How many Green votes?

cybercoma · October 15, 2008

Actually, the Bloc will get just under 10% of the vote.

7.5, 9.5, 8.5

It doesn't matter. That's still much less than than the % of seats they'll have in the house. Everyone should be well aware there's a problem with our electoral system, considering the Green Party will get nearly as many votes and end up with no seats.

Smallc · October 15, 2008

7.5, 9.5, 8.5
It doesn't matter. That's still much less than than the % of seats they'll have in the house. Everyone should be well aware there's a problem with our electoral system, considering the Green Party will get nearly as many votes and end up with no seats.

But the green party is not strong in any one area. As a result, they really have no right to represent any area. They have to have real support someplace and they really don't.

cybercoma · October 15, 2008

But the green party is not strong in any one area. As a result, they really have no right to represent any area. They have to have real support someplace and they really don't.

I understand why they don't have any seats; however, when you consider that out of everyone that voted, the number of people that picked a Green Party candidate is not very far off from the number of people who picked a BQ candidate. Consider, then, that the BQ will hold nearly 16% of the seats in the house and the Green Party will have none. I would think that would indicate a problem. Also, the Conservative Party will have nearly half of the seats in the house with just over 1/3 of the vote. Our parliament is not in any way representative of what people want.

Even within a riding, often times an MP will be sent to Ottawa with only 1/3 of the vote (or less sometimes). How then does that MP represent the constituents? A majority of the constituents did not vote for that person. In reality, that MP only speaks for a fraction of his or her riding.

Having said all that, I think your point exemplifies the problem with our FPTP system. It promotes regional divide and the rise of niche parties that appeal to regional interests rather than federal unity.

Edited October 15, 2008 by cybercoma

blueblood · October 15, 2008

I understand why they don't have any seats; however, when you consider that out of everyone that voted, the number of people that picked a Green Party candidate is not very far off from the number of people who picked a BQ candidate. Consider, then, that the BQ will hold nearly 16% of the seats in the house and the Green Party will have none. I would think that would indicate a problem. Also, the Conservative Party will have nearly half of the seats in the house with just over 1/3 of the vote. Our parliament is not in any way representative of what people want.
Even within a riding, often times an MP will be sent to Ottawa with only 1/3 of the vote (or less sometimes). How then does that MP represent the constituents? A majority of the constituents did not vote for that person. In reality, that MP only speaks for a fraction of his or her riding.

Having said all that, I think your point exemplifies the problem with our FPTP system. It promotes regional divide and the rise of niche parties that appeal to regional interests rather than federal unity.

of course fptp works, there are at least 4 parties running in ridings. How are they supposed to even get a majority the first time around. It is the most fair way, having an elected representative. Don't hate the fact that there are numerous political parties and people vote for them.

kengs333 · October 15, 2008

But the green party is not strong in any one area. As a result, they really have no right to represent any area. They have to have real support someplace and they really don't.

One of the most likely regions for this to happen is in southwestern Ontario; if you look at the ridings of Guelph, Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, and some of the ridings in that area, they're coming in 2nd and 3rd. They even got 3rd in the heart of GTA neocon territory: Oakville. This is happening in Conservative won ridings, and shows to some extent that OGP performance in 2007 wasn't a fluke or because of a protest vote.

Edited October 15, 2008 by kengs333

cybercoma · October 15, 2008

of course fptp works, there are at least 4 parties running in ridings. How are they supposed to even get a majority the first time around. It is the most fair way, having an elected representative. Don't hate the fact that there are numerous political parties and people vote for them.

1) I don't hate the fact that there are numerous political parties, what makes you jump to that conclusion? In fact, in my election predictions I gave the Green Party benefit of the doubt and suggested they'd win a seat.

2) Who says we need to get rid of ridings and representatives to have proportional representation? There's the MMP or Alternative Vote systems that are hybrid forms of PR voting that could work.

kengs333 · October 15, 2008

At the moment Elections Canada has the Greens at 838,105 with 5,314 polls not yet reporting. They might actually hit the 900,000 level.

