une grossière erreur, plus de 100 votes qui m'étaient destinés ont été attribués au Parti Vert. On pense que c'est une erreur de manipulation, mais bon.»"

from a link Stockholm brought on another thread, http://www.cyberpresse.ca/le-soleil/dossiers/elections-federales/201105/...

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Elizabeth May was on Power and Politics today claiming that the only reason the Green vote fell from 6.8% to 3.8% was that she was excluded from the debates.

 

The reason I can't get excited or congratulatory over her win is because she's so incredibly fucking dishonest.

 

Gee, Elizabeth, are you pretty sure that running an intensive LOCAL campaign, rather than a NATIONAL campaign wasn't maybe part of it? Y'know, focussing solely on SGI, exactly as you said you would, rather than reaching out to the whole country?

 

Why is it so hard for her to just be honest? No spin. No finger pointing. No whining. Just honesty, for once.

observer521

Greens were blacklisted from the media. No media covered the Greens when she went out. The Corp media despises the Greens, as they want more oilsands.

that being said, now that she has a seat, they can't totally blacklist her.

Snert Snert's picture

The Green Party anthem should be "Nobody likes me | Everybody hates me | Think I'll go eat worms".  The way they've been cruelly mistreated since day one is a shame.  A lowdown, dirty shame.

Meanwhile, if nobody is jamming a camera in her face, she might have considered actually knocking on some doors.  You don't need the media's help for that one.  And really, on one of her eight days (so I'm told) campaigning outside her riding, what should the media have asked?  How's that complete and total focus on SGI going??  That's not really all that relevant outside of SGI.

janfromthebruce

No kidding for someone says she wants to bring a breath of fresh air to parliament she sure is not starting on the right foot! And she should be very careful about alienating those NDP voters because they won't be there in 4 years if she pisses them off.

observer521

well, the Greens are going nowhere in Canada anyway.

George Victor

Malcolm wrote:

knownothing wrote:

Greens are right-wingers I hope everybody who votes for them knows this

 

Tories with Composters.

Excellent sleuthing. And this one singled out - "Instead of 15 second place finishes they achieved only  one (Dufferin Caledon)"  -  is THE example of country squires supporting the greenery they've come to love...as long as it does not hurt their income investments  on the Market during retirement.

 

I have spoken to Greens who were once New Democrats, but they are not the politically conscious Greens of Germany...I can remember German greens visiting us during formation of the Green Party of Ontario, summer of '83. I'd like to know how they have incorporated tolerance, if not support, for the Market fact in their situation.

Bubbles

observer521 wrote:

well, the Greens are going nowhere in Canada anyway.

This potato has been over fertilized, black rot is already setting in.

Bubbles

George Victor wrote:
  

I can remember German greens visiting us during formation of the Green Party of Ontario, summer of '83. I'd like to know how they have incorporated tolerance, if not support, for the Market fact in their situation.

My impression is that the average green in Unterlenghenhardt has little interest in politics, their primary focus is on the environment. Left and right wing politics, being rich or poor, male or female, seventy or twenty have little to do with being aware of one,s environmental impact. They like a tidy, well fuctioning environment, which realy is their home.

green ceo

 

I do not believe you can catagorize the average green voter.  In my area the EDA members and voters I've gotten to know well  are  a mixture of previously apolitical people, red tories, dippers who put the environment first, light libertarians who want pot and euthenasia legalized.  The thing I don't see is proclaimed ex liberals.  I think I'll see a few join now.

 

When it comes down to it both Libs and Greens cost NDP seats, Greens and NDP cost Lib seats, In theory Libs and NDP cost Green seats, suck it up.  The system is flawed and until everyone decides to play nice and pull candidates, or until the Libs embrace real electoral reform we have a problem. 

