Let’s see what our celebrity judges make of this, shall we?


First, the issue of the day:

VICTORIA, Oct. 11 /CNW Telbec/ – Three senior Canadian members of the 2007 Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are calling on Elizabeth May to lead Greens to make the difference in more than 50 close ridings where the Conservatives are set to win with a fraction of the expected Green Party vote. The leading Canadian climate scientists making the call are Dr. Andrew Weaver from the University of Victoria, Dr. William Peltier from the University of Toronto and Dr. John Stone from Carleton University.

Riding projections on VoteForEnvironment.ca and seat models from various polling companies show that in the so-called 519 and 905 regions, and across southern BC the Green Party vote is many times greater than the Conservative margin of victory.

“We face a critical moment,” said Dr. Andrew Weaver, a lead author of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize winning IPCC report.

“It looks like the unprecedented desire to vote for the environment could result in a terrible three way split of environmental voters in key ridings. Elizabeth May and her appeal have an extraordinary opportunity to make the change the Green movement wants to see in our government. Ms. May and the Greens alone can help make the difference between the Harper majority that the climate scientists fear and a Liberal minority under which great progress can be made to fight climate change.”

Doctors Weaver, Peltier and Stone were part of the group of 124 prominent climate scientists who called for strategic voting to defeat the Conservative government.

VoteForEnvironment.ca uses the most recent polling and the 2006 election results at the riding level to mathematically estimate results in each riding. The tool uses the same method pollsters use to make seat projections. It is available so citizens can decode what the various polls mean in their voting choice and if their vote could help make the difference to stop a Conservative victory in their riding.

“Look at Oakville,” said Dr. William Peltier from the University of Toronto.

“The Conservative in Oakville is set to win by about 1200 votes. In that riding May and the Green party will probably draw well over 7000 votes. If even a portion of those Greens act it will make the difference. There are dozens of ridings like Oakville. It looks today like Conservatives will squeak out a win over NDP and Liberal candidates in key ridings where the Greens under May are so strong that, if they used their votes to make change, it would happen.”

“Right now if May were to act to lead the growing Green force she has inspired, she could change the result of this election,” said Dr. John Stone from Carleton University.

“I think changing the government by acting in a narrow band of ridings is more important to environmental voters than the $1.83 parties get per vote. May should make clear that she believes the government needs to change and the election is in the hands of green voters in key ridings.”

Visit VoteForEnvironment.ca to download a spreadsheet of all the ridings where the Green vote can make the difference.


And now, our two celebrity judges:


Let’s see what our celebrity judges make of this, shall we?

  1. You could see this one coming.

  2. I believe I saw it coming in April, but you’re right, Navigator, it took no insight.

  3. Sort of a back-door form of proportional representation?

  4. Seems to be some confusion here Harper/Bush have told me that Global warming is not happening.

  5. Yes, it was clear some time ago – a massive strategic gamble by Dion.

    (I can see the movie now, with Christopher Plummer as Dion, astride his horse, saying “Give me night or give me Blucher! Er, May! ;-) )

  6. and then there is this story

    May’s confusing us, Green candidate says
    Leader’s strategy of backing Dion sending mixed message to her own party

    By CHRISTINA SPENCER, National Bureau

    Simcoe North Green candidate Valerie Powell denounces strategic voting. (Christina Spencer/Sun Media)
    Email Print Write Size: A A A Share:

    Facebook Digg Del.icio.us Google Stumble Upon Furl Newsvine Reddit Technorati Blinklist Feed Me Yahoo Socializer Ma.gnolia Raw Sugar Simpy Squidoo Spurl Blink Bits Rojo Blogmarks Shadows Netvouz Scuttle Co.mments Bloglines Tailrank Sitejot + Help ORILLIA — Green Party Leader Elizabath May is confusing her own candidates with talk of supporting Stephane Dion for prime minister, says the Green candidate for Simcoe North.

    Valerie Powell is equally incensed at the Liberals, who she says are engaging in “old political tricks” by trying to appeal for Green voters at the last minute.

    May is “making it definitely confusing, and a lot of a Green candidates are really upset,” Powell said at the Orillia Farmers Market today, where Dion showed up at a rally to back the local Grit candidates. “It’s confusing for us as candidates.

    “But you have to look at it in the bigger picture. (May) believes (Stephen) Harper should be out, she wanted to develop some sort of strategic plan.”

    Powell said May had approached NDP Leader Jack Layton before the campaign to try to develop a strategy for defeating Harper, but Layton wouldn’t agree, and Dion agreed on a partnership only for the riding of Central Nova, where May is running. Because of their refusal to co-operate earlier, Powell said, the big parties should not be trying to woo the Green vote now.