M.Dancer · October 15, 2008

21% of eligible voters voted for the CPC and they have 47% of the seats in the house.
If that doesn't tell you there's a problem with fptp, then nothing does.

No....does not follow...there is nothing but wishful thinking that PR would get more people out to vote.

Riverwind · October 15, 2008

No....does not follow...there is nothing but wishful thinking that PR would get more people out to vote.

People who don't vote need an excuse and the lack of PR is the excuse they use today. If the system changed they would come up with a new excuse. In any case, I don't mind it that so many people are to lazy to vote because it just means my vote counts for more that it should. Edited October 15, 2008 by Riverwind

Smallc · October 15, 2008

People who don't vote need an excuse and the lack of PR is the excuse they use today. If the system changed they would come up with a new excuse. In any case, I don't mind it that so many people are to lazy to vote because it just means my vote counts for more that it should.

Yes, the one good thing I see from this is that the people who are uneducated about the subjetcs are probably less likely to votes. Therefore, the people that elected the government were those more informed on the subject.

cybercoma · October 15, 2008

No....does not follow...there is nothing but wishful thinking that PR would get more people out to vote.

This leads us to argue that electoral systems have a direct, proximate impact rather than simply an indirect effect ... PR does foster a higher turnout.

That is from the conclusion of a 1990 study done by Andre Blaise of the University of Montreal and RK Carty of UBC from the European Journal of Political Research. Am I unaware of some contradictory research?

M.Dancer · October 15, 2008

This leads us to argue that electoral systems have a direct, proximate impact rather than simply an indirect effect ... PR does foster a higher turnout.

That is from the conclusion of a 1990 study done by Andre Blaise of the University of Montreal and RK Carty of UBC from the European Journal of Political Research. Am I unaware of some contradictory research?

Why do they assume that? Far as I can tell more people are interested in The Hills than Parliament Hill....

eyeball · October 15, 2008

No....does not follow...there is nothing but wishful thinking that PR would get more people out to vote.

We could follow Australia's lead. They have PR with mandatory voting.

PoliticalCitizen · October 16, 2008

That's what it was for the 2006 elections - 665,940.
This time around the number should at least double - I would say anywhere from 1 to 1.5 million votes.

I guess I was a bit too optimistic.

I'm sure with a proper electoral system where people are not forced to vote "strategically" but actually go with their heart the number would have been a lot higher.

Brunopolis · October 16, 2008

We could follow Australia's lead. They have PR with mandatory voting.

This actually works. I've been living here in Uruguay for the past few months and that is exactly the system here. The only difference is that their is a second round after the first where people vote for either of the top 2 candidates. This makes sure the party favoured by most gets elected and prevents fringe parties from holding any power. Personally I think it's a great system.

Alta4ever · October 16, 2008

Yes, I think my correction in my post reflected that.
In any case, even when combining the divided right at that time, you were not anywhere near where the combined divided left today.

Face it, the right has never recovered from the fall of the Progressives. That's because they knew the difference between fiscal conservatism and social conservatism. You put someone like Peter MacKay as your leader (a progressive conservative) and you'll break the 40+% support in no time at all.

Quit basing your counts with the inclusion of the bloc not all in that party are statists, if you recall the bloc was formed from members of the progressive conservatives. The bloc may have some leftist tendancies, but it still is fundementally nothing more then a regional protest party.

Edited October 16, 2008 by Alta4ever

kengs333 · October 17, 2008

I guess I was a bit too optimistic.
I'm sure with a proper electoral system where people are not forced to vote "strategically" but actually go with their heart the number would have been a lot higher.

Based on what they were polling it was right on, if not a bit low. But Greens always seem to lose half of their support on election day. If the Greens could turn themselves into a more borad-based centrist party and focus on Ontario, they will probably get MPs elected in 2010.

