One last post before the polls open. Regardless of all the polls we are surrounded with during the campaign, there is only one poll that counts.
There’s been a great deal of talk about strategic voting in this election, particularly for the past week or two as the Liberals and NDP make the plea to ‘borrow our vote’ one more time. But I always ask, if my vote gets ‘borrowed’ in every election, when do I get to vote for what I believe? Jack? Stephane?
The fact is, there is no good answer to that one, since the Liberal, Conservative, and even NDP machines will be happy to keep ‘borrowing’ your vote forever.
Before you place a so-called ‘strategic’ vote, ask yourself this. Are you really prepared to give your vote to a party you don’t believe in for every election for the rest of your life? If not, when will you say enough? Is the answer always, ‘well, next election it’ll be different!”? How? Are you waiting for proportional representation so that you don’t have to do this anymore? If so, do you think that not voting for the only party for whom this is a primary goal (Greens) will achieve it?
I can’t say it often enough. Strategic voting doesn’t work. I know, I’ve done it. On more than one occasion in my past I’ve voted for the party most likely to beat the party I liked the least. Every time, my ‘strategic’ vote was cast for either the Liberal or Conservative candidate. In every case, I didn’t really support that candidate, but they represented the party I liked second least. And what did I get? Well, on the infrequent occasions when enough people were thinking likewise, I got a government that was second only to the bottom of the barrel. Whoopee for me!
And then there are the times when you vote ‘stragically’ only to find that it still wasn’t enough. You wake up to find that your worst case came to pass anyway. They told you that to vote Green (or even NDP in many ridings) is a wasted vote, but what has happened? You didn’t get what you wanted, and instead of providing financing to the party you really support, you’ve provided financing to a party you really don’t agree with. I can’t think of a vote more wasted than that.
Some may see this post as a shameless self interested appeal to hold on to Green voters, and there’s something to that. Of course I want as many votes as possible. After all, just getting over that magic 10% number is our riding has huge financial implications, since any candidate who gets over 10% of the vote gets 60% of campaign expenses refunded. And we are building on a 9.4% result from the last provincial election, so the difference to our next campaign is HUGE!
So ask youself, if you really support Green ideals, where is your vote going to be most effective?
You could, for example, vote for the Liberal candidate in an attempt to stop Harper. A laudable goal, to be sure. This may or may not work, but either way you are helping to finance future Liberal campaigns, and taking away the Green Party’s future viability both locally and nationally.
Or you could vote Green, and even if we don’t win you will have helped the local campaign get over 10%, making us a great deal stronger for next time, plus providing funding for our message nationally with your vote. (The party is funded $1.83 per vote per year by the taxpayers.)
Strategy is a long term word. And the Green Party is all about long term thinking.
There is only one strategy for Green voters. And that is to VOTE GREEN!
FYI, the Green campaign team will be gathering at the Fox & Fiddle on Davis Drive in Newmarket for election night, to enjoy some relaxation after a long campaign and to watch the results come in. Please join us there!
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
Hear! Hear! While there have been some fairly persuasive arguments put forward in the last few days for strategic voting (I’m thinking specifically of Avaaz and the climate change guys) I am happy to see the argument against put so eloquently.
I will vote Green. And I will sleep peacefully knowing that I voted FOR the party that wants to create a world more in line with my beliefs.
And I will be at the Fox and Fiddle.
GO GREENS!
Thanks for this post. I’m just heading out to vote now and I was still unsure, especially since Newmarket-Aurora looks to be like such a close vote. Looks like I’ll be voting Green, my original choice.
I didn’t vote Conservative this time. This is the very first time I ever voted Green even though I think the Liberal candidate will win my riding.
Dear Glenn,
I am a member of the Liberal Party of Canada and a supporter of Stéphane Dion. I was very inspired by the classy, substantive campaign that Mr. Dion ran during the election and by his visionary Green Shift policy jointly supported by Elizabeth May and the Green Party. Although our party did poorly I feel this was not so much a reflection on Mr. Dion as on a number of other factors (lack of election preparation due to snap election; internal dissension within the LPC, collusion between Stephan Harper and Jack Layton against Dion, lack of cooperation between the centre-left opposition parties,etc.)
Now that the election is over and loyal Liberal volunteers are exhausted and inattentive, certain “un-named senior liberals” aided by a hostile right-wing media are trying to force Mr. Dion out of his leadership position without even giving a chance for ordinary Liberal members to consider whether this is in the interests of our party or Canadian democracy. They present this as a fait accompli. They say that Mr. Dion is isolated and finished politically. What they do not realize though is that Mr. Dion is NOT isolated. Grassroots Liberals were energized and inspired by his campaign, by the Green Shift, by his refusal to play politics as usual. We do not believe that engaging in another self-destructive round of LPC leadership politics will serve our party or the country well. What we need to do now is to serve Canadians by concentrating on our role of official Opposition. We need to think seriously as a party about why we lost this election and how we can better organize ourselves to win the support of Canadian voters next time. We will not let this leadership coup succeed without being heard from.
