Catch 22 Harper Conservatives
The Catch 22 Harper Conservatives campaign is a grassroots effort to help defeat the Conservative government. I've been assisting with this campaign, which recently launched, and I urge Green members to join. In a nutshell, the Catch 22 strategy is as follows:
- Pre-election period: Identify ridings with vulnerable Conservative MPs and recruit local volunteers to distribute pro-democracy literature.
- Election period: Register as a "third party" and continue our independent campaign OR encourage volunteers to help the best candidate.
Why should Green members support this campaign? The Conservatives have reminded us yet again that they are the worst thing for the environment since sliced bread. One of the best things Canadians can do for the environment in the short term is organise to help defeat this government. In Catch 22 ridings, we will ask voters to support the candidate with the best chance of defeating the Conservative incumbent.
While we would be asking Green supporters to consider voting for another party, this is necessary in order to leverage our first-past-the-post system for maximum effectiveness. Until we have proportional representation, we will have to make choices like this in order to achieve the best possible outcome. Given how we chose the Catch 22 ridings, this will not reduce the chances of a Green MP being elected to the House of Commons. In my view, the benefits of our strategy to defeat the Cons outweigh the cons (e.g. election statistics will show less Green support and the Green Party per-vote-subsidy may be reduced). Regarding the potential* loss in funding from the subsidy, I would encourage Canadians who support the Green Party to donate to the party directly.
*see Conservatives to campaign on killing $30-million subsidies to political parties
- Michael Vaillancourt's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Recent Comments
- Rick Mitchell |
- Anne Marie Benoit |
- Frances Thauberger |
- Paul Maillet |
- Steve May |
- 1 of 2222
- ››
Comments
The only green vote is a Green vote
Michael, I appreciate your involvement with this organization, and I also understand the worthiness of its ultimate goal -- to get rid of the Harper Conservatives. I share that goal.
What I can't advocate for as a Green is telling voters to vote for the "lesser evil" of the NDP or Liberals in any "catch 22" riding. I'm sorry, but that really doesn't fit into my mindset.
Under no circumstances should Greens be suggesting to potential supporters that they should consider parking their votes with one of the other parties, for the ostensibly good reason of getting rid of Harper. It's the wrong approach, and it ultimately muddles our message and weakens our Party.
By all means, Green members should join this organization, but we need to understand that ultimately this organization isn't in the best interest of the Green Party, and while it might be in Canada's better interest, replacing Harper with Ignatieff sure as heck isn't in the country's best interest either.
Come next election, Green voices need to stand united that a vote for the Libs/Cons/NDP will be a wasted vote in actually moving towards taking the kind of actions we need for this nation. We muddled that message the last time -- and paid dearly for it on election day (we had been polling around 10% right before e-day, and we dropped below 7% when the polls closed). We can't do so again.
The only green vote is a Green vote.
"Sudbury" Steve May
That strategy helps elect Conservatives
I agree that what is in the best interests of the Green Party (every Green supporter votes Green in every riding) isn't necessarily in Canada's best interest. In ridings, such as Catch 22 ridings, where there is a close race between the incumbent Conservative and a second party (with the Greens a distant third or fourth) that strategy helps elect Conservatives (but maximizes our per-vote subsidy and statistics). For people who live in such close ridings, it is only rational that they consider their options and the impact of their vote. Some will prefer to vote strategically and others will not. There is no correct answer. My riding is not a swing riding - it goes Liberal. I can vote secure in the knowledge that my vote counts for naught but a buck or two to my party of choice. For folks in swing ridings however, different factors come into play. By the way, did the Green Party respond to Fair Vote Canada's letter?
Liberal <> Green nor does NDP
The Liberals are on record as supporting the tar sands. The NDP was strongly in favour of bailouts for the big US car companies. To suggest either would suddenly be a big improvement is a mistake. Especially if strategic voting (which is what this is) leads the Green Party into oblivion.
Strategic voting would suggest those in Guelph should not vote Green. Strategic voting would suggest that voting for May in BC is a mistake. Strategic voting would suggest we should all quit this party and join the Liberals (which I would not do, nor would many others).
