babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Green Party and 2008 Election numbers

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Green Party and 2008 Election numbers
Robo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4168

posted 01 November 2008 11:20 AM      Profile for Robo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've had a chance to review some numbers from the 2008 Election. Several things for the Green Party's candidates struck me:

(1) Only 41 Green Party candidates exceeded 10% of the vote in their riding (the threshold for qualifying for susbsidy for a riding campaign).

(2) 25 Green Party candidates came ahead of the Liberal candidate in their respective ridings (not counting Central Nova, where there was no Liberal candidate). Even in Kildonan-St. Paul, where the Liberals disowned their candidate after nominations closed, the Green candidate finished behind the Liberal candidate. Eleven were in Alberta, and ten were in BC.

(3) 21 Green Party candidates came ahead of the NDP candidate in their respective ridings. Eight were in Ontario and seven were in Alberta.

(4) Green Party candidates finsihed ahead of the BQ candidate, in fourth place, in Mount Royal and Lac St. Louis ridings.

(5) Green Party candidates came ahead of the Conservative candidate only twice: in fourth place ahead of the Conservative candidate in Laurier-Ste. Marie (Duceppe's riding) and in third place ahead of the Conservative candidate in Toronto-Danforth (Layton's riding).

(6) The Green Party consistently polled in 9%-13% range during the 2008 election. The Green Party in the end got 6.8% of the votes cast. The BQ, running in only province, got 10.0% of the votes cast across Canada.


From: East York | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 01 November 2008 01:04 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Robo:
Only 41 Green Party candidates exceeded 10% of the vote in their riding (the threshold for qualifying for susbsidy for a riding campaign).

Other than Elizabeth May, I see 16 in Ontario, 12 in BC, 6 in Alberta (all in the Calgary area), 2 in Manitoba, and 1 in Yukon. Did I miss three?

I wonder if those subsidies will go in and out to the national office? Or did most of those ridings go in debt, counting on the subsidy?


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
adma
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11856

posted 01 November 2008 06:29 PM      Profile for adma     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Robo:
(3) 21 Green Party candidates came ahead of the NDP candidate in their respective ridings. Eight were in Ontario and seven were in Alberta.

Only that many? In the most recent Ontario provincial election, I counted 17 ahead of the NDP, and 30 if you add the ones where NDP was less than 2 percentage points ahead of GPO...


From: toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 01 November 2008 06:35 PM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I feel really bad for all those riding associations, and especially the activists themselves who took on debt thinking they would get rebates back. This will set a lot of those people back and disillusion them personally. Elizabeth May has a lot to answer for to those people. If my party leader ever did anything like she did I would be some pissed off.
Trying to raise money AFTER the campaign is pretty damn hard.

From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
David Young
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14805

posted 01 November 2008 07:27 PM      Profile for David Young     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How about these numbers?

SOUTH SHORE ST. MARGARETS

CON....14395
NDP....13457
GREEN...2090

SASKATOON-ROSETOWN-BIGGAR

CON....12166
NDP....11913
GREEN...1228

VANCOUVER ISLAND NORTH

CON....26166
NDP....23681
GREEN...4563

SURREY NORTH

CON....13718
NDP....12608
GREEN...1941


From: Liverpool, N.S. | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
TCD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9061

posted 01 November 2008 07:34 PM      Profile for TCD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This release by accused peeping tom Shane Jolley seems a tad defensive. When your Deputy Leader insists you're not going to run for another party. Especially after this release.

ETA: David, not sure what the point of your post is? Do you think Greens excited by the May's promise of a carbon tax, restoration of the income trust loophole, lower corporate taxes and more war in Afghanistan should have voted NDP? Why?

I know that Greens get under New Democrat's skin but we really shouldn't obsess about Greens who "stealing" our vote. First off, because it's just inane. Secondly, it's a SMALL POND. If we get one in three Green voters to switch we still lose. One in three Liberals or Tories on the other hand and we have some local landslides.

[ 01 November 2008: Message edited by: TCD ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 01 November 2008 11:30 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

"The recent speculation that Elizabeth May will defect to the Liberals is pure nonsense. She's committed to the Greens, and I'm confident that the Green Party membership wouldn't let her go," said Mr. Jolley.


So, what exactly are Green Party members going to do if Liberal Lizzie decides to run for her own party's leadership now that Stephane Dion has stepped out of the way?

Perhaps they'll lock her in the basment of GPC HQ.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 November 2008 11:35 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Question: Does the above post qualify as "sneering"?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 01 November 2008 11:57 PM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Probably, Malcolm in some respects behaves even worse than you do. He does it at a lower frequency on Babble, though.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
ottawaobserver
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14981

posted 02 November 2008 12:20 AM      Profile for ottawaobserver     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Robo:
I've had a chance to review some numbers from the 2008 Election. Several things for the Green Party's candidates struck me...

A similar analysis can be found here, as well.

The article linked to above claims that there were only 2 ridings where the Greens lost their rebate where they had it in 2006, however, so earlier reports of mass wailing and nashing of teeth may have been speculative.