There has never been a LPC leader who has placed a higher role on environmental policies as Mr. Dion did this past election. Elizabeth May feels he is a man she can work with. Greens can play a role on this debate. We need to hear how Green voters feel about Mr. Dion’s leadership.
Go here to learn more about what we are doing and to join the revolt: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=40161095228&ref=mf
Best regards,
Jean Proulx
————————-
Jean, I’m not really sure what you are asking of me here. As a Green Party member and candidate, it is hardly my place to weigh in on whether Stephane Dion is the best choice for Liberal leader.
As to what I think of Stephane Dion himself, I happened to agree with Elizabeth May when she said that he would be a better Prime Minister than Stephen Harper, and would be a better choice (between those two choices) for anyone concerned about climate change. This opinion has not changed.
Weighing in on who the Liberals decide to elect as their leader would cause some people to believe that I somehow support the Liberal Party, which I do not. Just because the Liberals have adopted one of our central planks (the Green Shift) in a watered down way, and Greens support them doing so, this does not mean that we have much agreement on other policies or means of achieving our goals.
I also feel, as I expressed during my own campaign, that the Green Party is a far better strategic choice for those concerned with climate change and aligning the economy with the environment, because a lifetime of experience tells me that the Liberals will sway with the wind once they are in power. Not only was the Liberal Green Shift a watered down version of the Green Party’s policy, but I am skeptical as to whether the Liberals will actually implement it and then go further as is needed.
Therefore, as Greens have said all along, the best outcome in this past election for anyone concerned with climate change, barring a Green Party government, would have been for Stephane Dion to head a Liberal government combined with enough Green seats to make sure they followed through.
Let me finish with this. If you, as a grass roots movement within the Liberal Party, really want to attract Green Party supporters to your cause, I can think of only one way to do it. You must start a movement within the Liberal Party for proportional representation which somehow gives us an iron clad guarantee that you will follow through. The only way that core Green supporters would suspend our voting with our conscience for one election cycle would be if we are convinced that voting strategically for the Liberals would be the last time we’d ever have to play the game required by our stupid FPTP system. And FYI, it will have to be more convincing than what Dalton McGuinty promised, because look where that got us! We want a real democracy in this country, not dictatorships in four year chunks, regardless of the colour banner of the dictator. So if you can convince your party to do that then perhaps, just maybe, the Greens might consider it.
–Glenn
I agree with your comments about reforming our electoral system. It is one the things that I am urging our party to concentrate on instead of engaging in yet another bout of leadership politics.
It is not inappropriate for Greens to weigh in on whether or not Mr. Dion is the right person to lead the LPC. We are interested in your opinion and that of other Greens.
Best regards,
Jean Proulx
Jean,
You should face the facts. The demise of the Liberal Party started when Chretien introduced legislation to limit corporate donations which was the Liberals’ primary source of Revenue. Now with the accountability act it is harder than ever to finance leadership campaigns. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Liberals will have to declare bankruptcy in the near future leaving parties of the left and right. Centrist parties have a history of dying out in Europe and even in the States for various reasons. Some of them were even natural governing parties at one point in time until they tore themselves apart.
If there is one thing the Conservatives are better at than any other party it’s raising money – mostly from individual donors. It’s time for the Liberals to go their die hard supporters in places like Toronto and tell them to fork over some cash.
voted green, despite pressure to vote liberal. im 1 of the 4500 . to all green supporters I think the global warming rehtoric needs to be tuned down and heres why:
MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas (“heat islands”), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas (“land use effects”).
There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.
MYTH 2: The “hockey stick” graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the “average global temperature” has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
The “hockey stick”, a poster boy of both the UN’s IPCC and Canada’s Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.
MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth’s oceans expel more CO2 as a result.
MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as “greenhouse agents” than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the “Greenhouse effect”.
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.
MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.
FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. You cannot use the output of a model to verify or prove its initial assumption – that is circular reasoning and is illogical. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not “prove” anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.
MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.
MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.
MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.
FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.
MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.
FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier’s health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.
MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.
FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.
Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.
http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/content-view-39973-113.html
“Boston (MA) – Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature – and not the direct result of man’s contributions.
“
I wasn;t meaning to offend you in any way shape or form my point was that their is more constructive information to the argument that need not be ignored.