The logical follow-up to this idea is to stop voting for anyone but the Liberals or CPC - i.e. go to a US based system where you have dumb or dumber to vote for with no real alternatives.
Just because we have a system that is built for two parties doesn't mean we have to vote that way. The more split the vote gets the more likely we are to see change. Right now polls have nearly 40% voting for someone other than the Liberals or CPC, a higher percentage than either of them is likely to reach. As that gets more and more extreme we'll see more and more ridings be winnable for parties other than the big 2 (ala Guelph). Yes, it is terrible for democracy but we need to prove how broken the system is to Joe Voter before they will support change otherwise we get the US 2 party system where you pick a side and pray you can influence the party from within rather than having voters decide.
John Northey
Wellington-Halton Hills
Catch 22 campaign
The Catch 22 campaign seeks to raise awareness among voters about pro-democracy issues, the Conservative record, the prior election results for the riding, and the importance of getting out to vote. The consequences you describe don't actually follow, as the campaign is focusing on a select number of ridings (30 ridings are presently under consideration) with vulnerable Conservative incumbents. Ridings presently under consideration had an approximately 10% or less margin of victory between the 1st and 2nd place finishers, with a clear second place finisher. In other words, the selected ridings are not really in play for the Greens.
In certain ridings, the campaign will endorse a Liberal candidate, in others an NDP candidate, et cetera. To be clear, Catch 22 is not operating in ridings, such as you describe, where the vote is split more or less equally among the opposition parties. Really it's a demonstration of the flawed nature of our first-past-the-post voting system. One of the objectives of the campaign is to raise awareness about these flaws and promote proportional representation. More details about the strategy can be found here: Backroom politics - How federal elections work in Canada.
Strategic Voting Over-rated
I'm not a big fan of 'strategic' voting, because that’s exactly what has kept the two status-quo parties in power for so long. It should be called 'tactical' voting because its a short-term band-aid that falls off, not a long-term strategy. Its effectiveness is hugely over-rated.
Having said that - each individual will assess the local situation, weigh the risks and consequences and invariably listen to his or her own conscience when they enter that voting booth. No one can dictate how you vote. But this is a good discussion.
I take offence when people stereo-type and label the Green party as 'tree-huggers' and ‘dope-smoking hippies’, etc. Therefore by the same token, I don’t think we should continually mis-label other parties either. I disagree strongly with the NDP’s approach to problems, but they are no longer a ‘Labour-Party’. They have been disowned by Buzz Hargrove, the grandfather of the union movement in Canada who has repeatedly asked his followers to not vote NDP. Jack Layton has for decades proposed a ‘made in Canada’ auto policy focusing on building energy efficient cars, which of course was ignored by the Liberals. I think ultimately, branding them as the ‘Union Party’ makes the Greens look anti-working class. Unions have a role to play in society.
The problem with the NDP is that they see every problem in isolation and propose an expanding patchwork of disconnected social programs. We learned in the sixties and seventies that raising taxes and throwing lots of money at problems just didn’t work. The GPC is proposing systemic solutions to transform society.
Negative voting accomplishes nothing and defeats true progress
Michael, the organization you mention is yet another attempt to influence election outcomes, and its work is doomed to failure as has every other attempt to do so. Here's why:
1. There are already lots of Liberals and NDP in the House of Commons. They could defeat the government pretty much any day of the week. They don't, because they are spineless cowards, and they are not really interested in democratic reform, or defeating the government, for that matter.
2. These parties look at the polls, and if it is not in their self-serving best interest to have an election, they wallow. Their idea of a change is for them to become the majority government, and then they can ignore the rest of the HoC just like the current government does. They are no different from each other. If they get any seats as a result of your organization's advocacy, they will say thanks (or not), and ignore the democratic change issue, just as they have for the last 20+ years.
3. Voters cannot be told how to vote, and they will not be swayed. Negative voting is like curling .. a Canadian pasttime .. and people will vote the way they want, not the way your organization wants.
4. Every vote you peel away from the Green party impedes the long term progress of the party, which means that it delays the implementation of the important democratic reform that you say you want. The only way to win this battle is for all of us to push together, and the Greens are the only party committed to making it happen.