Also, I agree that it's puzzling why the Green Party responds to every bit of negative speculation ... they're almost giving it all more credence. If May had a bit more message discipline, then they wouldn't have to spend every other release either correcting the record, defending decisions they took, or blaming the early election call and everything and everyone else for the situation they found themselves in, and could spend more time, oh I don't know, talking about environmental issues for example.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 02 November 2008 12:55 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by TCD:
This release by accused peeping tom Shane Jolley seems a tad defensive.

Convicted. Jolley pled guilty to a reduced charge of Trespassing just a few days after the election.

quote:
Prominent Green Party member Shane Jolley pleaded guilty Thursday to a trespassing charge in connection with an incident early the morning of May 4 at a home west of Owen Sound.

Justice Julia Morneau sentenced Jolley to two years probation on one condition: that he avoid contact with Kelly and Steve Thompson, who own the home. Jolley also agreed to pay $1,000 to the Thompsons to cover the cost of installing a new security system.

It was part of an agreement between defence lawyer Doug Grace and Grey County Crown attorney David Hay.

....

Jolley attempted on at least one occasion to apologize in person to the Thompsons.

Kelly Thompson remains baffled by it all and angry with Jolley. She wants no contact with the man, she said in an interview after Thursday's hearing.

The incident still "creeps me out," Thompson said. In addition to installing a security system and acquiring a large dog, the couple has recently listed their home for sale.

Thompson said she has called police on two occasions since May about unusual noises and incidents in the vicinity of her home. "Every time I hear a noise, it's become more of a paranoia, really," she said.

"If he was to get off, which is what we initially thought might happen, then he gets to forget it," she said. "We don't get to forget that we were violated," Thompson said.

"It's not a break-in and he didn't steal anything but . . . how would somebody feel if somebody was looking in on your kids or your family or you and your husband. I'm sure they'd feel violated."

Hay told Morneau that a neighbour called police after he noticed a suspicious man dressed in dark clothing looking in a window at the Thompson home at about 3:20 a. m. Police later encountered Jolley on foot in the area.

He lives nearby and told the officers he had been out walking. In a subsequent interview with police, Jolley said he had been at the Thompson home to see if he recognized "any known bicycle thieves," Hay told Morneau.

Jolley told a Sun Times reporter in early June that he and other bicycle owners in the area had been frustrated by bike thefts in recent years and had begun investigations of their own.

Thompson has heard the explanation and she still thinks it's weird. She had been entertaining friends in a basement area of the home the night of the incident when police came to her door.

"It was devastating because you don't know how long it's been going on. You don't know whether it's the first time. You're thinking about the past, noises you've heard and that kind of thing."

"I couldn't believe it when they first told us" about Jolley as a suspect in the incident, she said.

"We weren't going for money, but we wanted to see it go to trial. We wanted him to be put out there," Thompson said.

The day Jolley showed up at her home last June "to explain himself" Thompson refused to meet him. Asked about the bicycle theft explanation, Thompson said she remains confused about it.

"We don't own a bike," she said. "It seems silly to me."

"It very much creeps me out. I just don't understand why anybody would be on your property at 3:30 in the morning. It does creep me out and it makes me angry too."


[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: Scott Piatkowski ]


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 November 2008 01:17 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jrootham:
Probably, Malcolm in some respects behaves even worse than you do. He does it at a lower frequency on Babble, though.

Well, how does one qualify "sneering" I mean in the sense that one can identify it and then create policy around a definition?

Would you say that this statment qualifies as sneering:

quote:
"What part of "by any means necessary" do you not understand?"

How about this one... does this qualify as sneering:

quote:

Also, why do some people seem to take umbrage at what appears to be sneering when directed at things that they like and support, but then remain dead silent when used in support of what they don't like, or even do it themselves?

Doesn't that come across as a kind of double standard?

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 02 November 2008 02:47 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Originally posted by jrootham:
quote:
Probably, Malcolm in some respects behaves even worse than you do. He does it at a lower frequency on Babble, though.

We'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not being deliberately dense.

One off sneers in a thread are noticeable, but a dime a dozen around here.

The point is in the second sentence. It is the frequency and persistence with which you repeat the same sneering point that gets people's goats.

EDIFYING THREAD DRIFT GETS CARRIED ON IN RABBLE REACTIONS.

A definition of sneering, please.

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Politics101
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8962

posted 02 November 2008 03:41 AM      Profile for Politics101   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Doesn't that come across as a kind of double standard

On BABBLE - a double standard OMG? Who would have thought it possible.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 02 November 2008 06:49 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Certainly not me.

ETA: I was sneering when I posted that.

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Robo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4168

posted 02 November 2008 07:06 AM      Profile for Robo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:

Other than Elizabeth May, I see 16 in Ontario, 12 in BC, 6 in Alberta (all in the Calgary area), 2 in Manitoba, and 1 in Yukon. Did I miss three?

I also saw the Green in Fredericton get 10.2% of the vote. In Ontario, I count 18 Greens over 10% -- 3 in Toronto, 4 in Simcoe County, 2 in Kitchener, 2 in suburban Ottawa, BGOS, Durham, Dufferin-C, Guelph, Kingston, London-NC, and Parry Sound-M.


From: East York | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
madmax
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15139

posted 02 November 2008 07:10 AM      Profile for madmax   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Only that many? In the most recent Ontario provincial election, I counted 17 ahead of the NDP, and 30 if you add the ones where NDP was less than 2 percentage points ahead of GPO...