    “This happens every election. They try to scoop all the support they can” from smaller parties, said Powell. “It always becomes negative strategic voting.”

    While Dion pitched to the market crowd for votes from other left wing parties — and even from Conservative supporters — Powell and her supporters held up Green signs in the background. The Orillia Farmers Market, she said, “is a bastion of green support.”

    Some Green candidates in Quebec have reportedly asked their own supporters to back Liberals in a bid to keep the Tories from winning.


    Well dont you think Lizzie wont be leader after this election, the Anglican churches gain I guess.

  7. Navigator,

    I thought I was about the only person who knew that movie….so many great lines.

    “The old guard is broken…”

  8. p
    margin-top: 0px;
    margin-bottom: 1px

    font-family: “Times New Roman”, serif;
    font-size: 12pt;
    font-weight: normal;
    font-style: normal

    Email Print Write Size: A A A Share:

  9. Voting Liberal to reduce GHGs has not worked out really well in the past.

    I also notice that they (VoteForEnvironment.ca) want some people to vote for the Bloc.

  10. >>Ms. May and the Greens alone can help make the difference between the Harper majority that the climate scientists fear and a Liberal minority under which great progress can be made to fight climate change.<<

    As opposed to, you know, fears of economic armageddon, losing your house, losing your job, losing your savings, not being able to make ends meet.

    Know what’s been missing from world headlines ever since the big meltdown started and the stock market crashed? How about climate change?
    Yeah, Canadians who are terrified of “The Great Depression Version 2.0” are totally thinkin’ about climate change these days.

  11. A vote for the Green or the NDP (most ridings in Ontario) is a vote for Harper’s policies and an endorsement of his actions over the past 2 1/2 years. Progressive Canadians should support Dion – come on people – he is probably the most left leaning Liberal leader that we have ever had! He is Liberal in name – what is a rose – would is smell as sweet by any other name???? Canadians on the centre left are too hung up on partisan politics. What about Dion the man and his platform offends the rest of the left?? We can have a greener, fairer and richer Canada. VOTE FOR CANADA – VOTE LIBERAL!!!!

  12. I can’t be the only one who has wiled away far too many minutes this weekend swing dancing with the H&K seat predictor, can I?

  13. Here’s what Elizabeth May has to say about strategic voting;

    “Strategic voting makes no sense, says May

    On Tuesday, Canada needs to elect Green Party MPs, leader Elizabeth May said today.

    “Media reports and suggestions from other parties that I am urging strategic voting across the country or that backroom deals are being made are complete nonsense,” Ms. May said. “As I have said over and over, strategic voting is generally not a sound strategy at all and I do not support it. Canada needs to elect Green MPs.“

    Ms. May was responding in particular to the headline and opening of a Globe and Mail story that directly contradicts what she said to the reporter.

    “I clearly said that voting strategically as advice is pretty useless. I also said: ‘Suggesting one should jump away from the Green Party is very bad advice indeed.’

    “We have a strong team of candidates across Canada. Every one of them is working hard to win and this much we know for sure: Canada needs Green MPs. I intend to win in my riding of Central Nova and I want to be joined by a strong caucus of MPs, like Adriane Carr in Vancouver Centre, Blair Wilson, Mike Nagy, Dick Hibma, John Fryer, Huguette Allen and others. We are running strong campaigns across this country.

    “The best outcome of the election will be the defeat of the Harper government and the election of as many Green MPs as possible.”

    Ms. May noted that support for her leadership, and the Green Party and its forward-looking policies continue to rise.

    “Perhaps what is worrying the other parties is the strong support the Green Party has received from Canadians in this election. In this election we will elect our first MPs.

    “I want to do politics in a much different way, with collaboration, civility and respect. But I am not making deals with other parties, and the Greens are not in discussions with other parties.

    “I will say it once again so absolutely no one can be confused or misled: I want Canadians to elect Green MPs.””

  14. I do wonder whether, if Elizabeth May again urges Green voters to vote Green instead of following Bridget From Durham’s advice — as May has a perfect right to do — John Barber will be a little less sweet on the Greens than he was when he expected them to obligingly fall on their swords:


    There’s nothing particularly wrong with Ti-Guy’s support for Greens staying Green. Nor is there nothing particularly wrong with Bridget wanting the anti-Conservative vote to rally around one flag (although it’s always, always a Liberal flag, isn’t it?).

    The problem is when you’re Elizabeth May and you start out, in 2006, urging non-Liberals to vote Liberal. And then you become the leader of a party that is, inconveniently, not the Liberal party. And for the life of you you can’t send out consistent signals afterward. Which is what has the Green candidate in Christina Spencer’s piece so upset.

