It seems that some Greens don’t believe my claim that the GPC has seen a 20% decline in average party support from this time 2 yrs ago (i.e. a few months before a prospective election). So I thought I would explain it. The most reliable metric of where a party currently stands is the average of the most recent poll data from all the major pollsters. This not only gives us a larger sample size, thus smaller margin of error, than individual polls (albeit over a longer polling period), but it also evens out the differences in sampling methods (some pollsters use traditional telephone polling, others select from online user groups, some prompt for party names, some don’t prompt, some include leader names, the wording is all slightly difference, some ask the support question up front, some at the end, and so on).

Here are the latest numbers by the major pollsters for the Greens:

Ekos – 10.1%
Environics – 6%
Angus Reid – 7%
Ipsos – 10%
Harris/Decima – 10%
Nanos – 5.1%
Average = 8.0%

So the Greens are currently polling 8.0%. Now let’s compare this to summer 2008:

Ipsos – 11%
Environics – 8%
Harris/Decima – 13%
Angus Reid – 8%
Strategic Council – 10%
Average = 10.0%

So the polling average is running 2 points lower than in 2008, i.e. 2/10 = 20% lower. Hence my claim that the Greens are down 20% from two years ago.

Update: I thought I would just copy a comment I made below to address the question of whether this drop of 2 points is significant…. the aggregate data gives us 10,874 samples (note all data is publicly available, see Wikipedia for links), which gives a margin of error at the 95% confidence level (i.e. 19 times out of 20) of +/- 0.9%. So the current data tells us that we can be 95% confident that the GPC is between 7.1% and 8.9% (i.e. 8.0% +/- 0.9%). Assuming the MOE is similar for the 2008 data, back then would have said we could be 95% confident that the GPC is between 9.1% and 10.9% (i.e. 10.0% +/- 0.9%). As you can see, the low end of the 2008 data is higher than the high end of the 2010 data, which suggests that the drop from 10% to 8% is beyond the margin of error of the data, thus is notable.

…put another way, at 95% confidence, there is only a 2.5% chance (100-95/2) that the GPC is above 8.9% right now and a 2.5% chance that the GPC was below 9.1% in 2008. So the probability of both those events occurring (such that the GPC is NOT statistically below where they were two years ago) is 0.06% (0.025 x 0.025), i.e. virtually no chance. Is it possible the actual GPC support is less than 20%? Yes. There is a 0.06% chance that the actual GPC support is essentially unchanged, i.e. only 0.2 points (or 2%) less than 2008 (high-end 2010 = 8.9 vs low-end 2008 = 9.1)…the scenario I describe above. But that’s the same probability that the difference is actually 3.8 points (or 38%) less than 2008 (i.e. low-end 2010 = 7.1 vs high-end 2008 = 10.9). So the odds that the GPC has declined by only 2% is the same the odds that the GPC has declined by 38%. What we know is the average decline is 20%, as I claimed.

Note: it should be said that latent support (from the polling average) is not the same as projected votes for many reasons: last-minute changes in support, strategic voting, differences between party supporters’ demographics and turnout rates, differences between the scale and sophistication of get-out-the-vote operations between parties, and so on. e.g. the Greens were at 10% in summer 2008, 9% by the end of the fall campaign, translating to 6.8% at the ballot box. If it followed the same pattern this time (and it may or may not), the Greens at 8% now, might expect 7.2% by the end of a fall campaign, translating to about 5.5% at the ballot box.

NATIONAL
Conservative – 142 seats (36.6%) - range: 124 to 162 seats (35.1% to 38.1%)
Liberal – 77 seats (28.7%) - range: 63 to 100 seats (27.2% to 30.2%)
Bloc Quebecois – 52 seats (10.4%) - range: 43 to 55 seats (8.9% to 11.9%)
NDP – 37 seats (17.0%) - range: 28 to 42 seats (15.5% to 18.5%)
Green – 0 seats (6.2%) - range: 0 to 0 seats (4.7% to 7.7%)

