It looks like Harris-Decima is digging a little deeper on Green Party support to (indirectly) see if the Political Staples rule for polling applies now that their polls have the Greens consistently over 10%.
...The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey found most Canadians think that voters who currently say they support the Green party will continue to do so come election time.
Of the just over 1,000 Canadians asked, 37 per cent believe Green party support will hold while a further 28 per cent think it will actually increase. One in four respondents said they think support for the party will decline.
Far be it for me to say this, but it needs to be said, 55% of people polled in this are wrong. The Greens did not reach their election campaign polling figures on election night in 2006, they were nowhere in the Quebec by-elections and they will disappoint next week in the Ontario election. Well disappoint is the wrong word, because they may well disappoint their cheerleaders they will poll pretty much where they have for the last 3 years, ~5%. Enough to get media coverage but not enough to gain seats (do I really need to add in out FPTP system?)
Comments (9)
…and that is why I’m voting NO to MMP.
I believe that one-issue parties like the Green Party (let’s be frank no one votes Green because of their health care policies - whatever they are) have no business with their hands on the pulse of government. And, in an MMP system, fringe parties like the Green Party would have too much say in who runs government.
Posted by Two Cents | October 7, 2007 3:23 PM
Posted on October 7, 2007 15:23
Harper wishes Decima is right. If NDP and Green votes do not hold, Harper does not win.
Posted by Anon | October 7, 2007 9:16 PM
Posted on October 7, 2007 21:16
Hard to say.
Who are those Green people? Are they Liberal/NDP leakage, or are they disaffected Tories? When Conservatives get upset, they tend to say that they’ll vote Green in the next election (thinking back to when it was a more fiscally conservative option).
So they’re an X-factor, these votes parked with the Greens…
Posted by Ben (The Tiger) | October 8, 2007 9:58 AM
Posted on October 8, 2007 09:58
Ben, I think you have it about right. A lot of green support comes from disaffected Tories (I mean old PCers). The Green candidate in my riding would certainly come from that group. The Green Party’s tax policy (taxing consumption rather than income) also has some appeal amongst that segment.
Posted by Greg | October 8, 2007 2:13 PM
Posted on October 8, 2007 14:13
The Quebec comparison is a bit irrelevant, since all the polls noted that the Greens had been nowhere in any event, despite their national numbers. They’ve always been stronger in BC, where there is an actual party grassroots there, and Alberta, where the Greens are a pretty safe protest vote.
Will there be leakage between now and the election? Of course. But you conveniently neglect to mention that the Greens have been increasing their popular support from election to election. Their 2006 performance is their best yet.
I’m going out on a limb here and saying that, in Ontario, while the Greens won’t break 10%, they will get into the 5-6% range — again, their best showing ever. Which should mean something to you so long as you don’t keep moving the finishing line.
Posted by James Bow | October 8, 2007 2:19 PM
Posted on October 8, 2007 14:19
The Greens will not hold their apparent support for the simple reason that they never have. I suppose you could say that their 2006 performance was their “best yet” in a federal election, but my feeling is that going from 4.3% to 4.5% is not an altogether impressive achievement.
Posted by Josh | October 9, 2007 1:30 AM
Posted on October 9, 2007 01:30
What a stupid poll. Why would I, as someone that has never voted Green, be able to comment on whether others that say they will vote Green will actually do it? Shouldn’t the poll only be done with the 10% of people that say they will vote Green?
Posted by Ken | October 9, 2007 3:30 PM
Posted on October 9, 2007 15:30
The yardstick is seats. Plain and simple.
Posted by Greg Staples | October 9, 2007 5:10 PM
Posted on October 9, 2007 17:10
This comment was made on another thread
I can’t stand my local MPP, and even though he didn’t get 51% of the vote, he still got more votes than anyone who ran against him so I’m having a hard time convincing myself that it’s unfair he should be allowed to represent me. Majority or not, he had more support amongst the people he represents than any other candidate, and it was those people who put him there, not his party.
It’s sad that people want to take away power from the actual voters and give it to the parties, but it’s even sadder that they think this is going to help democracy. How can you really claim you’re concerned about democracy when you want to lessen the influence of the people and increase the influence of parties? Who do you think you’re fooling? Most of the support for MMP is coming from supporters of smaller parties who realise that this system will give them power they can’t win democratically!
I agree and would add….
Can we now all see the reasons socialists want PR, they can’t win in a FPTP democratic election, because their policies are too extreme(radical) for the mainstream voter. MMP is like affirmative action for political parties, according to them, all viewpoints are valid and should be represented.
:Note to Taliban Jack: Stop dreaming of nationalizing the banks, bring your policies into the centre “mainstream”, maybe you could win enough seats to make a difference, stop crying unfair when you don’t. It’s your RADICAL policies at fault NOT the WAY we vote.
MMP solves nothing, fixes nothing, it allows fringe parties to form coalitions, and force their minority view on the majority.
Stop trying to cheat your way into power by changing the way we vote and calling it reform.
MMP or PR IS NOT DEMOCRACY!
Posted by William | October 9, 2007 9:37 PM
Posted on October 9, 2007 21:37