Apparently the GPs were not able to hold onto half those ridings federally where they were ahead of the NDP Provincially.

Provincial and Federal Politics are not the same. Federally the GPs got a larger voice, but not always more votes.

Rural Haldimand Norfolk. (eat this Toronto Star)

Green Chad Squizzato 2,229 (Provincial)07
Green Stephana Johnston 2,041 (Federal)08


I find the commenting regarding the Low Voter Turnout, interesting. Low voter turnout is a benefit to the GP if they want to make the 10%. Clearly their voter numbers went up while the LPC voter numbers went down, as they stayed home. This actually makes it easier for the LPC to meet the 10% threshold.


----SIDE BAR-------
And Shane Jolleys convicted. Well tresspassing isn't an overly serious charge, but reading the womans comments, she thinks Jolley is a creep.

But the GP .....He is their main man.


From: Ontario | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
John Ogilvie (GP)
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14310

posted 02 November 2008 09:49 AM      Profile for John Ogilvie (GP)   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Shane is Male Deputy Leader of the GP of ONTARIO, not the federal party. The press release does not make this clear.

He did run federally in 2004, and was our most successful candidate. But he did not to run as a federal candidate in 2008.


From: Almonte | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged
madmax
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15139

posted 02 November 2008 10:02 AM      Profile for madmax   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Shane is Male Deputy Leader of the GP of ONTARIO, not the federal party. The press release does not make this clear.

That's ok, it overlooked his conviction too.

There is nothing wrong with the Deputy Leader of the OGP supporting the Federal GP Leader.

How much value is there in an endorsement from someone who tresspasses at night, peeps in womans windows at 3am, and is considered "Creepy" by his neighbors.


From: Ontario | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
Mojoroad1
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15404

posted 02 November 2008 10:04 AM      Profile for Mojoroad1     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yikes.
From: Muskoka | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
Robo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4168

posted 02 November 2008 10:56 AM      Profile for Robo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As much as I enjoy reading about Shane Jolley's exploits , that wasn't why I started this thread. The numbers for the Greens in the 2008 federal election were remarkably weak -- significantly weaker than every poll I can recall had pegged them. This goes back to the point I have long thought -- that a large part of Green support in polls is "parked votes" -- people who say they will vote Green to say something to a pollster, rather than an indication of actual intent to vote.

I am surprised that no one has remarked upon the fact that the Greens outpolled the Liberal candidate in more ridings than it outpolled the NDP candidate.


From: East York | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
janfromthebruce
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14090

posted 02 November 2008 11:16 AM      Profile for janfromthebruce     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by madmax:

Apparently the GPs were not able to hold onto half those ridings federally where they were ahead of the NDP Provincially.

Provincial and Federal Politics are not the same. Federally the GPs got a larger voice, but not always more votes.

Rural Haldimand Norfolk. (eat this Toronto Star)

Green Chad Squizzato 2,229 (Provincial)07
Green Stephana Johnston 2,041 (Federal)08


I find the commenting regarding the Low Voter Turnout, interesting. Low voter turnout is a benefit to the GP if they want to make the 10%. Clearly their voter numbers went up while the LPC voter numbers went down, as they stayed home. This actually makes it easier for the LPC to meet the 10% threshold.


----SIDE BAR-------
And Shane Jolleys convicted. Well tresspassing isn't an overly serious charge, but reading the womans comments, she thinks Jolley is a creep.

But the GP .....He is their main man.


As posted in the ONDP leadership section, the reason why the Greens did well in the last provincial election was not related to their environmental platform, but because they happen to have a "one school system" education plank. When John Tory (con) ran on funding all religious schools (northern, rural and many urban folks, including many normal con supporters) voted Green because the opposite of "fund all" is "fund none." Since the provincial NDP was status quo and held the same position as McGuinty liberals they had nothing to add to the debate so essentially they got shut out of the "contest." Me too is not a progressive position.
Hence, it's no surprise that their vote didn't hold because that is not a federal concern.


From: cow country | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 02 November 2008 12:29 PM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nope, it is because many greens vote strategically rather than waste their votes. You could check this by seening how hit the green vote is in clear winner ridings as opposed to ridings where there was a tight race between ndp and con or liberal and con. A dip in green vote in the tight ridings will prove the strategic voting theory.
A lot of NDP and Liberal "votes" is actually greens who "Parked" their votes there to stop a con locally.
quote:
Originally posted by Robo:
This goes back to the point I have long thought -- that a large part of Green support in polls is "parked votes" -- people who say they will vote Green to say something to a pollster, rather than an indication of actual intent to vote.


From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 02 November 2008 03:33 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Brian White:
Nope, it is because many greens vote strategically rather than waste their votes.
Now Brian, you have stated emphatically "nope" Jan's contention, this suggests you have concrete evidence contrary to her assertations. Yet you have provided none, as such one must presume that this is a mental contruct of your own as opposed to facts on the ground. Moreover, it is apparent you have not checked this presumption of yours out, as you tell others they can check, as follows.

quote:
You could check this by seening how hit the green vote is in clear winner ridings as opposed to ridings where there was a tight race between ndp and con or liberal and con.
You apparently did not read this thread even, to see if there was evidence presented that contradicted your presumption, let alone search for any truth to your assertations.