ONTARIO
Conservative – 53 seats (40.0%) - range: 46 to 61 seats (38.5% to 41.5%)
Liberal – 38 seats (34.0%) - range: 31 to 47 seats (32.5% to 35.5%)
NDP – 15 seats (17.1%) - range: 12 to 16 seats (15.6% to 18.6%)
Green – 0 seats (8.0%) - range: 0 to 0 seats (6.5% to 9.5%)

QUEBEC
Bloc Quebecois – 52 seats (40.3%) - range: 43 to 55 seats (38.8% to 41.8%)
Conservative – 8 seats (17.3%) - range: 6 to 11 seats (15.8% to 18.8%)
Liberal – 14 seats (25.5%) - range: 12 to 20 seats (24.0% to 27.0%)
NDP – 1 seat (13.2%) - range: 1 to 2 seats (11.7% to 14.7%)
Green – 0 seats (2.9%) - range: 0 to 0 seats (1.4% to 4.4%)

BRITISH COLUMBIA
Conservative – 20 seats (39.9%) - range: 18 to 24 seats (38.4% to 41.4%)
Liberal – 5 seats (19.2%) - range: 3 to 6 seats (17.7% to 20.7%)
NDP – 11 seats (28.5%) - range: 9 to 12 seats (27.0% to 30.0%)
Green – 0 seats (10.8%) - range: 0 to 0 seats (9.3% to 12.3%)

ALBERTA
Conservative – 27 seats (63.7%) - range: 27 to 28 seats (62.2% to 65.2%)
Liberal – 0 seats (16.2%) - range: 0 to 0 seats (14.7% to 17.7%)
NDP – 1 seat (9.0%) - range: 0 to 1 seats (7.5% to 10.5%)
Green – 0 seats (8.7%) - range: 0 to 0 seats (7.2% to 10.2%)

PRAIRIES
Conservative – 22 seats (48.8%) - range: 20 to 23 seats (47.3% to 50.3%)
Liberal – 2 seats (23.2%) - range: 2 to 3 seats (21.7% to 24.7%)
NDP – 4 seats (17.5%) - range: 3 to 5 seats (16.0% to 19.0%)
Green – 0 seats (9.7%) - range: 0 to 0 seats (8.2% to 11.2%)

ATLANTIC CANADA
Conservative – 11 seats (35.4%) - range: 7 to 13 seats (33.9% to 36.9%)
Liberal – 17 seats (40.7%) - range: 15 to 22 seats (39.2% to 42.2%)
NDP – 4 seats (19.2%) - range: 3 to 4 seats (17.7% to 20.7%)
Green – 0 seats (3.9%) - range: 0 to 0 seats (2.4% to 5.4%)

NORTH
Conservative – 1 seat (34.0%) - range: 0 to 2 seats (32.5% to 35.5%)
Liberal – 1 seat (32.1%) - range: 0 to 2 seats (30.6% to 33.6%)
NDP – 1 seat (24.0%) - range: 0 to 2 seats (22.5% to 25.5%)
Green – 0 seats (9.2%) - range: 0 to 0 seats (7.7% to 10.7%)

see http://www.democraticspace.com/canada2009/ for full details.

After my update on the Green Party’s mess the other day, I received a number of emails basically asking me (and I’m paraphrasing) “how are the Greens different from the other parties?” It’s a fair question and goes to heart of why should someone vote Green. Greens typically say something about “transcending” the left-right political spectrum, but that really just begs the question (it allows the party to fill a vacuum for people dissatisfied with all parties, but that quickly hits a ceiling, as they are seeing right now).

The basic question is, are the Greens offering something that other parties are not? If they are not, why should someone vote for them? Elizabeth May has positioned the Greens on the left to centre-left, somewhere between the NDP and Liberals, which means competing directly with the NDP and Liberals for votes. So for the Greens to win votes, they must take them directly from the NDP or Liberals.

Yet, there has been a vacancy in the Canadian political spectrum since the merger of the Alliance and PC party — the centre-right, what we used to call “Red Tories”. The NDP are left, the Liberals are centre-left and the Conservatives are right, but there is no centre-right option. I believe this is a hole that Greens could fill and it would make the Greens much more relevant to Canadian politics. And there are a lot of current Greens who consider themselves Blue-Green, and would embrace a centre-right approach. But there are also a lot who are not, so no doubt this approach would push some current Greens away (probably to the NDP).