    The Elizabeth May of 2006 would have signed the IPCC members’ letter without hesitation. Without hesitation. Which makes the Elizabeth May of 2008 an interesting figure, three days before the election.

  15. I look at the polls everyday and all i think of is Nader/May.

    The comparisons between Dion/Gore and Harper/Bush resonate as well.

    The untold story in this campaign. Well … that is … until after e-day.

  16. Kady, give up on the H&K seat projector, it is too inflexible and doesn’t reflect the facts on the ground or local conditions. Electionprediction.org and democraticspace.com are more fun and accurate.
    And all the partisan hacks take a break from trashing each other on your blog to go over to electionprediction to make wild guesses…

  17. Elizabeth May:
    Please do not become the Canadian Ralph Nader.
    (even if you have to betray your party in order to save your country and promote your cause)

  18. sorry, Paul, thought I was on Kady’s blog when I wrote the above…

    okay, to the thread.

    just as all PC’s votes could not be added to Reform or Alliance, neither does all Green necessarily mean converts to Liberal or NDP.

    I voted Green provincially in 2005, b/c I would never vote NDP, and can’t stand Gordon Campbell. I am in a safe Liberal riding. If it was close, I wouldn’t have voted Green. People who vote Green, may not otherwise. Or they want their 1.75 a year to go to them. Or they like Cheerful Lizzie May over the others.

    So, vote for your party, and let the votes fall where they “May”. We’ll sort it all out on the 15th.

  19. Marty: Yeah, every time it comes back with no independents, I sigh in its general direction – but you can tweak that number by taking two from the Tories for Andre Arthur and Bill Casey.

    ElectionPrediction.org does seem a wee bit more partisan this time around, but still seems pretty accurate, from what I can tell. But when you really, really want to know what giving one percent of Green support as per the latest Ipsos to the NDP or the Liberals (or make it two, and give one to each) the H&K predictor provides instant gratification.

  20. What’s the carbon tax supposed to do again?

    Last I checked (assuming you believe the Earth is turning into an inferno – as opposed to, you know, turning dramatically cooler as per the four tracking agencies including NASA’s Goddard Institute),

    given Canada’s miniscule output of Carbon (less than 2% of the world and falling fast),

    all any carbon tax will accomplish, no matter how huge is,

    a) substantially drive up prices,
    b) for the sole benefit of making us feeeeeel, like we’re saving the world when we’re accomplishing absolutely nothing of substance.

    It’s a nice luxury when we’re floating in a thick rich gravy boat,

    but any talk of a carbon tax during a major economic downturn is the kiss of death.

    Kody’s call:

    the Green vote implodes (and no it won’t go to the Libs – their own green portion will implode too), it will simply fade away.

  21. Kady:

    “but when you really want to know…”

    I am howling. I WOULD want to know, and have done that. Who’s a bigger poli sci geek!?! Marry me!

    A least you get paid to do this….

  22. Sad isn’t it.

    So many people have been lead by so many special interest groups, including the media,

    that we must MUST implement Carbon reducing measures,

    when the reality is,

    its all one big fantasy.

    Note this isn’t some conspiracy statement. This is simple MATH, and even assuming you believe the earthly inferno stuff. (less than 2% times 10%, 20%, even 30% take your pick, means we do nothing, even at great cost to us.)

    Canada’s output is negligible. The media, and the greenies, skip over this teeny tiny point when Canadians are asked to endure real hardship over, literally, nothing.

    Now, back to the hysteria of voting Harper out “FOR THE PLANET’S SAKE!!!”

  23. There are plenty more good reasons for voting Harper out.

  24. Helluva an idea.

    Elect Dion the Doofus for PM and save the planet.

    All it will cost us the economic ruin of Canada.

    Right on!


    Only in Canada, eh?

  25. Jody,

    that may be so (though I disagree),

    but the whole green movement in Canada has been nothing more than a fiction (based again on basic laws of mathematics), used solely for partisan political gain.

    Imagine if the media dared to add this little bit of context into the sea of hysteria its peddled in headline after headline?

  26. I think a leader trying to direct his/her supporters to vote for another party is engaging in a cat-herding exercise.

    And, being a resident of Central Nova, I can say with some degree of certainty that there will be no Greens going to Liberals here.
    And if she were to try direct Greens elsewhere to go Liberal, there would be a lot of Greens here going NDP.

  27. We don’t have time for my explanation into the green “truth bubble” and how it will impact the media in the coming three years (here’s a hint, the public won’t like it when they find out this whole thing literally been about nothing, and the media didn’t bother to inform the public about it)

    and Paul Wells has already threatened to close comments (due to the uncontrolled release of such unnecessary information I suppose)

    so I’ll leave it at that.