Up above, we see David Young mention just 4 close ridings that prove your assertations incorrect. Though of note, those you took exception to their perspective, were talking provincial vs federal GP votes, I will only do a federal compare from 2006-2008 to show that your "stragtegic vote" assertations are non-factual.

SOUTH SHORE ST. MARGARETS 2008

CON....14395
NDP....13457
GREEN...2090

2006 GP 1198

SASKATOON-ROSETOWN-BIGGAR 2008

CON....12166
NDP....11913
GREEN...1228

2006 GP 738

VANCOUVER ISLAND NORTH 2008

CON....26166
NDP....23681
GREEN...4563

2006 GP 2715

SURREY NORTH 2008

CON....13718
NDP....12608
GREEN...1941

2006 GP 961

And here is few more that went NDP with no support from GP "strategic" voters:

TSP GP 2006 2398 2008 5383

ThunderBayRR GP 2006 1193 2008 1377

ThunderBay SuperiorN GP 2006 2231 2008 2460

Nickle Belt GP 2006 975 2008 2050

Welland GP 2006 1960 2008 2816

Haldimand Norfolk GP 2006 1894 2008 2041

Now then here is another ON riding where again strategic votes did not happen GP went up and Cons got in

Kenora GP 2006 692 2008 1078

Then of course there is Guelph where the GP almost cost the Libs a seat and would have given it to the Cons

Guelph GP 2006 5376 2008 12456

So let's look at LNC to see that close race if there were GP strategic votes going elsewhere.

GP 2006 3300 2008 5612

Nope, in fact I could not find any evidence of GP strategic voting where their votes went down federally, to afford the NDP or Liberals a seat. Not even EJDF GP 2006 3385 2008 4957, nor Victoria, Van South, Van Centre, nor any of the other GVA ridings that the NDP and Liberals got, GP votes all went up, as a matter of fact and cost seats to the Cons like in

Surrey North

Cons 13718
NDP 12608
Libs 5232
GP 1941 2006 961

North Vancouver

Cons 24329
Libs 21510
NDP 5429
GP 6221 2006 4483

quote:
A dip in green vote in the tight ridings will prove the strategic voting theory.
Soooooooo...what "tight" ridings were you thinking of? As we can see from some of the "tight" ridings, there was no GP dip, to signify strategic votes in close ridings, in fact GP votes went up, not down.

Having said all of that, voter intention polls prior to the election mean nothing by way of indicating strategic voting changes. The GP has always polled consistently higher than what they actually get come election.

quote:
A lot of NDP and Liberal "votes" is actually greens who "Parked" their votes there to stop a con locally.
Again please do indicate several ridings where you believe this to be the case. As their is absolutely nothing you have provided, nor indeed from what I just briefly checked, to indicate your presumption is anything more than your desire to believe that "strategic voting" worked some where.

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: remind ]


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
janfromthebruce
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14090

posted 02 November 2008 03:41 PM      Profile for janfromthebruce     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, I don't know Brian if I agree with the analogy you put forth that "A lot of NDP and Liberal "votes" is actually greens who "Parked" their votes there to stop a con locally."

Perhaps looking where Greens did well, if one wants to consider that doing well, is in Alberta where except for one riding where the NDP won, those ridings tend to be Conservative Blue. Those voters if one considers what their voting tendency is, is conservative. So some of those normally voting conservatives voted for the conservative leaning "Greens." Like was mentioned before, the Greens are a conservative party that fits with eco capitalism. Ditto for rural and suburban Ontario. Again, ditto for rural BC re: liberal.

quote:
ahead of the NDP in 16 additional ridings (mainly in Calgary and rural and suburban Ontario), and ahead of the Liberals in a further 21 ridings - all in western Canada (in Calgary, rural Alberta, rural British Columbia and a few on the prairies).
re: Pundit's guide

From: cow country | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 02 November 2008 04:46 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
..Perhaps looking where Greens did well, if one wants to consider that doing well, is in Alberta where except for one riding where the NDP won, those ridings tend to be Conservative Blue. Those voters if one considers what their voting tendency is, is conservative. So some of those normally voting conservatives voted for the conservative leaning "Greens." Like was mentioned before, the Greens are a conservative party that fits with eco capitalism. Ditto for rural and suburban Ontario. Again, ditto for rural BC re: liberal.

It seems there is just enough left of centre votes in the GP, to do what the GP was created for, split votes on the left and afford the Cons more seats. I wonder if left voters in the GP will ever awaken to the fact that they are actually being exploited by the right to fracture the left and allow the Cons to win, just as E. May did, and as what happened in 6 ridings noted above?

Moreover, if the GP split the left vote in the 7 ridings identified, giving those ridings to the Cons, how many more are there across Canada?

West Nova would have been Lib had strategic voting occured or the GP not existing to split the left vote.

Cons 16779
Libs 15185
NDP 7097
GP 2114 2006 1040

Fredericton would have been close too, and Paul Zed would have retained St John and it would not have gone Con. Nor would have Nunavut.