But think about. If you are socially progressive, care about the environment, peace and social justice, why not just vote NDP? Not as pro-union as the NDP? Then why not just vote Liberal? But why would you vote Green when you have at least two other options on the Canadian political left? (three in Quebec)

The fact is, for the Greens to be relevant, they have to offer something different. And they aren’t different enough right now. For the Greens to be electorally successful, they need a clear identity; embracing the Red Tory tradition would give them an explicit identity — socially progressive, fiscally conservative, which actually is a almost uniquely Canadian tradition.

Think about it — let’s imagine a Green Party that explicitly positions itself as Red Tory. Perhaps it could campaign around a half-dozen themes, such as:

(1) small business economy
(2) regional autonomy
(3) electoral reform
(4) balanced budgets
(5) social progressivism
(6) environmental protection

Whatever the specific big ideas, if successful, an explicitly Red Tory alternative could change Canadian political math in several key ways. First, it would draw from an existing base of Red Tory support, which is perhaps as much as 15% of voters (many of whom have stayed home in recent elections; although realistically a Red Tory Green party would only get a portion of them). You might lose a good chunk (maybe 1/3) of existing Green support, but the net result is probably a more regionally-concentrated base of about 10% versus a sparely distributed base of about 5%. That difference alone could win the Greens some seats. But just as importantly, it would chip away at the Conservative support in important places. And it would also lessen the vote split with the NDP and Liberals, allowing them to also gain seats. The big losers with this approach would of course be the Conservatives, but the Greens, Liberals and NDP would all benefit. Even without electoral reform, the net result is probably a much more balanced parliament that better approximates the will of the people.

So, what do you think, should the Greens become an explicitly “Red Tory” party?

One of the saddest things to see is a politician trying to be something s/he is not. I can’t help but think that the Michael Ignatieff’s “Liberal Express” bus tour comes dangerously close to this. Not that I think a national tour is a bad thing – not at all. But trying to brand Ignatieff as “Joe-shmoe rural guy” — as this tour appears to strive for — is simply foolish. He’s about as far from rural Canada as it gets. And you know what, that’s OK.

The lesson here, and one that post-Chretien Liberals seem to have forgotten, is that you can’t be everything to everyone. Rural Canada will not vote Liberal anytime soon. Not under Ignatieff, not under Rae, not under anyone. Rural values are just not Liberal values. And again, that’s OK.

Liberals won’t strike it rich panning for gold in rural areas. Liberal support for gun control is simply at odds with most rural voters’ beliefs. Support for gay marriage doesn’t fly with most rural people. “Big” government programs like national child care also don’t work in rural areas, not only for ideological reasons but also very practical ones (the population is too spread out to have childcare facilities close to where people live or work). And so on…

No, the Ignatieff Liberals need to carve out a clear and concise identity aimed not at rural areas but squarely at suburban people, while still appealing to their urban base. Quite simply, win the suburbs (and small-sized cities), win the election. Partly that’s a strategic statement. That’s where the vast majority of battleground ridings are. The Liberals will never win rural Alberta (or the vast majority of rural seats), but to win back government, they must win in suburban Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, and they must win back smaller cities like Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie, London, Kitchener-Waterloo, etc.

But mostly I say that Liberals must target the suburbs and smaller cities because that is where Liberal values are — or should be. Trying to appeal to rural Canadians necessarily means moderating if not sacrificing their core values. And contrary to what many people believe, Liberals do have core values, and it’s when they stuck to them that they have been successful. The problem is, since Chretien left, the Liberals have had two leaders (Martin and now Ignatieff) who seem to want to appeal to everyone.