  28. Question for kody,

    Given that Canada supplied just slightly over 1% of the Allied manpower during World War I and slightly less than 1% of the Allied manpower in World War II, would he say our efforts in those wars were in vain?

  29. Mike,

    In WWI,

    Canada had the fourth largest military in the world (or thereabouts).

    I’m not sure where you’re getting your info mate.

    And its a bad analogy to begin with.

    All wars are, in varying degrees, finite. Also, in wars, small numbers can make dramatic differences based on strategic factors such as location (a small band can hold up an entire army for weeks by simply holding an important bridge.

    Carbon output is pure mathematical addition and subtraction.

    A better analogy would be to be at the river below the Niagara falls as the water continuously barrels over the edge,

    and your asked to quit your job, take a bailing bucket and empty the river below.

  30. okay, everyone: it is Saturday night!

    turn off your computer, and head to the nearest pub for a fun night! ( or bingo hall, legion, whatever…)

    whatever happens, the sun will rise on Wednesday morning, so everyone take a night off.

    Kady, that marriage proposal was not serious, much to your relief. My wife would kill me. Less red wine when commenting next time… :-)

    Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

  31. “Nor is there nothing particularly wrong with Bridget wanting the anti-Conservative vote to rally around one flag (although it’s always, always a Liberal flag, isn’t it?).”

    I’d like to see more discussion of how this happens every election and what effect it actually has. The Liberals demonize the Conservatives (“Harper wants to shred our social safety net”), then appeal to Canadians to vote to stop the Tories – which always means vote Liberal. The overall effect seems to be that the Liberals steal a few seats from the NDP (watch Olivia Chow’s race in downtown Toronto, where the Tories have *no* chance of winning), hand a couple of other ridings to the Tories where the NDP would have had a chance (Windsor and other labour-heavy ridings) – meaning more Conservative wins and more Liberal wins and yet, still, the Liberals walk away as the saviours and defenders of Canadian values. With the new public funding system, it gets a bit worse – since every vote the Liberals divert this way also costs the other parties money ($1.80/vote). I don’t understand why the media doesn’t call them on this. Layton certainly tries. And May should try too…

  32. If I’m not mistaken, I saw a report from the Tyee in BC that the VoteForEnvironment website is run by a former staffer to former Liberal Cabinet minister Raymond Chan. Why am I not surprised?

    It is a Liberal war room tooland has nothing to do with saving the environment.

  33. AVD: Have you actually gone through the full list of endorsements? There are plenty of NDP and Bloc candidates there.

  34. “Canada had the fourth largest military in the world (or thereabouts).

    I’m not sure where you’re getting your info mate.”

    This might be the funniest thing I’ve ever heard. You really need to open a textbook.

    I’ll list 8 countries. You let me know which 4 Canada had a larger military than:

    Germany, Italy, France, United Kingdom, China, Japan, Soviet Union, United States.

  35. “AVD: Have you actually gone through the full list of endorsements? There are plenty of NDP and Bloc candidates there.”

    Kady: Please define “plenty”.

    * All that are merited based on the local candidates, the local polls, and the kinds of campaigns being run there?

    or merely

    * Enough to get away with looking non-partisan to folks who aren’t paying attention to all the local details.

    For example, they are recommending a Liberal vote in St. John’s East where the local poll ( http://www.ntv.ca/news/inline/viewEntries.php?id=3961 ) put the former NDP Leader miles ahead of the Liberal candidate (as in, he’s over 50%). The Liberal candidate was implicated in the MHA expense claim scandal, and the NDP candidate was clean as a whistle. Still, somehow the promoter of the site puts more emphasis on national polls and claims the Liberal (whose provincial party has like 2 seats in the provincial legislature right now) is ahead. Lovingly: it’s pure B.S.

    People can cite numerous local examples of these kinds of problems with the site’s recommendations.

    Just look at the guy smirking during his interview with Don Newman. He could barely contain himself.

  36. Canada’s army by the end of WWI was approx.

    640,000 soldiers.

  37. And the Soviet Union didn’t exist in WWI.

    It formed in 1922.

  38. Mike,

    better go grab your bailing bucket,

    you’ve got a river to empty.

  39. I thought you said World War II.. but okay.. World War I:

    Okay – 7 countries. Let me know which 4 had smaller militaries than Canada:

    Italy, Germany, Russia, France, US, UK, Austria-Hungary.

    You’re right about the size of Canada’s army after World War I.. but since over 60 million total served in the European theatre alone (all sides)… 640,000 / 60,000,000 = slightly over 1%.

  40. China didn’t really participate in WWI, as it lacked a modern navy. It did some local blockading, but its military was negligible.

  41. I’ve been trying to post an update/correction on the number of seats in the Nfld House of Assembly. It’s 3 Libs, 1 NDPer and 44 Cons. I was sourcing the link to Wikipedia, but fear this is why it failed the first 2 times.