 

I do not like this sense of entitlement when people claim their votes were stolen.  The NDP managed to win a quite a number of seats with caracitures of real Candidates who were not qualified.  Had they run good qualifed active candidates in all ridings they would have won even more seats and I'm good with that , but don't blame the Greens when at least part of the issue was weak local campaigns, you can't expect Jack to carry the entire load.  In 905 especially the NDP ran many campaigns weaker than ours and at the door voters noticed and mentioned the fact.

Vansterdam Kid

JeffWells wrote:

The system is broken, but I don't begrudge any party the right to compete in it. It's the sense of entitlement we often accuse the Liberals of having, to presume those votes belong to us.

I don't like May, but I was proud her victory received loud ovations at the NDP election night party.

 

I had a sense that this thread title/topic was ironic in light of the threads and posts in the blogosphere blaming the NDP for the Liberals collapse.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

genstrike wrote:

[...]

I don't think it is possible for a riding to lose 50% of its population through redistribution.  Usually, aren't riding populations kept relatively constant during redistributions to ensure that everyone (outside of a few quirks like PEI) has more or less the same population:MP ratio?

Sorry if I am mansplaining, but since you asked... no, not really, the factors deciding the size of ridings don't really function that way.

There is one rule that says that no province can ever have fewer seats in the Commons than it has in the Senate -- so it uses a 1867 yardstick to measure everything (and has more impact on cases like the one you mentioned [PEI, but this also comes clearly into play for New Brunswick] granting them an absolutely guaranteed number of seats - regardless of what their relative population is). While I don't recommend wikipedia as a source for a lot of things, in this case they report the facts pretty accurately, and there is a good table in their article on the Senate spelling out how this affects "rep by population" in terms of the Senate, and, by extension, the spill-over effect is to distort representation in the Commons.

There is another rule, the "grandfather clause" that states that no province can have fewer MPs than it did in the 1985 Parliament (this is part of the negotiations leading up to the failed Meech Lake Accord... the part that stuck, thank you Mr. Mulroney). Yet another wikipedia article and chart nicely spells this out). So before any distribution on the basis of population takes hold, this has to be taken into account. [to muddy the waters further, the Territories have no explicit guarantees under this and are allocated one seat each only]

The combination of these two rules means that there are, at present, 27 seats that are now guaranteed to provinces regardless of how their proportion of the total national population stagnates or declines. (Complicating the matter is that the Constitution Act only requires a total of 295 seats in the Commons). The actual formula used to determine how seats are to be distributed is:

[The total population of the country] divided by [279 (the number of provincial seats in 1985 [territories don't count])] equals [base number of seats for each province]  plus [seats governed by either of the special clauses] equals [actual number of seats]

As time goes by, and demographic shifts see the populations in BC, Ontario and Alberta increase relative to the rest of the country, the more distorting this formula is.

Or to put it more simply (an example often helps) under the enshrined forumla the average riding in my province (Alberta) has 117,513 people residing in it, the averge riding in your province (Manitoba) has 82,029 people residing in it. I leave it up to you to decide if that is "more or less the population:MP ratio". Oh, and finally, the courts have decided that it is acceptable, within the confines of any province, for there to be a discrepancy of up to 25% between urban and rural ridings... this is the explanation of why the ACTUAL population ratio in my riding was (in 2008, last time there are figures available, it has gone up)  124,197:1

So my answer to the question you posed (that I quote above) is no, not really.

 


 

D V

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

I had a sense that this thread title/topic was ironic in light of the threads and posts in the blogosphere blaming the NDP for the Liberals collapse.

Yes, the NDP did in the Libs who kept out the Greens who put in the Cons who blow the whole process anyway, while the BQ ducked out enabling the NDP....

genstrike

bagkitty wrote:

...big long thing...

Regardless, Rebecca Blaikie won a few thousand votes less in 2011 than Judy W-L has won in recent elections - and with the lowest NDP vote outside of by-elections in that riding in many decades.  It's dumb to blame the Greens for costing her that seat if Blaikie/the NDP did that poorly.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

LOL, well genstrike, glad to see my observations about grotesque inequities in representation didn't upset you too much. I do like the "...big long thing" line. Two thumbs ups. But I was addressing the question you actually attached the question mark to... about population:MP ratios.

