Shouldn't Green Supporters Be Saying That We Can Win?

When Ralph Nader ran for president he always said that the Republicans and the Democrats were the same.  He was therefore not concerned with splitting the vote, since there would be no functional change of government no matter what.

Well, as we know, he did split the vote, and there was an effect.  It led to the invasion of Iraq by what many believe was an intentional compaign of misinformation by the Republican white house.  Denying this is denying reality.

This is a by-election, and splitting the vote on a by-election should be of no concern to anyone.

However, during a general election, we should have two goals.  These goals are predicated on the fact that we are a political party and not an NGO.

Goal 1: Get MPs elected.

Goal 2: Increase our share of the popular vote to maximize our revenues.

We should acknowledge a third goal as individuals, however, that if we are not going to get GPC MPs elected, we still should want a government as closely aligned with Green ideals as possible.

If we focus our attention to all ridings, then we will not meet goal 2.  However, if we only focus on maximizing national votes, we will probably not meet goal 1.  And where we will split the vote knowing that it would result in electing someone much less aligned with Green ideals, than who otherwise would be elected, we may want to take that into account from the national level.  Why?  There may be an opportunity to divert funds to a riding where vote splitting is not as concering with no or little disadvantage to net GPC votes.  It also goes to say that most parties target regions to build support through more than one election cycle.  The GPC needs to target a selected set of ridings using national resources over a period of several election cycles, even to the detriment of other ridings or national voter turnout.

It also means the executive should be researching ways of interceding at all times in targetted geographical areas using all means necessary, even if it means using members as individuals instead of GPC supporters.

I don't think that assessment is fair, given his explicit denials.  Even the quote you bring shows that it is not a personal point he's trying to make, although it is easy enough to see that it can come across as such.  A degree of apparent chaos is ever to be expected among Greens.  If support still increases, it might not even be in spite of, but because of part of what makes for that underlying chaos, in terms of populist attraction, reflection of actual world circumstances, openness & authenticity, &c.  I do agree that some effective discipline should eventually prevail, but not I don't think as you would have it.  And, you know, NDP-ers castigate GPC-ers for vote-splitting effectively maintaining Conservative rule.  So your equation is particularly off. Let Stuart make his point, I think it is misplaced & have said so myself to him, I think his assessment of the place of national politics in Canada should be discussed, but I think his assessment is off.  Still, his point about party internalities might need to be made as he is prepared to make it.  Who knows but that he might not after he has had his say, for what it would be worth, turn around and endorse Elizabeth's candidacy?  What the mainstream media make of Greens, well, it's going to be all over the map, too.

(I do commend you for cross-posting here as you do, as I've urged other independent green bloggers to do.)

Hertzog’s opposition shows Canadians that we are doing things differently and that we will do things differently. We tolerate dissent in our midst, and we will not silence those who speak out against our own Party, because we know that there is always room for improvement.

As much as I would LOVE to agree with that statement, I think in reality this will be percieved by the general public not as "freedom of descent" but as political infighting.  Canadians don't want to elect policitians who waste time bickering but rather they want politicians who cut red tape and procede with action!  This situation unfortunately casts the wrong image - that we can't even get our own house in order, let alone be ready to have a hand in running the country.

I'm not sure Stuart should bow out just because he's made his point.  The point is that he is entitled to run to be candidate, so he should be allowed to do that.  I expect even he believes that Elizabeth is acting in the best interest of our party.  Running to Elections Canada, if legal (and I say IF) still is not a good faith action.  There's the difference.

I am "just" a Green party member. If I understand the situation as outlined above there was a previous candidate in the saanich (sp?) riding who when he found out Elizabeth May was going to run to represent the Greens in his riding decided he was going to contest the nomination (ie compete with her for the Party's nomination) and then went even further and filed some complaint with Elections Canada and even criticised her in the press !!!!!!! I have to criticise both him and the panel who selected this as the riding for May to run in.

First the council should have gotten the OK with that local riding to see if they would support May in coming in and running there. Clearly they did not consult the locals (who will in the furture be counted on to volunteer and work to get May elected after all) and this has all the hallmarks of top down decision making. If the local group was aginst her going in there they should have gone to the next riding on the list.

Secondly that being said i agree with the criticisms above of the candidate. He should not have gone complaining to the press about this. We may not want to be like the other parties but that doesn't mean we can't learn lessons from their mistakes. In other elections etc whenever somebody criticies his own party for some reason. . Liberal, NDP or Conservative. . . no good ever came of it and as stated by one guy above it only makes the party look disorganised and divided. The next time Mr Hertzog has a microphone in front of him he should think about that along with the efforts of so many people in this party he could undermine with his statements. Greens should be prepared to show a unified strong party to the country and settle internal problems internally. The Green party is a long shot at best to elect anybody anywhere so let's not make it any harder.

If people slam me for what I just said so be it.

Martin, I completely agree with you.  SGI was a great choice for our Leader to make.  I don't believe it's right to think of her as a "parachute" candidate in this circumstance, or any other for that matter.  She had already indicated her willingness to contest a by-election when one came up.  She's the Leader of our Party, and she needs to get herself into Parliament.  And we have to do what we can to help get her there.

And on that note, the Party developed a plan which included assessing the best location for her to run; she was amenable to doing this, even though it meant that she would have to re-locate to a new part of Canada to do so.

The Party should be putting its election resources into campaigns we've got a good shot at winning.  The rest of us should be helping out in those locations too, as much as we can.

And then, when all of this is over, the Party needs to take some serious time and do some heavy-duty soul-searching and address many of the issues Mr. Hertzog and others have raised, because it does not appear to me, and to many others, that we're headed in a long-term sustainable direction here.