So... I guess that is 11 seats where the GP functioned well for the Cons, as they were supposed to and gave them 10 and possibly 11 seats more than they would have gotten. And 2 other seats in BC would have been very close contest Nanaimo Alberni and 'loops NThompson, for the NDP, had there really been any strategic voting going on. With no mention of the BS in SGI where the NDP had the strongest chance against the Cons, as well as CN. In context, that is 15 seats where the GP influenced things to give the Cons the best shot at taking the seat.

All in all, we can thank the GP for the Cons larger minority. So much for the nonsense rhetoric they were out to defeat the Cons at all costs. They in fact were out to give the Cons seats.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
janfromthebruce
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14090

posted 02 November 2008 05:14 PM      Profile for janfromthebruce     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think I understand what you are saying a bit Remind. The Green voter is a compilation of say center left and center right voter. So the center left voter who does not perhaps realize that they are voting for a party whose eco policies are market based approach and where the shift in policy has moved to eco conservative side, thinks they are voting progressive. Some think that Green means just environment and therefore progressive.
I met such voters when I was doing door to door. When they told me they were voting Green and we talked, it was because it had to do with the environment. Most had no idea that NDP had a strong environmental policy. You could say this was your average voter - pretty disengaged, no real sense of what parties had in their planks, and this was particularly very "young" or new voters.

From: cow country | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 02 November 2008 05:54 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, Jan, that is basically it, thank you for summing it up so nicely. You need only have added they suck new, or uninformed, voters in by pretending they are progressive cause they are supposedly "all about the environment", yet they have done nothing for the environment, in almost 30 years of their existence in Canada. In fact, strong arguments could be made that they have harmed it more than they have helped it.

There are a few other dimensions in the composition of who supports the GP and why, but I was mostly pointing out to Brian, that he is absolutely incorrect in his assumption that any strategic voting went on to save the Cons from getting seats. In fact, quite the opposite occured, and the GP gave the Cons about 11 seats they would not have had, and actually saved none from them that I checked.

ETA: In fact, the GP functioned just as many here have maintained all along, as many of us have stated; it exists only to split the left vote and afford the Cons a run up the middle for a strong minority which could well lead to a majority in the next election. That is unless the actual progressives in the GP see what is happening, and come to understand why the GP actually exists and thus stop voting GP. Because their vote for the GP is actually a vote for the Cons.

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: remind ]


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
adma
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11856

posted 02 November 2008 07:12 PM      Profile for adma     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by madmax:

Rural Haldimand Norfolk. (eat this Toronto Star)

Green Chad Squizzato 2,229 (Provincial)07
Green Stephana Johnston 2,041 (Federal)08


Though there was a federal wild card: an independent candidate that got 10% and ate into Diane Finley's total. Wouldn't be surprised if that ate some of the "parkable" vote.

Re the two 10% Green in 2006-but-not-2008 seats: one of them was Ottawa Centre (where David C.'s absence must have hurt), the other was BC Southern Interior (which had a disgraced CPC candidate to contend with in '06; ergo, a lot of that vote might have been parked Greenward then)


From: toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 02 November 2008 08:28 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by adma:
Though there was a federal wild card: an independent candidate that got 10% and ate into Diane Finley's total. Wouldn't be surprised if that ate some of the "parkable" vote.
Well, McHale may have taken some of the way whacked out CPC vote from Finlay, however, the GP actually got more there federally in 2008, than they did in 2006.

There was 6100 fewer voters there than in 2006. In fact, Finlay got 6228 less votes, as well both the NDP and Libs were down. So it could be that the GP benefitted from 147 votes that had been parked with Finlay in 2006, or from the Libs and NDP.

2008
Con 19657 -6228
Lib 15577 -2786
NDP 5549 -1309
IND 4821
GP 2041 + 147

2006

Con 25885
Lib 18363
NDP 6858
GP 1894
CHP 559

quote:
Re the two 10% Green in 2006-but-not-2008 seats: one of them was Ottawa Centre (where David C.'s absence must have hurt),

Ummm, don't think David C's not being there did anything much, as the GP in Ottawa Centre actually got more votes this election than in 2006. Just a smaller % of the vote as 17k more voted in the riding than in 2006.

2008

NDP 25347
Lib 16634
Con 15063
GP 6348

2006
NDP 22742
Lib 9383
Con 8948
GP 5258

quote:
the other was BC Southern Interior (which had a disgraced CPC candidate to contend with in '06; ergo, a lot of that vote might have been parked Greenward then)

"A lot of that vote"? There is only a 706 vote difference from 2006 to 2008 for the GP in BCSI. While there is a a 7973 vote difference for the CPC from 2006 to 2008. And the Liberals lost 6118 votes, so "a lot" of the Liberal's 2006 vote was parked CPC vote. And a marginal amount of 2006 CPC votes went to the GP it appears.

2008

NDP 22684 - 58
Con 16921 +7973
GP 4552 - 706
Lib 3265 -6118

2006

NDP 22742
Con 8948
GP 5258
Lib 9383


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 03 November 2008 05:23 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
May blames NDP for Harper victory

quote:
"I certainly don't blame myself at all," said Ms. May

From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 03 November 2008 05:48 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:

"I certainly don't blame myself at all," said Ms. May


What a horrible, ignorant person.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 03 November 2008 07:09 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
May clearly doesn't understand the role of political parties in Canada's electoral system. You can just feel contempt -- for the NDP, for voters and for democracy -- oozing from her.
From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
madmax
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15139

posted 03 November 2008 07:41 AM      Profile for madmax   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Ms. May said she is disappointed that her party did not win any seats, however she pointed out that the Greens were the only party to receive a greater number of votes in 2008 than in 2006. "To imagine that almost a million people could vote Green and not elect a single MP, that's another historic first, not one I'm thrilled about, but we now at the end of the 2008 election have the highest number of people who have ever voted for a political party that didn't win a seat."