Searosia

Nicky - I'd suggest to you we've already seen most of the green vote that will vote NDP has already gone to NDP (Hence the green vote falling from 6.8 to 3.8 this election) and the remaining votes you are seeing here are actual green (probably small c green) voters.

It's possible you can go over ridings conservatives lost to NDP/Bloc/Lib by the margin of the green vote and claim it was conservatives splitting off to the green vote that cost the conservatives that seat.  Very unsure if any of the remaining collapsed green vote would ever consider a NDP vote.

Sean in Ottawa

I don't think the green vote went down over the debates-They were out of it as soon as the NDP started to climb. I think Greens voted NDP to try to get PR. The NDP needs to remember this and do what it can in that regard.

mimeguy

This argument continues to be completely F*CKING tiresome.  You have a majority conservative government because the liberals completely collapsed and there was no way the NDP could have picked up all the slack and fended off the conservatives.  It has zero to do with those who vote Green because they want a Green voice in the Canadian government.  The liberals collapsed because they didn't bother listening in 2004, 2006 and 2008 when voters were telling them to change and gave them every opportunity to do so.

Sean in Ottawa has a good point.  When the talk turned to the possibility of a Layton lead minority government many Green voters may have recognized it as a true opportunity for electoral reform.  It was never going to be possible with the liberals and even the NDP with a single vote from Elizabeth may not have been able to figure out how to introduce the change so that it would receive the cooperation of the conservatives or the few BQ MPs.  The conservatives most likely would have fought to prevent PR from ever seeing the light of day.  However it represented the best chance PR ever had in this country.  It'll have to wait. Those Green supporters who may have changed their vote based on this would also have based it on the possibility that Elizabeth would not win in SGI.  That dynamic has changed and those votes may return to the Greens in the next election. 

Canada will never become literally a two party system.  The liberals may never recover and eventually join the old PC party as a permanent part of Canadian political history.  The NDP will never be able to attract enough progressive conservative voters and thinkers to balance the Harper conservatives.  That presents an opportunity for the Greens to become the third party over the next two elections.  Should the next election produce a conservative minority then it is certainly possible for electoral reform to become reality.  Jack Layton cannot avoid this in a minority situation and neither will the Greens. 

Token juvenile insults like those in some above posts aside, I recognize that many people here don't like Greens and certainly many Green posters here have proven that partisan politics contaminates our party as it does the others.  I respect those that don't like my politics and would respectfully submit  that a future government with NO liberal party and one with Greens and New Democrats gives Canada a much better chance in the future even if it is a conservative minority.  An NDP minority with Greens to provide support where we have common ideals would be even better. 

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Thanks for taking the time to respond respectfully to the OP, mimeguy. It's appreciated.

D V

I hope it's not my viewpoint that mimeguy finds contaminated.

Recall that the Cons. did try a couple of times, assuming they were genuine and would have gone through with it, I doubt they would now, to do the Senate reform thing, which could have amounted to Greens in.

Is it remembered that a sporting Jack Layton actually mentioned the Greens during the debate, the million votes was it? Is that why mimeguy believes some Greens were moved to vote NDP?

 

 

 

mimeguy

Thanks Catchfire. 

@DV - No I was not referring to your posts.  I don't think it was necessarily his reference to the Greens in the debate.  I think it comes from a belief that the NDP as a whole believes in electoral reform and serious enough to bring it in.  I also believe that Greens need to be there in parliament to help ensure that the promise is not put on the back burner.

 

 

Lord Palmerston

Perhaps the Greens can play the role that the Lib Dems did in the UK...prior to their doing a 180 and propping up the ultra-rightwing Cameron government.  

adma

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I don't think the green vote went down over the debates-They were out of it as soon as the NDP started to climb. I think Greens voted NDP to try to get PR. The NDP needs to remember this and do what it can in that regard.