  42. Like I said, I misread your statement as World War II. But for either war, your statement was a completely ridiculous one to make.

  43. Ti-Guy, Kody’s comments here have actual facts and arguments in them. Yours have name-calling. Who’s the troll?

  44. A reader – Actually, I just checked, and St. John’s East is now a “you choose”, as is Halifax (which I believe both the NDP and the Liberals are eyeing), and in Edmonton-Strathcona, they’re endorsing the NDP candidate. In fact, randomly clicking on three BC ridings gave me three NDP endorsements. It really does seem to be based almost entirely on past results.

  45. Ti-Guy, Everyone knows trolls wander around comment boards looking for fights, calling people names, generally being abusive and not engaging in the exchange. SF? Do you have something to add to a discussion about strategic voting or about Canada’s participation in the World Wars? Would you like a recap of your comments over the past day? I can quickly excerpt the bits with relevant substance: . The source, of course, is the Macleans blog. Look it up.

  46. The last I looked Ken Whyte is the editor of Macleans. That would make the magazine slant right.

    That would suggest that the “incensed” leftist, Ti-Guy, is the troll on this thread.

    “By the end of the Second World War, the Royal Canadian Navy had grown to become the third largest Allied navy with 434 commissioned vessels including cruisers, destroyers, frigates, corvettes and auxiliaries.”

    – The Department of National Defence

  47. Mike – a lot of Canadians believe Canada had the fourth largest military in the world wars. Because this is mentioned in most speeches about those wars, and most people miss the caveat about “at the end of the war” – which makes the boast a bit stupid: after eliminating the largest militaries in the world, Canada’s military was larger than non-participants. So, Kody’s wrong, but so are lots of us.

    But on your initial point about the worth of Canada’s involvement in WWII – what was our biggest contribution? Sitting in London for years, dying at Dieppe or being captured in Hong Kong? Would Alaska still be Japanese if not for the Canadians? Maybe it was the moral force of our participation – I’ve always been particularly proud of our “none is too many” response to requests to accept European Jews. Good times. Yes, let’s reduce GHG emissions and let’s participate in global wars, but let’s not delude ourselves about our importance. We didn’t mobilise as heavily in the wars as other Commonwealth countries – so are you suggesting we shouldn’t do as much against climate change?

  48. “By the end of the Second World War, the Royal Canadian Navy had grown to become the third largest Allied navy with 434 commissioned vessels including cruisers, destroyers, frigates, corvettes and auxiliaries.”

    That is a heck of a lot different than saying “In WWI, Canada had the fourth largest military in the world (or thereabouts).” (or even World War II for that matter)

  49. September 15, 2008,Lysianne Gagnon writes:

    “There’s been a flurry of flawed arguments in favour of Ms. May’s inclusion in the debates. The most childish was that her presence would add pep to a boring scene; the most dangerous was that the Greens were ideologically likeable, as Tony Burman, the former editor-in-chief of CBC News, hinted in a recent online column for The Globe and Mail. He said that, when the networks privately discussed the issue about whether to allow Ms. May in the debates, they were all “sympathetic to the ‘public service’ dimension of the Greens’ case.” Why this blatant prejudice? The Greens are not a “public service.” They are a political party in a forum where all political parties should be treated equally and subjected to the same criteria.”

    Well said.

  50. “so are you suggesting we shouldn’t do as much against climate change?”

    No. My point is that Conservatives, during World War II, *never* argued that because our contributions would be so small, that they weren’t worth doing. But now they use the same argument now.

    It’s sad; my grandfather’s generation risked (and often gave) their lives for goals they saw as important. But a large portion of my generation think that spending an extra nickel a litre on gas is far too much of a sacrifice to bear.

  51. Ti-Guy, other than pissing people off with generic insults, what are you doing here? I’m not defending my contributions, I’m pointing out that you are a troll.

  52. September 15, 2008, Lysiane Gagnon writes:

    “This said, it will be interesting to see Ms. May’s views on issues besides the environment. Now that she’s elbowed her way into the major leagues, she’ll have to prove she’s not a single-issue politician. The danger, for her, is that since the fuss surrounding her “exclusion” made her a star, the voters will have high expectations for her performance.

    Maybe she’ll be a disappointment.”


    – May be or not to be –

    The hour of truth dawns upon us!