The electoral system cannot be blamed for the GP not winning a SINGLE SEAT. Elizabeth May must take the blame for her own decision to run in Central Nova. Not one seat? Of course not one seat. That is because there wasn't ONE seat in which the GP was competitive.

All this cooperation nonsense, still didn't make the GP competitive. Elizabeth May appears to be upset that even with the LPC handout, and the NDP gift basket in Central Nova, she still failed to understand the basics of electoral politics.

She is the only one to blame for the failure of the GP to win a single seat. She was naive, foolish and electorally challenged. She was tilting at windmills and now swats at flies with a baseball bat, hoping to hit a home run.

Apparently unless you do it Elizabeth Mays way, you are not a team player, with regards to her critism of Jack Layton. Clearly, the smaller GP and its unelected body believe that they are the kingmaker and that their deal with Dion was somehow noble as opposed to self serving. The success of the LPC today is directly related to being a team player sharing Elizabeth Mays vision of sharing.

The GP didn't just not win any seats, they lost the only seat they had. The GP have no one to blame but themselves.


From: Ontario | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 03 November 2008 03:01 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Thankfully, it's December for May
Green Party leader Elizabeth May, so recently an ubiquitous presence on our television screens, fawned over by adoring media, seems to have vanished -- possibly into history, but more likely, into hiding from her candidates.

Or at least, that's where I'd be if I'd led a political party and then abandoned it halfway through the election to urge voters to support someone else.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a big relief and I can't wait for U.S. vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin to follow May into political oblivion.


I don't think this is an example of women having to meet a higher standard than men. In fact, it was the first time I can remember where a woman was held to a lower standard.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 03 November 2008 04:50 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Her arrogance was breathtaking -- only she cared about the planet and those who insisted on voting otherwise were coal-burning, war-loving, car-addicted troglodytes.
That was what I got from her messaging over and over again. But then the media would not go behind the story and print anything about the decades long hate on she has had for any NDP members in the environmental movement. I of course only have anecdotal evidence from the people who have had to try and deal with her when she was with the Sierra club but since I know their commitment and now coupled with her public persona it seems the rumours were true.

From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 03 November 2008 05:20 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
She is speaking at Carleton U, tomorrow from 11:30-1:30 on women in politics and the 2008 election, I can hardly wait to hear what falls from her mouth! I guess she is now the only woman in politics too!

Also was looking at more of the ridings today, while babble was down, and found 7 more ridings where the GP assured a CPC win. So that makes it 15-17 ridings less that Harper would not have had without the GP splitting the vote. So much for strategic voting. Moreover, one wonders how much of an impact her being in the leader's debates added to GP totals, that should not have been?

It is becoming even more apparent that is their total purpose of existence, assuring a Con minority to eventually create a majority for them. Wake up progressive Greens!


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
janfromthebruce
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14090

posted 03 November 2008 05:55 PM      Profile for janfromthebruce     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
IMV I think that May is really angry that Dion not only really, really lost the election, but that he was forced to step down or else he would have had a massive liberal revolt. With Dion's going so does her champion or protector in some ways.
Furthermore, it appears that no liberals are interested in "making nice with May" or it appears "giving her the time of day."
I found it interesting that on the one hand, she said that there should be a coalition formed between the supposed "left parties" but than on the other hand, goes on to say that she would never become a liberal, and that the liberals had way to many policies that she could possibly support. So it sounds like, really, this coalition is dead on arrival as May says herself that the liberals don't really have policies that she would support - strange.
Thankfully in the Hill piece, it was balanced with retorts by Brad L. to dispute the distortions and rant of May, along with counter arguments by others. It was balanced.

From: cow country | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
adma
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11856

posted 03 November 2008 06:26 PM      Profile for adma     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Ummm, don't think David C's not being there did anything much, as the GP in Ottawa Centre actually got more votes this election than in 2006. Just a smaller % of the vote as 17k more voted in the riding than in 2006.

2008

NDP 25347
Lib 16634
Con 15063
GP 6348

2006
NDP 22742
Lib 9383
Con 8948
GP 5258


I was looking at that, and a 17k gain makes no sense. Then I looked at the figures you posted and--what? NDP got almost as much as LibConGP combined in 2006? Where did you get that from?

Here's the *real* 2006 figures, courtesy Elections Canada...

NDP 24609
Lib 19468
Con 15105
GP 6765


From: toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 03 November 2008 06:46 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
gawd, you are correct adama, I am so sorry, I got those numbers from OVR, but I must have had too many screens to OVR open, when I was checking them all, and grabbed the wrong numbers from a differing riding. And what was weird, I thought it so strange that OC had so many more voters this time when turnout was down, which should have prompted me to double check...and i didn't, that'll teach me...anyhow thanks for the correction.