Well, you can’t. You have to take positions and defend them. You have to be willing to accept that some people won’t like you. A strong leader knows what s/he believes and passionately defends those believes. By their nature, academics don’t typically speak in absolutes; everything is qualified, opposing positions are acknowledged, and often debates are had on what seem like subtle things to the outside world. That’s the tradition from which Ignatieff comes. But politics can’t be subtle. Ignatieff needs a clear message, said clearly. The message must be simple and memorable (otherwise people will forget), it must be important (otherwise people won’t care), and it must be different from what other parties are offering (otherwise, why vote Liberal?). And it must be said over and over again.

Trying to be everything to everyone (in particular, trying to appeal to rural Canada) means the Liberals have allowed the Conservatives to define the rules of the game. Ignatieff won’t out-rural Harper. Forget it. Harper’s values are closer to rural Canadian values, and to be honest, he’s more like an average Canadian hockey dad than Ignatieff is. And again, that’s OK.

While it’s hard to tell given the paucity of ideas coming out of the Liberal camp these days, to say nothing of the apparent flip-flops or otherwise mushy statements of which Ignatieff himself has been guilty, but Ignatieff and the Liberals could carve out a clear identity that played to his strengths, instead of trying to be Harper-lite. Ignatieff was at his best back during the 2006 leadership campaign, when he was talking about big ideas. That’s how he thinks. That’s what Liberals can offer that Harper and the Conservatives will not.

In fact, Ignatieff might do well to borrow his colleague Ken Dryden’s slogan “a big Canada” — in contrast, to the smallness of Harper’s Canada (small in ambition, small as in petty, small as in government is always the problem, not part of the solution, etc). A big Canada doesn’t — and in fact, shouldn’t — be about expanding the reach of government. In fact, it should be about reigning it in. Instead of doing many things badly, a Liberal Canada, a big Canada, would be focused on a few big, but significant things — a government that focuses on essential services and does it well, instead of a government spread so thin that it loses the confidence of Canadians.

I won’t go into what I think these big ideas could be right now, but needless to say, I think there is a space in the political spectrum where Canadians are willing to go which would clearly distinguish themselves from both the Conservatives and NDP — the radical middle that is both more fiscally disciplined than both the NDP and the Conservatives (who seem to play the role of pork barrel politics better than anyone), yet more ambitious and entrepreneurial than their counterparts.

Liberals have always believed in a big Canada, a Canada that hits above its weight class. In contrast to the small Canada the Conservatives seem destined to create, there is an opening the Liberals could take. But it means taking strong positions based on core values and not trying to be the end all for everyone. It’s means carving out what it means to be Liberal.

It’s been a while since I commented on what’s happening in the Green Party. Not that I think people are holding their breath in anticipation, but here’s a recap of what’s happened over the last while:

[edit: some folks say I haven't "backed up" my claims below. Most of these are simply statements of fact, but I've provided some links to other references; see comments in red below for more details]

(1) the Executive Director quit and was replaced by the Tech guy; yup, the coax cable guy (his expression) now runs the Greens. [edit: just to be clear, I did not mean to criticize Craig, who is great and very capable person, I noted this because it shows how strange things are right now at the GPC; I send Craig an apology if he was offended]
[this is a statement of fact, the previous ED Maureen Murphy resigned, and Craig Cantin, the Tech Services Manager was appointed to that position. see GPC Federal Council minutes, members only]

(2) one Deputy Leader was replaced by another guy, who proceeded to quit within months, join the Bloc Quebecois, and now won’t return the Leader’s calls.
[statement of fact. see HERE]

(3) more layoffs and employee resignations too numerous to list (including most the organizers).
[statement of fact. most of the organizers were laid off: Drew Fenwick, Nicole Parker, etc. Many HQ staff left: David Lewis, Kelly Wyatt, etc]

(4) more high-profile candidates resigning (amazingly the top 3 Green candidates from 2008 are now gone, not including the leadership of course).
[statement of fact. the top 3 non-leadership candidates in 2008 were Dick Hibma (27.2%), Mike Nagy (21.2%), and Huguette Allen (17.3%), all of which are not re-running.]