5. I frankly wish that people who promote negative voting would leave the Green Party, join some other party and advocate there. Since party membership seems to make no difference to you, perhaps you would be happier working for one of your #2 parties. Then you would cease to irritate people like me, who are trying to build voter support for the Green Party.
6. Perhaps you should have a look at how many other parties would let you post something on their website that serves to undermine the progress of their party. (Hint: the number is very small). I believe that posting this nonsense here is an abuse of this freedom.
7. There is a myth out there that says that the Conservatives are somehow better than the Liberals. Look at what happened at the "thinkers conference" last weekend. Nothing. No commitment to democratic reform, no new ideas. These two 19th century parties are empty shells of the old boys clubs which they once represented and have no role in governing a nation in the 21st century. I will have no hand in promoting either of these parties.
Join Fair Vote Canada, and advocate for democratic reform and education there. Work with your local EDA to develop and identify Green support in your riding. That's how will we will move this issue ahead. There are no shortcuts.
Re: Negative voting ...
About your suggestion that I leave the party and focus my efforts elsewhere: I have a strong preference for the Green Party's policies, which is why I'm here. Other aspects of the Green Party appear to need work, which is why the organizational / leadership issue is of interest to me. Anyway, I share your sense of irritation, though mine is directed at the predicament we are in — trying to build a party under a first-past-the-post system — rather than at fellow Green Party members.
I Agree Jim
If you are a memeber of the Green Party and are advocating for voting for other parties the I have to wonder if you are a spy from another party. We are here to elect Green MP's. Calling for strategic voting last election cost us millions of dollars in revenue. A former Green who was and is one of the most respected members of the GPC calculated it.
Personaly I cannot look someone in the eye anymore and ask them to donate as the answer.. You are just going to tell us to vote Liberal and I depise the Liberals is one I have no answer for due to pst history.
Most parties would throw you out for advocating voting for someone else.
Gary Brown
Member in my personal capacity
Sorry for the delayed response... Gary, to be honest I don't know what obligations or duties members have to the party (if any). If I agreed to something when I joined, I either didn't read it or I read it and promptly forgot about its existence and what it said. In any event, I've witnessed discussions about strategic voting on these blogs a few times, though I don't recall any suggestions that people should be thrown out of the party. Also, given our history on strategic voting ("May urges strategic voting", et cetera), I'd be quite surprised to find myself expelled from the party on that basis.
There ought to be (perhaps there is) a distinction between the obligations / duties / expectations of regulars members and those of members who hold certain positions of authority within the party (e.g. Leader, Shadow Cabinet). In my view, I am a member of the Green Party in my personal capacity and I did not check my views and opinions at the door. If I advocate for something like the Catch 22 campaign, I do so for myself, in my own name, and not on behalf of the party.
If I were the leader, or on the shadow cabinet, then I would make efforts to clarify when I was speaking / writing in my personal capacity and when I was doing so on behalf of the party. Certainly if I were leader, I would probably not advocate for strategic voting in any capacity as I would consider my role as promoting the best interests of the party, regardless of my personal views on that issue. So, regarding the article I linked to above, I sympathise and agree with Elizabeth May's position, but I don't think she should have said what she did given her role as leader of the party. Anyway, I think we've moved on from that fiasco and I don't see why you can't look people in the eye and ask them to donate.
Since you have brought up the
Since you have brought up the subject of 'spy' or more aptly an 'agent provocateur'; reading some of the blogs over the last year, certain comments do seem to give Harper Conservatives a secondary benefit of the doubt quite often. If there were to be any partisan plots (and I don’t think there really are) I would deem it much more likely that it would be motivated by a loyalty to the Conservatives. The irony is that, the better the Greens do initially, the more the ‘progressive’ and ‘protest’ vote is split, and the more chance the Conservatives have of getting a majority due to our backward-designed democracy. Until we reach a critical point where we gain seats and influence. That’s just a reality that blind faith cannot deny. If Harper pushes his agenda to cancel public financing of parties and return to corporate control of our democracy, we may need to consider a coalition to stop it, as a last resort.