So, the NDP was the only party that gained there by about 700 votes, as the GP lost 417 seats then, while the Liberals lost 3k or so, and the CPC about 40.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
TCD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9061

posted 03 November 2008 07:06 PM      Profile for TCD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
When John Tory (con) ran on funding all religious schools (northern, rural and many urban folks, including many normal con supporters) voted Green because the opposite of "fund all" is "fund none." Since the provincial NDP was status quo and held the same position as McGuinty liberals they had nothing to add to the debate so essentially they got shut out of the "contest." Me too is not a progressive position.
I agree with the first part of your premise - a lot of provincial Tories voted Green out of disgust with their own party's weak campaign, and a backlash against the idea of funding "ethnic" schools. Their vote went up in the Tory heartland of Central Ontario where a lot of Conservatives (and conservatives) placed a safe protest vote.

However, I think it's a stretch to say the NDP that improved their share of the vote, improved their share of seats, was "shut out" or that the Greens who won absolutely zero seats and placed second in one had a rousing success.


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
janfromthebruce
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14090

posted 03 November 2008 07:42 PM      Profile for janfromthebruce     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by TCD:
I agree with the first part of your premise - a lot of provincial Tories voted Green out of disgust with their own party's weak campaign, and a backlash against the idea of funding "ethnic" schools. Their vote went up in the Tory heartland of Central Ontario where a lot of Conservatives (and conservatives) placed a safe protest vote.

However, I think it's a stretch to say the NDP that improved their share of the vote, improved their share of seats, was "shut out" or that the Greens who won absolutely zero seats and placed second in one had a rousing success.


I don't think they had a rousing success and hopefully I didn't infer that. But their overall vote went up at the expense of conservatives, and as mentioned above, their vote increased in certain geographical areas.


From: cow country | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
madmax
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15139

posted 04 November 2008 05:16 AM      Profile for madmax   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Janfromthebruce wrote:
quote:
Some think that Green means just environment and therefore progressive.
I met such voters when I was doing door to door. When they told me they were voting Green and we talked, it was because it had to do with the environment. Most had no idea that NDP had a strong environmental policy

Who's fault is that?

People who I shot the breeze with knew the Liberals environmental policy. They didn't like it and voted Green? That choice made no sense to me.

There were other Liberals who knew their parties environmental platform and liked it. They voted Liberal.

There were GP voters who knew the Liberal Platform, they voted Green or Liberal...

There were NDP voters, who didn't know what the NDP environmental position was.

There were non voters and such, who only knew the LPC and GP as parties of the environment.

The NDP ran commercials, had print literature on their "Cap and Trade". But it wasn't media event type coverage.

The LPC got media coverage on their "Green Shift" Believe me, this didn't help their cause.

The GP got media coverage on their "Green Shift"
Believe me, this did help their cause.

The NDP got less media coverage of their environmental platform, then the Conservatives.
More coverage of a weak platform is still more coverage

The NDP got media repeats of Jack flying over the tar sands, but few regular folks understood what this meant to them.

The NDP has the next session, to reinforce their environmental platform. To get the message out. People need to know it before the election. The NDP has had a strong environmental policy for decades, yet the GP likes to spread the myth that only they have helped the environment.

Of course the GP has a track record of helping the environment.

A record equal to the number of seats they currently hold.

ZERO


From: Ontario | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
madmax
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15139

posted 04 November 2008 05:17 AM      Profile for madmax   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Double post deleted

[ 04 November 2008: Message edited by: madmax ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 04 November 2008 09:03 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by madmax:
Of course the GP has a track record of helping the environment.

A record equal to the number of seats they currently hold. ZERO


Great point!


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 04 November 2008 10:03 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Canada's electoral system 'dysfunctional': May

quote:
OTTAWA–Green Leader Elizabeth May says last week's federal election results were badly distorted and the "dysfunctional" system that produced them needs to be fixed – now.

May pointed to the fact that only 59 per cent of eligible voters showed up at polling stations across the country, and seven million of them were "orphaned" by the first-past-the-post system for electing MPs.

May and a group called Fair Vote Canada are holding a news conference tomorrow on Parliament Hill, where they'll call on Ottawa to introduce a system of proportional representation.


And then there was a small diddy about that news conference printed in the world famous St Catherines Standard about 14 days ago. It's the democracy gap, and our big business news rags missed yet an another opportunity.

[ 04 November 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 04 November 2008 11:45 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ya EMay's little speech in Ottawa on Oct 20th received a lot of press eh! Too bad though, as Fair Vote needed some press, they should have distanced themselves from May though, as she appears to be pretty much toxic to the MSM these days.

Wonder how her talk went today at Carleton, funny there is no update on it at the GP website.

Maybe turnout was poor?


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mojoroad1
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15404

posted 05 November 2008 07:38 AM      Profile for Mojoroad1     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Maybe turnout was poor?

..or maybe she told everyone to go see the Liberal talking in the conference room next door.


From: Muskoka | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
scott
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 637

posted 05 November 2008 07:55 AM      Profile for scott   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[QB]"A lot of that vote"? There is only a 706 vote difference from 2006 to 2008 for the GP in BCSI. While there is a a 7973 vote difference for the CPC from 2006 to 2008. And the Liberals lost 6118 votes, so "a lot" of the Liberal's 2006 vote was parked CPC vote. And a marginal amount of 2006 CPC votes went to the GP it appears.

