Restitution
A few weeks ago I talked to a Globe and Mail reporter about the possibilities for cross party cooperation. I shared with her that (my own opinion, and not a party decision) that a good place to start would be in any possible by-election in Etobicoke Centre. The reactions have been interesting. I received a lot of support and some pretty nasty attacks. But neither those who agreed with the proposal or who disagreed quite understood my rationale.
It is not about strategic voting (how could it be since I am proposing the NDP and Greens do not run a candidate?) It is not about “helping” any party or candidate.
It is about the voters in Etobicoke Centre. It is about restitution.
In tort law, the idea of restitution is that after a wrong (a tort) has been done the person who has been damaged should have restitution. And “restitution” means that the wronged person should be restored to the position in which they found themselves before the wrong occurred.
A by-election ordered by a court having found that errors in the voting process invalidate the earlier result is highly unusual. It is nothing like a by-election created by an MP resigning or dying. In those cases, there is a whole new election. There is no “wrong;” no one is damaged; no one needs to be restored to the position in which they found themselves had the wrong not occurred.
But a by-election created by a court action is altogether different.
On May 2, 2011, the voters in Etobicoke Centre went out to vote. They cast their ballots in a way that (at least the Federal Court) found would have resulted in the Liberal incumbent being re-elected. Due to irregularities, that is not what occurred.
If the Supreme Court orders a by-election, should anyone be thinking of how to make restitution to the voters? To put the voters back in the situation in which they found themselves on May 2, 2011, in a by-election, more than a year later, is there a fairer way for partisans to step back and help justice to be done?
I may be wrong. But, at least now you know why I think I might be right.
- Elizabeth May's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
The desire to build the party
There’s never any justification for nasty attacks but I understand why there might always be some raised eyebrows and negative responses to the idea of unilaterally not running a green candidate in an election.
We encourage and train our members to help build the party. Many of them volunteer their time for exactly that purpose. An election is one of the best ways to strengthen the GPC because it’s a great opportunity to identify existing supporters, recruit new ones, get our message out there and practice our campaigning skills. Even on a shoe string budget.
Insofar as any negative feedback was driven by a desire to compete and build the party, we should be glad for it. We should also be glad that there’s thinking going on to explore whether and how we could build the GPC through other means, such as the coordinated and mutual cooperation with other parties that many voters have said they’d like to see or the concentration of GPC resources that helped contribute to our breakthrough in SGI.
Ard Van Leeuwen (Dufferin-Caledon, ON)
The views I express on this blog are purely my own and should not be construed to represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada.
I respectfully disagree with the logic of this argument
"
It is not about strategic voting (how could it be since I am proposing the NDP and Greens do not run a candidate?) It is not about “helping” any party or candidate.
It is about the voters in Etobicoke Centre. It is about restitution.
In tort law, the idea of restitution is that after a wrong (a tort) has been done the person who has been damaged should have restitution. And “restitution” means that the wronged person should be restored to the position in which they found themselves before the wrong occurred.
A by-election ordered by a court having found that errors in the voting process invalidate the earlier result is highly unusual. It is nothing like a by-election created by an MP resigning or dying. In those cases, there is a whole new election. There is no “wrong;” no one is damaged; no one needs to be restored to the position in which they found themselves had the wrong not occurred.
But a by-election created by a court action is altogether different."
Quote from G&M article;
("If anyone was unfairly denied a seat in that riding it was Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, she said, and if there is a by-election it should be “a clean vote between Borys and Ted.”)
I respectfully disagree unless the Supreme Court comes out and awards the riding to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj. This wasn't the lower court ruling. The ruling concerns the election contest itself and whether it was fair or not and that the voters should go to the polls again.
Are we asking NDP & Green voters to stay home? Why are we asking them to change their vote now by only giving them two options, options they clearly rejected in 2011? How is that improving the situation? Under a PR system we don't know what the second option votes would have been throughout so declaring a runoff between the two top finishers, who both failed to gain 50+1 isn't fair either.
There is no evidence to support your argument above that Mr. Wrzesnewskyj would have won if those 79 votes had been eliminated due to proper scrutinization since we don't know in what direction those votes went. We only know that 26 votes made the deciding measure but no evidence that the other 55 votes did. So in fact there is no evidence that Mr. Wrzesnewskyj was unfairly denied a seat.
It is clear that the conservatives increased their vote over 2008 and so did the NDP. Mr. Wrzesnewskyj was in danger of losing his seat regardless of how you look at it. 2011 also had a larger voter turn out which also made a difference in his results.
If we decide as a party that there is not enough money or support to vote Green then the EDA can decide to withdraw from the by-election in favour of organizing for 2015. That would be a more legitimate decision. The NDP can make the same decision independently.
This blog reflects my personal opinion. It is not official Green Party Policy. www.departmentofpeace.ca
http://stephenlafrenie.blogspot.com