As much as I hate the wretched habit of always comparing every leader to either Hitler or Chamberlain, it is a fact that Hitler gained complete control of Germany with only 30% of the vote, simply by manipulating the system.
I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but recall that in order to get George Bush elected, Republican supporters organized and paid for an intensive campaign for Ralph Nader and the Green Party with the stated purpose of splitting the Democrat vote. And it worked, we got George W. Bush as leader of the free world for eight disastrous years.
Having said that, there’s seldom been a time that the Liberals were so aimless, and the Conservatives so discredited, even in their own constituency. The NDP are always stalled due to their image. So right now is the time to pull out all the stops, be aggressive and make the most of it. Again however I believe its absolutely necessary to recruit additional spokespersons from different walks of life to create a 'team' that could push us over the barrier to a real breakthrough.
My two cents
Gary and David make some interesting points. I, however, feel the need to interject here with regards to the author of the original post on this thread, Michael Vaillancourt. I don't know Michael personally, but I have been following his blogposts since he joined the Party and became an actual member. Michael is not a "spy" or anything like that. Instead, Michael appears to have very carefully considered whether or not this Party is the one which he should make his home, and after carefully analyzing what we have to offer, he chose us.
We need more Michael Vaillancourts in this Party. While I do not agree with him regarding the "Catch 22" ridings and strategic voting, I share Michael's considerable frustration with Stephen Harper and with our current first past the post electoral system. At the core, it appears to me that I share many of Michael's values, as I suspect many others who post here do as well.
I very much look forward to meeting Michael in person one day , and working with him to advance the interests of the Party.
"Sudbury" Steve May
Strategic voting..
First off, there is no way that Michael is a spy. He is passionate about many ideas, and they do not align with a particular party. I think the problem here is that there are participants who are staunchly conservative or liberal depending on the policy item. For any given policy item there can be a very wide spectrum of opinion, and this presents an incoherent view -- which I think may be a cause of our fundraising difficulties. For many issues though, as a fiscal conservative, I am still willing to compromise provided there is compromise in my favour on other ideas. Of course, this is not what political parties are good at, and I am not surprised my presence here has not really led to any interest in a scientific approach to our policy drafting (as it relates to voter popularity.)
The CPC is slowly turning extremist conservative. They've been in power only a few years, and at this rate they will start alienating their secondary support base. The dynamics on how this occurs are quite obvious. People who want the biggest change are the most likely to get involved, pushing other ideas out of the way. When a party is in power, this effect becomes more severe.
There is certainly opportunity to say vote Green while also saying don't vote CPC. I think Michael is pointing out areas where the CPC is becoming increasingly aggressive in their arrogance. There are ideas I'd like to see the Green Party dump as well to become more popular -- our policy is also drafted with a narrow view and don't think otherwise.
You have to respect that not everyone is going to vote Green, so it's important people at least not vote for blatant arrogance -- a position the CPC is rapidly owning for itself.
Member position vs. Party position
David Barclay wrote:
Absolutely, that's the reality. The question of what individual members and supporters do about that reality can, and probably should, differ from what the party does. Gary suggested that perhaps we shouldn't run in every riding. I think the party should run candidates in every riding and should not advocate for strategic voting (absent some formal agreement with the other opposition parties). The party has the right to participate in our political system as it is, notwithstanding the fact that this tends to benefit the Conservatives. That can't be helped and it isn't the Green Party's fault. Citizens should be demanding electoral reform.
P.S. Thanks Steve and Bram. I appreciate your posts.
Resources are the issue
I think that the real challenge that we Greens are facing is not a lack of good policies, people, or political insight, but a lack of resources.
In my riding we are up against a long-time conservative MP who is running two offices with paid staff, has an EDA whose size and organizational structure rival a small corporation, and has enough paid vacation from his job as an MP to canvas every house in the riding if he wanted to (not that he has to since he has this place locked).
We Greens, however, are trying to organize with next to no cash and a base that is made up of mostly busy/broke students, people with kids and family to care for, and folks with fanancial obligations that aren't getting any easier to meet (even if they are working full time or more). The people who REALLY need what we Greens are offering.