  53. Mike,

    Canada contributed less to the world wars than other countries,. It turns out we contributed less per capita than other countries. You were arguing that we should paricipate in the fight against climate change the same way we participated in the world wars. We under-contributed. So, how much should we contribute to reducing climate change? Do we need to impede development of the tar sands (a major contributor to our current trade surplus) to help out? Dion’s plan puts an excise tax on natural gas (I actually don’t know how much and would be interested to hear), natural gas is essential to extracting oil from the tar sands, increases in the price of extraction cannot be passed on by the producers. The consequence will be less investment in the tar sands. Why is it appropriate for Canada to do this? The alternative is to proceed more slowly, implement a cap and trade that lets the tar sands meet their reductions by buying credits from other sectors and maybe reduce the overall costs of the reductions. Which is more analogous to our participation in the world wars?

  54. Ti-Guy, throwing generic insults at me can’t really be called “interacting”. SF? How about, if you want to be a troll, you accept that people are going to point out you’re a troll? Can you do that?

  55. “owever, taken as a percentage of the population, Canada’s enlistment of 1.1 million military personnel represents a proportionately smaller mobilisation than that which occurred in Great Britain, the Dominion of Australia, or the Dominion of New Zealand.” Wikipedia: Military History of Canada in WWII. Feel free to find other, more reliable sources that contradict this.

  56. Paul Wells,

    Could you tell me a little bit about CNW Telbec/?

  57. Mike, I missed this: “My point is that Conservatives, during World War II, *never* argued that because our contributions would be so small, that they weren’t worth doing.”

    There were a lot of Canadians, many in Quebec (where the Union government won only 3 seats), who argued in both world wars that Canada shouldn’t get involved. Were their arguments really that much more compelling than current arguments that Canada should take a measured, prudent approach to climate change?

  58. Telbec’s a news release service. Any organization can pay to have its news release sent to subscriber newsrooms and I don’t know who else. So if your anti-poverty group is having a news conference next Thursday you can get the word out through Telbec. Or whatever.

  59. “A reader – Actually, I just checked, and St. John’s East is now a “you choose”, as is Halifax (which I believe both the NDP and the Liberals are eyeing), and in Edmonton-Strathcona, they’re endorsing the NDP candidate. In fact, randomly clicking on three BC ridings gave me three NDP endorsements. It really does seem to be based almost entirely on past results.”

    I guess. But they still show the Liberals ahead in the polls in St. John’s East based on extrapolation from national polls (which have tiny samples in Newfoundland), and give those more weight than local polls. They don’t need to make a recommendation directly — if they merely show a party ahead in the polls, that’s plenty hint enough. And if the polling data they show is skewed, it’s highly misleading.

    I know people who actually believe this website has done local polling in all the ridings, and are shocked to learn that’s not the case.

    You probably won’t be surprised to learn that I’m not a big fan of the H & K either.

    Previous results are not a perfect indicator of future possibilities. Ridings that did well with a good candidate last time, but have a weak candidate this time will have different outcomes. So will ridings whose incumbent is no longer on the government side.

    I’m doing my own personal predictions based on reading as much as I can of the local media coverage. I read EPP for content but ignore their actual predictions. Similarly I look at the projections at democraticSpace, but discount ranges I know are unrealistic because the candidates have changed.

    Honestly some of the candidates the VoteForEnvironment site advocates are *not* progressive, and don’t have particularly good records on the environment, which I think ought to have been the primary focus.

  60. Does anyone here have Joe Clark’s email address?

  61. A reader: I can’t resist a shameless plug (sorry, Paul)- you *are* going to share your predictions on the ITQ seat projection thread, right? You don’t have to give ridings, just seat totals!

  62. Thanks Paul,

    I am trying to sort through this democratic landscape.

    So, how would Telbec stand in relation to National Citizen’s coalition, for instance.

    If money is involved in getting the message out (Telbec gets paid), then would such organisation fall under the Candian elections act?

    Since an organisation (Three senior Canadian members of the 2007 Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)pays, and is now seeking active participation within these elections, how would their active participation be viewed by elections Canada?

    Or are they speaking as individuals merely?

    This organisational involvement seems rather partisan, let alone uninvolved.

  63. A reader promises to so do. I’ll give them by province/territory too. Sometime before the polls close on Tuesday. Trying not to let my rose-coloured glasses get in the way. Too much.

  64. Francien, I think you’ve misunderstood what CNW is – it’s a paid newswire. You pay them money, they send out your release. Check out the website here.

  65. Actually though, Francien is making a good point (and I don’t think it’s about Telbec, but the 3 scientists).

    Those scientists are “calling on Elizabeth May to lead Greens to make the difference in more than 50 close ridings where the Conservatives are set to win with a fraction of the expected Green Party vote”.

    That’s pretty close to advocating a vote for or against someone. Which is pretty close to requiring third-party registration if an expenditure (like news release distribution) is incurred to do so.

    But I looked up the news release, and it’s been distributed by AVAAZ.org, which is a registered 3rd party. The same one that bought the one-page ads advocating pro-environmental votes for prominent environmentalists like Elizabeth May and David Pratt.

    They’re located at 1 Nicholas Street in Ottawa, the building that houses most of the NGOs, including (you guessed it) the Sierra Club.

    Anyways, it does appear to be within the election rules.

  66. Thanks to Kady and A reader:

    “Anyways, it does appear to be within the election rules.”

    Yes, they’ve most likely got their bases basically covered.

    Anyway, I cannot get over the fact that first off we have a voter outcry of including Ms.May into the ‘leaders’ debate, so that her Party could be brought in line with other Parties and now we seem to have a groundswell in action for having her and her Party done away with!

    Can anyone tell me how logic works these days? And how much is left of this groundswelling brain?

  67. We’re totally on the same page there, Francien.

    I hope we’ll all going to get apologies from the people who called us anti-democratic and cynical for believing this was going to happen all along.

  68. Yes, but this clearly does not make sense.

    Something like this does not belong in a democractic society. Consistency has to be able to stand up for somethings. If the public at large no longer sees the hypocracy going on here (on a very large scale I may add!) then why have parties or elections for that matter.

    It bothers me tremendously that the average intellect is not being called into question.

    And with a group like this we wish to clean up our environment??????

    Get a grip.

  69. There have been a bunch of “Anybody but Conservative” flyers posted at our local daycare this week. It”s from an organization called Code Blue for daycare and calls on people to vote for daycare. But it only mentions the Liberal plan for daycare…I imagine there are similar efforts on other issues…Does anyone know how widespread this tactic is? How tilted to one party can these releases be before the organization needs to have third-party registration?

  70. They have to register if they’re going to spend money to advocate a vote for or against a candidate or a party.

    [I did put the reference links in here, but that caused my last comment to go into moderation purgatory. Anyways …]

    There are two childcare advocacy groups registered (one from Ottawa and one from BC). Monica Lysack, who used to be Executive Director of one of the childcare NGOs, is running for the Liberals in Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre, which may explain the focus of their flyer (not sure where you live, Style).

    Of course the Liberals have been promising a national childcare program since 1993. If they’d just had another month, they could have finally gotten around to getting it done, too (uh-huh). But apparently a very bad man stopped them from doing it. Even though he was 2 votes shy of keeping them in office anyway. But I digress.

  71. I’ve got a solution that would help the environment and all respective parties who share in the belief that their’s is the right solution.
    Go to http://www.voteforenvironment.ca and if you’re riding shows that your respective first choice doesn’t have a chance to win a close race, consider seriously voting strategically. After you’ve gone to the booth and casted that ballot, hold your head high, and then donate $2 to your first choice — in fact giving them more than they would have gotten for your vote.
    It could result in both a cleaner environment and a clean conscious.

  72. >“Look at Oakville,” said Dr. William Peltier from the University of Toronto.

    Good idea. VoteForEnvironment.ca has the NDP polling 7,323 and the GPC polling 7,585. One wonders why the question is phrased “If even a portion of those Greens act it will make the difference.” and not “If even a portion of those NDPer’s act it will make the difference.”

  73. Style, the more we get into questions like that, the more apparent it becomes that any attempts to regulate third party advertising (and election spending for that matter) beyond basic disclosure is completely absurd. Which is why you should keep asking them. Not that anyone will clue in; they’ll just keep plugging the holes with new, more complex regulations and bigger budgets for Elections Canada.

    Francien Verhoeven:

    But I am equally interested in what Ms.Rebick and Mr.Clark have to offer up this time around.

    I’m not. Clark ran out of things to offer in 1980 or so, and Rebick never had anything to offer.

  74. Crap, that last sentence of mine wasn’t supposed to be in italics.

  75. Dear lefties ,

    Having seen how well this voting for anyone but strategy is working out , I wholeheartedly endorse it’s continued use .

    Remember , on Tuesday , vote for the candidate you don’t want to win .

  76. what’s assumed here is that the green vote is “there to be taken”. If the green party abdicates so does their GOTV effort and some votes are simply not transferable to a party who supports nukes (Libs) and car plants (NDP).

    If people want a 2-party system, move south. Look how well that’s working out. Who’s to say that if the Tories are beaten and Harper resigns (talk about giving Lib/Dip/Green footsoldiers a reason to slog on, Steve!) that the CPC won’t resplit back into factions just as Yugoslavia did when they lost their dictator?

  77. I think the scientists are partisan Liberals trying to make themselves appear otherwise. As a few commentators have mentioned, why is it always vote Liberal to …. etc. If all Lib supporters voted NDP or Green, the numbers would work just as well and I think the NDP and Green parties are much more serious about Global Warming than the Libs are.

