(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).

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).

---

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.

---

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

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 ]

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?

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.

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

quote:

---

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

---

ETA: I was sneering when I posted that.

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

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?

---

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.

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.

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian White:
Nope, it is because many greens vote strategically rather than waste their votes.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

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).

---

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.

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 ]

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.

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.

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aka Mycroft:

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

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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?

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...

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.

---

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.

---

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.

[ 04 November 2008: Message edited by: madmax ]

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

---

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 ]

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

quote:

---

Maybe turnout was poor?

---

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.

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: 1948 ]