In general I think you are right. Some Con voters did park with Greens and Libs in 2006 but there in a longer term trend of Green up and Liberals down in this riding. The NDP seems established at the 22000 vote level as the Cons seem settled at the 16000 vote level. I have added the 2004 numbers for reference. There was a boundary redraw around the beginning of this period.

2008

NDP 22684 - 58
Con 16921 +7973
GP 4552 - 706
Lib 3265 -6118

2006

New Democrat 22,742 49.0% +13.9%
Liberal 9,383 20.2% +2.2%
Conservative 8,948 19.3% -17.3%
Green 5,258 11.3% +3.4%

2004

Conservative 16,940 36.60%
New Democrat 16,260 35.13% +25.28
Liberal 8,310 17.96% -9.39%
Green 3,663 7.91% +1.44%

Another factor that affected the Green and Lib vote in 2008 was, believe it or not, a strategic voting campaign.

In spite of reasonably credible projections that the Alex Atamanenko of the NDP was comfortably ahead, an e-mail that originated with the NDP circulated around the riding just before election day said in part:

quote:
Alex Atamanenko's office polls show the NDP sitting uncomfortably close to the Conservative candidate for our riding in this federal election race. Given this situation, it is important that all progressive voters avoid vote splitting between the NDP and Green Party, which could result in a Conservative MP for our riding.
...
This is why we are jointly writing to you to make an unusual request: We are asking you to unite the progressive vote to defeat Conservative Rob Zandee. We are asking you to vote for Alex Atamanenko, NDP.


Either the NDP's internal polling is abysmally bad or NDP supporters deliberately lied to people in order to poach a few Green and Liberal votes that were never needed.

This incident was written up and discussed in the local press. The Green candidate blamed it for his sub 10% showing. The best thing to come out of it I guess is that strategic voting in hopefully dead in this riding.


From: Kootenays BC | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 05 November 2008 09:13 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by scott:
Either the NDP's internal polling is abysmally bad or NDP supporters deliberately lied to people in order to poach a few Green and Liberal votes that were never needed.

This incident was written up and discussed in the local press. The Green candidate blamed it for his sub 10% showing. The best thing to come out of it I guess is that strategic voting in hopefully dead in this riding.


Doesn't seem like anyone voted strategically anyway, the NDP were down 58 votes from 2006. I would say the GP candidate was blowing smoke, as only the GP can, as he was still up from 2004, and only garnered more in 2006 because of the CPC melt down.

I hope this election renders all strategic voting DOA. Moreover, it really pointed out that the GP is CPC lite and that they exist only to fracture progressive votes insuring that the CPC come up the middle to take more seats as the CPC most likely would have had 15-17 seats less, if not for the GP. Well done, EMay, and I wonder if Prentice has called her yet?


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 05 November 2008 09:42 AM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by scott:
Either the NDP's internal polling is abysmally bad or NDP supporters deliberately lied to people in order to poach a few Green and Liberal votes that were never needed.

The internal polling at the riding level is done mostly by volunteers. No campaign can usually reach anywhere close to all the voters in a riding during the campaign so mostly they phone into polls that are close to not only get a sense of who people are voting for but also to get the message out to polls that might swing your way.

In any riding it depends on which polls you phone into what your perception of the closeness of the race is. And any campaign team that wants to keep winning always runs scared.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
janfromthebruce
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14090

posted 05 November 2008 06:40 PM      Profile for janfromthebruce     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
The internal polling at the riding level is done mostly by volunteers. No campaign can usually reach anywhere close to all the voters in a riding during the campaign so mostly they phone into polls that are close to not only get a sense of who people are voting for but also to get the message out to polls that might swing your way.

In any riding it depends on which polls you phone into what your perception of the closeness of the race is. And any campaign team that wants to keep winning always runs scared.


Anyway, why is it wrong for the NDP to use "strategic voting" to up their vote in a riding? I mean the liberals do a national campaign in the last week of each federal race, with essentially don't waste your vote on the NDP, only libs can possibly win power, the race is too close, and blah, blah, blah.
I just thought I would widen and shift the "strategic voting frame" to bring down the original "straw horse analogy."


From: cow country | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
janfromthebruce
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14090

posted 07 November 2008 05:27 AM      Profile for janfromthebruce     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ex-Green candidate sues party, leader as reported in The Province.
quote:
The former Green Party of Canada candidate in Newton-North Delta is suing the party and its leader, Elizabeth May, for libel, claiming he was wrongly accused of anti-Semitism.

quote:
In September, May told the press that the party was removing John Shavluk following revelations that he had made comments in 2006 in an online discussion that could be construed as anti-Semitic.

But in a statement of claim filed in B.C. Supreme Court, Shavluk says that the statements attributed to him were well-known to May and the party executive long before he accepted the nomination.



quote:
He says the defendants knew that he did not hold anti-Semitic views and says that the decision to remove him as a candidate has injured his character, credit and reputation and brought him into hatred and contempt.

This is going to cost the Green Party money to fight the law suit, and also may tarnish their "social capital" in the province where they have the most "political capital."


From: cow country | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
1948
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15673

posted 07 November 2008 05:54 AM      Profile for 1948   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: 1948 ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca