You know, the slow-motion train wreck that is Elizabeth May's leadership of the Green Party. This post
from Far and Wide provides the inspiration, wherein he links to the story stating that the Greens may not run candidates in every riding.
...On the face of it, May's comments are counter-intuitive. Given that parties receive federal money, based on vote total, it would seem logical to want a full slate, to maximize turnout, particularly in an election that could bring record support. As it relates to debate inclusion, the argument that Greens are running everywhere helps the cause.
I'm not privy to Green Party discussions, but if I'm allowed to speculate, May's comments suggest the first concrete signal that the Liberals and Greens may work together in an effort to stop center-left fragmentation, while Harper benefits.
What's $1.75/vote/year anyway? At least the NDP will be happy to see Ms. May cozy up to the Liberals.
Comments (11)
I have seen no indication that Elizabeth May is in the business of party-building for the Greens.
There has already been some grumbling in the membership. I know if I was a member, I’d be wondering just who it is that she’s working for: the party, or herself?
Posted by Dennis (Second Thoughts) | April 3, 2007 6:39 PM
Posted on April 3, 2007 18:39
If true, it is a cynical exercise which I am sure will backfire.
Posted by The Fog is Clearing | April 3, 2007 6:47 PM
Posted on April 3, 2007 18:47
I want her to join the Liberals and get it over with.
Posted by Greg | April 3, 2007 7:12 PM
Posted on April 3, 2007 19:12
However, if May doesn’t run any candidates at all and if the Liberals only run in Scarborough, I am sure Layton might express some slight interest in an alliance. ;)
Posted by Greg | April 3, 2007 7:14 PM
Posted on April 3, 2007 19:14
Is anyone else as tired as I am of the Monty Python like farce that is our electoral system? We have, it seems, one party for every dozen voters.
Multiple Parties makes debates almost impossible to follow,by the time the last candidate has answered, most of us have forgotten the question.
Running for political office should be more than an exercise in vanity, and when we see candidates for some fringe parties run in every election, never garnering even one percent of the vote, it becomes obvious vanity is what it’s all about.
We need a two Party system, and if anyone feels disenfranchised, tough. Listening to Duceppe and Layton, neither of whom will ever form the government, has become tiresome and boring. May merely exacerbates a bad situation.
Posted by dmorris | April 3, 2007 7:42 PM
Posted on April 3, 2007 19:42
Sorry D. IP will now hand you your head. It’s been nice knowing you.
Posted by Greg | April 3, 2007 7:50 PM
Posted on April 3, 2007 19:50
SinisterGreg,
Nah, I wouldn’t even know where to begin with someone who blames the fact that we have multiple parties on our electoral system. Delusional doesn’t even begin to describe it.
Posted by Idealistic Pragmatist | April 3, 2007 8:01 PM
Posted on April 3, 2007 20:01
I swear, she’s starting to get me all tin-foil hattish. It’s as though she’s actively campaigning to destroy the party, or at least to ensure that in what looks like a potential breakthrough election they fail to get seats in the House. Could this sabotage all be preparatory to Ms “Think Twice” actually plumping for Dion’s Liberals, prior to or in the midst of a campaign? If not, what is she thinking? I’d be REALLY interested in what Green supporters have to say about this; if it were me, I’d be worried, or even incensed.
Posted by DMD | April 3, 2007 8:43 PM
Posted on April 3, 2007 20:43
May does not want to get elected, that would be a terrible outcome for her after the election. But at $1.75/vote she can make coin and travel around on her high green horse without being responsible for any of that parliamentary messiness. She ain’t stupid.
Posted by philanthropist | April 3, 2007 10:23 PM
Posted on April 3, 2007 22:23
All the more reason not to vote.
Posted by Anonymous | April 4, 2007 12:25 PM
Posted on April 4, 2007 12:25
You have to factor in the costs of running a candidate in each riding. You have have an official agent and a qualified auditor for every candidate. You have to sign up 100 and file your nomination papers. Given that many candidates will not be from that riding, like the last election, there is the cost of just getting them out there on occasion. That’s not to even talk about ordinary campaign expenses.
More importantly, you have to pay a $1000 deposit. 308 x 1000 = 308,000 just to put a name on a ballot sheet. Even if you are likely to get that money back, you have to pay it up front. Not easy for a cash strapped small party.
If you get $1.75 per vote and you are only pulling in 1000 voters on average, is it worth it? I haven’t crunched the numbers but for some remote regions I’m not sure if it makes sense. Especially since all of the work for remote regions would be done centrally in the nearest big city anyway where time could be better spent getting even more supporters at less cost.
Posted by Ted | April 4, 2007 2:24 PM
Posted on April 4, 2007 14:24