No, I think it went down even before the debates--as the Nanos tracking poll proved.

pcml

the greens went up last election  because we moved 250,000 votes last time mostly from the ndp

the ndp went up this time because jack layton said he would reopen the constitution as  instructed

something all the other partys are too smart or too dumb to ever do...you pick

it will be the end of the ndp in the long run

then with the help of the four guys who run the polls and create spin  and answer to the half billion dollars  harper put into media last year

they showed what media ignored on purpose .....a federal party would reopen the constitution something a quebec party had tried to do for how many years?

 

and of course created this faked harpers/layton "orange crush" ...the two year old joint plan

then those we had moved green last time  then got caught up in it as designed and went back ndp

 

because they are it seems... yes ... "stupid potheads" 

its a long story but most of you obviously do not follow too well and would probaly just think other wise any way

 

but to us it showed layton would even see a destroyed old canada just  to beat the lberals

 

to me he will be remembered as a traitor of  the highest order

 

and I long for his demise

 

soon though like potheads they will soon see jack for what he really is..nothing of substance

 

and any that think the greens are conservatives ..well..you are so far off the mark its silly

put that in your pipes and smoke it

cheers

SeanHraefn

Look, I made an account on this site just to address the OP.

 

I voted Green because I believe in Green policies. The NDP and Green platforms are not that similar. The NDP believe in Cap and Trade, which accomplishes nothing, while the Greens believe in a flat carbon tax. The Greens want to lower my income tax, the NDP does not.

I'm not going to vote for something I don't believe in just to try and defeat something else I don't believe in.

I disagree with the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP pretty equally on a lot of subjects and I'm going to stand my ground as a card carrying Green Party member.

Our party made a strategic decision to push for a seat as opposed to the popular vote. Our decision paid off and we got our first seat. That seat is infinitely more powerful than 8 or 9% of the popular vote.

For my values, an NDP or Con government are going to pull the country in directions I disagree with, one too far in one direction and one too far in the other.

Harper will self-destruct the Cons in 2015 just like Mulroney did in 1993. Only half a million more Canadians voted for Harper than did in 2008. He won because we have a broken system, not at the fault of any one party.

Don't tell me that my choice of party is any less valid than yours and that somehow I'm supposed to supress my values and vote for your party just to beat the other guy.

Any Greens that flipped to NDP obviously never actually read the Green or NDP platform as they are not that similar.

Hell, fiscally the Greens are closer to the PC party of old more than anything else and environmentally we're further left than the NDP.

Hunker down for 4 years and let the Cons destroy themselves, as they always do.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

So you stopped in to confirm the "Tories with composters" meme?

Kewl. Cool

And much appreciated. It's very much what I think is true of Green voters over thirty. The younger crowd is more diverse, and more likely to consider the NDP.

SeanHraefn

Well, first of all, I am under 30.

Second of all, my environmental beliefs go far further than having a composter.

The fact is, one of the NDP's big environmental plans is Cap and Trade. A system proven to not reduce polution at all. We need a full on Green revolution in this country. The elimination of traditional farming in favour of urban farming. The conversion of our entire power grid to green forms of energy. We have the technology to turn every window in Canada into a solar panel, so let's do it. We need to work to centralize our population into cities to allow forests and other natural features to retake our current farm land and rural areas.

We need to work on 'Green buildings" that include cooling systems actually constructed of hanging plants and vines on EVERY BUILDING. We need to eliminate traditional housing in favour of multistory housing buildings that can fit multiple families on a single plot of land by building up, not out.

The fact is, the NDP is not nearly as strong on their environmental policies as they need to be and they're way too willing to tax and spend on programs with dubious results.

We need a party prepared to change the very fabric of Canadian society from the ground up and the Green Party is the only party prepared to do that.

Pages