I'm not complaining (I knew what I was getting into when I signed on to head up our EDA), but I, like many of you and our supporters, work full time, have a family to feed, and use nearly all of my free time/energy to organize for the party. This Thursday, for example, I am trying to squeak in a talk at a local highschool on my half-hour lunch break and then have an EDA meeting at my house later that night. Unlike our MP, though, I don't get paid to give talks and my lunch meetings don't get covered by an expense account.
Unfortunately, struggling with limited resources goes with the territory of working as part of a "grassroots" party - we are still at the stage where we are primarily using sweat equity to build our base. The challenge is getting our message out to our ridings when many of our volunteers are canvasing on their walk to work, in line at the supermarket, or via shameless FaceBook plugs. Experience, though, has shown me that once the message is out their and people find out what the Green Party is all about, they recognize that we are the only party that really represents their concerns and needs.
All that to say... I really believe that encouraging strategic voting (especially at this stage of the game) is a big mistake. It is a great way to tell people what we are AGAINST, but does nothing to tell folks what we are FOR. More importantly, it is a pretty big slap in the face to all of the people who sacrifice and work their butts off for us (including most of the people here). Our limited resources (and those of our members) should really go into building and encouraging a strong, committed community of supporters that can communicate what we stand for and know in their hearts just how important a Green vote is to the future of Canada and the world.
So, nobody wants to address
So, nobody wants to address how if the Conservatives are successful in getting a majority, it will most likely send us Greens back to where we were before Chretien left, financially?
Hasn't Stopped Us In Ontario
In Ontario we count 100% on donations and on the couple of ridings that crack 15% (not 10%, 15%) in votes so they can get the massive refund thanks to blowing lots of cash.
Last provincial election, iirc, the GPO spent a total of $250k and had as good a result as the federal party in votes gained. No TV ads, no presence in the debate, a PC party that many were voting against (amazing slime job by the Liberals and by a few PC candidates and a few in the media and horrid job by the PC leader when it came to getting his story out) which normally helps the Liberals and hurts 3rd parties.
If we lose the federal funding thanks to Harper getting a majority the party will survive and continue to be a force. If Harper wins that majority I'd be a lot more worried about his policies and who the heck the Liberals toss at him next (Bob Rae? Ick).
Our goals next election should be simple - get as many votes as possible and to get someone elected so we won't be viewed as 'unelectable'. Leave it to the Liberals and NDP to figure out how to keep Harper from a majority, as they are the ones who split the vote a heck of a lot more than we do and would be more likely to shift their voters en-mass.
John Northey
Wellington-Halton Hills
I don't think Michael is a spy
I think strategic voting comfuses the electorate. I cannot fundraise in good faith for the GPC right now as I feel I am soliciting money in bad faith. I don't have this issue with the GPO.
Maybe we should not run in every riding. This does not mean we should openly encourage strategic voting. Maybe not haveing a GPC candidate in your riding may get some more greens to step up to the plate.
I think this next election will be rough on the GPC. I hope I am very wrong but I don't sense the urgency in the public about climate change.
In Ontario I have been thinking up some wedge issues to differentiate us from the opps but as mentioned by someone else, we have limited resources to get the message out.
Obama is not helping things opening up the Atlantic coast and Alsaka to off shore drilling.
The solutions are around us. I havd the pleasure of seeing Robert Kenedy Jr speak a couple weeks ago. It was probably the best and most realistic solution to the US energy problem I have ever heard, and I have heard a lot.
Sorry Michael I really didn't mean to say you were a spy but strategic voting has cost me most of my friends in the party and most of my donors.
Gary Brown
Patience is a virtue.....
It's hard to have the patience that we will need in waiting for electoral reform. Especially for young people immersed in a culture of speed and rapid change as we have today.
It may come quickly and without expectation as happened in New Zealand in 1995. In the meantime the glaring injustices speak for themselves: Bloc Quebecois as 3rd party, Greens with 1 in 10 votes but nothing to show, a single digit swing taking governments from minority to majority status, governments in power with fewer votes than opposition parties. When enough people are pissed off (and we are almost there) the change will come. After all our system is called democracy and the vast majority of other democartic counties already have PR. Our parliamentary model, Britain, is dealing with the same problem, who will change first?