    I love that last quote about who cares about money when you can vote for a party that is split on how fast to implement Green Shift, disagrees on whether Green Shift will actually reduce carbon output at all and has a leader that was environment minister for 18 months but found it hard to make priorities so didn’t actually achieve anything.

  78. Okay, a question – not a rhetorical one, a real one: Let’s say a diehard Green voter has, in fact, decided – after much soulsearching – to vote strategically on Tuesday to prevent a Conservative majority. To make it interesting, we’ll make our voter a proud Quebecois, which means that he or she now has three other options – the Bloc Quebecois, the Liberals and the NDP – and to simplify things, let’s say that all three of those parties have roughly the same support in the riding, so there is no obvious choice, as far as going with the most-likely-to-beat-the-Tory-on-the-ballot. What will this voter take into consideration before deciding where to mark his or her x? If it is environmental policy, might the fact that the NDP has come out against a carbon tax, in favour of cap and trade, which is contrary to the Green Party position, does that make it less likely that our voter will back Jack, or is that just one issue to take into consideration?

  79. Kady you raise an interesting question. But how does one read an election result?

    You raise the pre election issue. Better question is, how would you read the post election interpretation of any of this.

    By definition strategic voting is against something, and as nihilistically appealing as that is it is not really going to help anyone do anything.

    All parties will ultimately read votes as endorsing their positions, perhaps as it should be. Any other interpretation is parapsychology, and hanging chadism.

    People may vote against something, but the only way to do that is voting for something, which may ultimately be the question you are asking.

    My advice, since you can only vote for someone, is be careful what you vote for, you might just get it in your riding and across the country.

    How journos and politicos interpret these results later, when they are being honest with themselves, is another matter.

  80. Kady

    I don’t see how a diehard Green, if global warming is their number one issue, votes Liberal. NDP might have a different way to tackle the issue but they seem sincere that something needs to be done.

    Wouldn’t a proper greenie have serious doubts about Lib plan, what with both Rae and Iggy talking about going slow on implementation this week and Dion exempting truckers, farmers and fishermen his plan a few weeks ago to try and gain votes.

  81. Seems like the MO of conservative agents: don’t like what someone has to say? They a Liberal!!!

    Probably even a friend of… Iggy.

  82. Which brings us right back to vote for the candidate in your riding who seems the most competent, and who appears to advocate for the same things you want.

    Which is always how it should be. This voting for party stuff is crap. If the majority of competent MPs are of one party over another party, surely its as good a clue as any that the leader of said party isn’t a complete dufus. And even better, if the competent MPs elected to the House of Commons remembered that people voted for them, not a party, so much the better.

  83. “What will this voter take into consideration before deciding where to mark his or her x? If it is environmental policy, ………..

    The voter will take into consideration:

    I will drive as much as I want to;

    I will fly as much as I want to;

    I will shop untill I drop,

    cause I have the right to buy this,

    and I have the right to drive that;

    The “x” is clear enough.

  84. Jenn- I totally agree with you on that last comment. Consequently, we need to have massive changes to how elections are financed (especially making local candidates less reliant on the central party) and to the culture of the House (allowing more free votes, more powerful committees etc…). These are issues that supporters of all parties or no party should be pushing for as it will make our democracy more responsive to the voter than to the interests who can easily lobby party big wigs.

  85. I respect Andrew Weaver and his colleagues. They are great scientists, but poor politicians. Their advice to us at the GPC (“commit suicide to help prevent a Harper victory”) is very naive. Advice like this is why scientists rarely get consulted on political matters :-)

    Mainstream politicians take the environment seriously as an issue only because the GPC works hard to demonstrate that – for 10% of Canadians – it’s THE crucial issue. If the GPC did as these folks suggested, the party would disappear – and so would the debate about climate change.

    Prof. Weaver, stick to your knitting.

  86. It looks like one of these guys (Dr. John Stone) was a key speaker at a recent Green Party fundraiser:
    I guess the Libs stroked him a bit harder than we did, and today he’s featured in a Lib press release. One good thing about climate change, it makes climate change scientists more popular than they’re used to :-)

    I have sent an email to Dr. Weaver, thru his assistant, on these lines:
    “I have huge respect for your work as a scientist. I wish you would reciprocate in respect for me as a (GPC) politician.”
    “Since you feel competent to criticize the GPC’s work, forgive me for showing up at your book launch to criticize your own work later this month.”

    “Welcome to the political world.”

  87. and for the record, the Green Party is helluva lot more than just prancing around the forest and shouting love gaia.

    Frankly as a Green I am as, if not more. interested in stuff other than climate change. Sacrilege I know but hey that’s politics beyond the easy sound-bite of lazy journalism we get here in Can-nada.

    Present company excluded, of course.

Sign in to comment.