Edited October 17, 2008 by kengs333

M.Dancer · October 17, 2008

Based on what they were polling it was right on, if not a bit low. But Greens always seem to lose half of their support on election day. If the Greens could turn themselves into a more borad-based centrist party and focus on Ontario, they will probably get MPs elected in 2010.

In other words if the greens ceased being a one issue party attracting fringe candidates they would be either the Liberals or the NDP...

Not quite a green machine
Having set a new record for futility, it's time for the Green Party - and the green movement - to abandon some myths

But the Green Party is just the most visible element of a movement-wide failure of environmentalists to think and act strategically.
The single largest reason for the failure of the environmental movement to punch its weight is its inability to coalesce behind a single party.

A good example was a press conference by the Sierra Club and Greenpeace during the campaign calling on voters to vote "Anything but Conservative."

If voters primarily concerned about the environment want to effect real change, here are five things they need to do:
1. Think pragmatically, not idealistically. If the climate crisis is to be addressed, there isn't time for the Greens to grow into a national force. And there certainly isn't time to hold out for perfection.

2. Think in terms of ridings. Seats, not votes, are the critical measure of success in Canadian politics. Rather than blaming the rules of the electoral system, consider how to get more pro-environment MPs elected.

3. Demand environmental leaders stop working at cross-purposes. You will find prominent environmentalists in the Greens, NDP, Liberals, Bloc, even a few in the Conservative Party. Stop letting them split the vote.

4. Consolidate behind a major political party that can form government. By becoming a significant portion of the governing party's coalition, your issues will take added precedence in decision making. You won't win every debate, but your ideas will often find their way into action.

5. Stop talking down to people. Prominent environmental politicians from Stephane Dion to Jim Harris have an unfortunate habit of adopting a morally superior tone when preaching to the unconverted. Attitudes, values and salesmanship matter, and no one likes to be blamed. Accentuating the positive as "bright greens" call for - and Elizabeth May typically does - is the ticket in a democratic society.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...Story/politics/

capricorn · October 17, 2008

I don't think the Green Party should receive the federal "per voter" subsidy. In fact, parties should receive those subsidies only if they elect an MP that then sit in the House. After all, taxpayers pay for those subsidies and our money should not be used to promote fringe or one issue parties.

PoliticalCitizen · October 17, 2008

I don't think the Green Party should receive the federal "per voter" subsidy. In fact, parties should receive those subsidies only if they elect an MP that then sit in the House. After all, taxpayers pay for those subsidies and our money should not be used to promote fringe or one issue parties.

Those subsidies surely helped the Reform fringe party.

Mad_Michael · October 17, 2008

I think this was a poor election for measuring the potential strength of the rising Greens. It is pretty obvious that the Greens are going to draw their support from Liberals.

Once the Liberals have a majority in parliament, then I'd expect to see the Greens take seats away from them.

Until then, the Greens will be squeezed out by strategic voting.

Edited October 17, 2008 by Mad_Michael

madmax · October 17, 2008

I think this was a poor election for measuring the potential strength of the rising Greens. It is pretty obvious that the Greens are going to draw their support from Liberals.
Once the Liberals have a majority in parliament, then I'd expect to see the Greens take seats away from them.

Until then, the Greens will be squeezed out by strategic voting.

You have to be kidding??? This election showed the true strength of the GP. They made the Leaders Debate. They increased their vote. They failed to win a single seat. They tried the strategic voting in Central Nova and proved to be a complete washout for them and their leader. They cost the LPC a number of seats because of Dions foolish endeavour to legitimize a fringe party.

If the Greens rose it was not demonstratable in terms of anything. Some people parked their votes with them, but many have no idea what they are voting for besides a nice sounding name.

Ironically many people who didn't want to vote Liberal because of Dions Green SHift had no idea that the GP version was the same only harsher. Infact many didn't know that the GPs had a Green Shift and many GP candidates kept that well hidden.

I recall a GP candidate hiding their Green SHift and siding with the NDP Cap and Trade. Had to laugh, they could pull out two policies yet hide the bad apple no one was biting.

The GPs biggest aid was to the CPC. A vote for the GPs turned out to be a vote for the CPC. Not that the CPC didn't enjoy the mess that May and Dion Made.

Truly the alliance was a complete failure. With the NDP CPC and BQ able to focus on real battles, with each other, The Liberals where adrift and the GPs who were polling in the double digits obviously didn't have any real support.

Regardless the GPs are going to get some federal bucks for their efforts. I bet the CPC might even increase the figure just to stick it to the LPC a bit.

I fully expect the public to rebound in the next election and watch the GPs get taken seriously, which won't be a good thing for them.

Me sources tell me the media is pretty tired to trying to legitimize a party that has little reason to be treated legitimately.

THe media is completely shocked at how poorly Elizabeth May did in Central Nova.

How could she finish with less votes then the NDP Candidate in 2006 who actually ran against Liberals, Conservatives and Greens??? How could the LEADER of the Greens have a lower percentage then the 2006 NDP candidate who nearly offed Peter MacKay???

The failure of strategic voting (an old Liberal Tactic) showed that it takes more then eliminating choice from the electorate.

Elizabeth May made people stay home in Central Nova, rather then Vote Green.

I guess there is a strategy to sitting on the couch, rather then vote for something you don't want .

The Globe and Mail has a good analysis of the GP.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...NStory/politics

Not quite a green machine

Having set a new record for futility, it's time for the Green Party - and the green movement - to abandon some myths

The 2008 election provided a perfect case study of this theory. The Greens ran on a carbon tax, and the Liberal ran with a modified version of the same plank as the centrepiece of their platform. Yet the Liberal result was one of the worst in their history, in part because of vote-splitting with the Greens.
The Conservatives won re-election, despite an "F" grade from the Sierra Club, primarily because of vote-splitting among all three parties to their left. Meanwhile, the NDP took a position on climate change that the Sierra Club judged weaker than the Liberals'.

To argue that the boost of the Green vote by two per cent since 2006 is going to lead the Conservatives to embrace significantly more aggressive climate change policies is absurd.

M.Dancer · October 17, 2008

Those subsidies surely helped the Reform fringe party.

I don't believe they existed when the Reform Party started. They came about after the political donation formulaes were reformed.

M.Dancer · October 17, 2008

The Green party's main problem is that they are not a grass roots party, they have no local riding organization beyond what is needed to hold a rummage sale. All the real parties can count on their grass roots rank and file to work within the riding to ensure the message gets out and the right people are filling the right roles. Instead the Green Party seems to be more ad hoc and instead have tin foil hat tr00thers and all kinds of other fruitcakes at the tiller....imagine the kind they attract for the more mundane jobs!!!

I don't see any futire for the party but if they are insistant on being irrelevant they should forget running 308 loopy candidtaes and instead concentrate on a handful of ridings and build their gras roots organization from the ground up.

madmax · October 17, 2008

The Green party's main problem is that they are not a grass roots party, they have no local riding organization beyond what is needed to hold a rummage sale. All the real parties can count on their grass roots rank and file to work within the riding to ensure the message gets out and the right people are filling the right roles. Instead the Green Party seems to be more ad hoc and instead have tin foil hat tr00thers and all kinds of other fruitcakes at the tiller....imagine the kind they attract for the more mundane jobs!!!
I don't see any futire for the party but if they are insistant on being irrelevant they should forget running 308 loopy candidtaes and instead concentrate on a handful of ridings and build their gras roots organization from the ground up.

Ironically the GPs lost 100% of their seat. Yes the only seat they had in order to help manipulate the media into getting them into the debates, was lost. Seems no Liberals or NDP followed this lead and the GP and NDP votes were about equal, while the Liberals were quite strong. However the CPC Vote Grew and the Greens helped split the vote in That Sunshine Riding.

At least its a pretty name for a riding.

West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast--Sea to Sky Country

Just not Green

Sea and Sky often looks Blue