(5) the leader’s campaign manager in Saanich-Gulf Islands quit, and was replaced by an underling from Nova Scotia.
[statement of fact. see HERE]

(6) a 20% decline in average party support from this time 2 yrs ago (i.e. 4 months before the last election).
[this one deserves a full explanation. see HERE]

(7) more EDAs de-registered by Elections Canada (bringing the total to 44 over the last few yrs — 3 times more than all other major parties combined).
[statement of fact. see HERE]

(8) …that means still no local organization in 1/4 of the country.
[234 ridings with EDAs, 74 ridings with no EDAs, hence 1/4 of country without a local organization]

(9) most Federal Council positions being acclaimed because of lack of interested candidates…
[7 contestants for 5 positions. see HERE]

(10) a precipitous 20% decline in the party’s membership in the last year — yes, you read that right, down 20% in one year!
[from about 10,500 members a year ago to about 8,500 today. Sorry, I can't disclose my source]

(11) a near 50%(!) decline in the # of donors from 2008, which is especially bad since…
[the GPC dropped from 17,308 in 2008 to 9,115 contributors. see HERE]

(12) it’s the only party in the red – $1.2 million in outstanding liabilities and negative working capital.
[from Elections Canada filings. see HERE]
…and so on… I’m sure there are other things, but this is what came to mind…

Needless to say, it’s a mess.

Given the party’s documented decline, it’s no wonder the leader’s posse is desperately trying to change the rules, so she doesn’t have to face any kind of leadership vote or leadership review until what could be mid-2013, which could mean going 7 years(!) without any kind of performance review (i.e. within 6 months after the next election, which need not happen until fall 2012). Most expected a leadership race to culminate in a convention next month, but they postponed it so they can get the members to rubber-stamp changing the 4-year mandate to an indefinite one. With the leader using the party’s email list to advocate for her preferred motion (needless to say, advocates of competing motions have not been given the same courtesy), it appears to be a foregone conclusion that the change will be pushed through since the motions are so confusing, people will look for guidance.

Apart from the formalities of extending the leader’s term indefinitely just as its about to expire, the convention will largely be the usual forum for members to get their pet projects adopted as official policy, which is what happens since the threshold is so low (any 10 members can sponsor a motion). Better would be to hold regional caucuses first, to ensure policies have at least broad regional support before being considered by the entire membership. This would free up time at the convention for the most important (but largely overlooked) aspect of bringing people together: to learn. Shocking, I know, to think that the Greens should be spending most of their time at convention learning how to run campaigns, instead of trying to convince their colleagues that their pet project is important.

But as it is now, most of the motions could never form the basis for a platform, since they aren’t costed, are often contradictory (with themselves and other policies), and in many cases so obscure or unimportant to the vast majority of Canadians (the sponsors excluded of course) that they mostly serve to undermine the credibility of the party if the media actually paid attention to them (which they won’t). Certainly, they don’t add up to a cogent message or identity, which is what is needed to earn votes (the raison d’etre of political parties).

All of this sounds pretty negative, and well… it is. A genuine summer leadership race would have been good to raise the party’s profile and sagging membership/donor #s, but it’s too late for that now. Unless of course the constitution changes fail (unlikely), in which case, a sham race would happen in the fall — you know, the time that elections are most likely to happen in Canada … you can see how this fact is now being used to justify the change (to paraphrase: they said we can’t have a leadership race in the summer — when elections are least likely to occur — because, well… we might have an election… so in the fall, we’ll ask you to rubber-stamp the constitutional changes “we” want — “we” here given the full weight of “Federal Council” even though 40% of Councilors voted against it — and if you don’t rubber-stamp it, then we will have to have a leadership race which by the way will be at a time when most Canadians elections do occur, so you see, you can’t really reject what we want…).

Yup, it’s a mess, alright. But where do you begin to fix it?

Update 1: it appears that one person — Sylvie Lemieux — is throwing her hat into the leadership race.

Update 8: I should probably also mentioned another couple controversies, implied in the Huguette Allen quote above, to bring people up to speed. Members are currently voting on motions that would change the GPC constitution that would extend May’s term indefinitely. However, May recently used the GPC’s email list to lobby (some would say mislead) members into supporting her preferred motions. And her allies drafted a series of obviously biased comments, posted along with the motions themselves, that were labeled “party opinions” (some objected, so they were edited and re-labeled “considerations”). This has led many people to believe that May and her group are trying to manipulate the outcome of internal GPC elections.

NATIONAL
Conservative – 144 seats (37.0%) - range: 129 to 158 seats (35.5% to 38.5%)
Liberal – 78 seats (28.3%) - range: 69 to 99 seats (26.8% to 29.8%)
Bloc Quebecois – 50 seats (9.8%) - range: 43 to 53 seats (8.3% to 11.3%)
NDP – 36 seats (16.7%) - range: 25 to 41 seats (15.2% to 18.2%)
Green – 0 seats (7.0%) - range: 0 to 0 seats (5.5% to 8.5%)

ONTARIO
Conservative – 50 seats (39.5%) - range: 45 to 55 seats (38.0% to 41.0%)
Liberal – 40 seats (34.2%) - range: 36 to 49 seats (32.7% to 35.7%)
NDP – 16 seats (16.7%) - range: 11 to 17 seats (15.2% to 18.2%)
Green – 0 seats (8.8%) - range: 0 to 0 seats (7.3% to 10.3%)

QUEBEC
Bloc Quebecois – 50 seats (39.1%) - range: 43 to 53 seats (37.6% to 40.6%)
Conservative – 9 seats (17.7%) - range: 7 to 11 seats (16.2% to 19.2%)
Liberal – 15 seats (25.2%) - range: 13 to 21 seats (23.7% to 26.7%)
NDP – 1 seat (13.6%) - range: 0 to 2 seats (12.1% to 15.1%)
Green – 0 seats (3.6%) - range: 0 to 0 seats (2.1% to 5.1%)

BRITISH COLUMBIA
Conservative – 24 seats (44.0%) - range: 20 to 27 seats (42.5% to 45.5%)
Liberal – 3 seats (17.0%) - range: 2 to 5 seats (15.5% to 18.5%)
NDP – 9 seats (25.9%) - range: 7 to 11 seats (24.5% to 27.5%)
Green – 0 seats (11.5%) - range: 0 to 0 seats (10.0% to 13.0%)

ALBERTA
Conservative – 27 seats (62.4%) - range: 27 to 28 seats (60.9% to 63.9%)
Liberal – 0 seats (14.9%) - range: 0 to 0 seats (13.4% to 16.4%)
NDP – 1 seat (10.7%) - range: 0 to 1 seats (9.2% to 12.2%)
Green – 0 seats (9.7%) - range: 0 to 0 seats (8.2% to 11.2%)

PRAIRIES
Conservative – 22 seats (50.8%) - range: 22 to 23 seats (49.3% to 52.3%)
Liberal – 2 seats (20.2%) - range: 2 to 2 seats (18.7% to 21.7%)
NDP – 4 seats (19.1%) - range: 3 to 4 seats (17.6% to 20.6%)
Green – 0 seats (9.1%) - range: 0 to 0 seats (7.6% to 10.6%)

ATLANTIC CANADA
Conservative – 11 seats (34.7%) - range: 8 to 12 seats (33.2% to 36.2%)
Liberal – 17 seats (38.2%) - range: 16 to 20 seats (36.7% to 39.7%)
NDP – 4 seats (22.6%) - range: 4 to 4 seats (21.1% to 24.1%)
Green – 0 seats (3.7%) - range: 0 to 0 seats (2.2% to 5.2%)

NORTH
Conservative – 1 seat (34.2%) - range: 0 to 2 seats (32.7% to 35.7%)
Liberal – 1 seat (31.5%) - range: 0 to 2 seats (30.0% to 33.0%)
NDP – 1 seat (23.6%) - range: 0 to 2 seats (22.1% to 25.1%)
Green – 0 seats (10.0%) - range: 0 to 0 seats (8.5% to 11.5%)

See http://democraticSPACE.com/canada2009 for complete details.

There is much talk these days about the Liberals and NDP merging to form a new “Liberal Democrat” party. This is foolish. The only reason they are even considering it is to prevent Stephen Harper and the Conservatives from forming the next government, not because they share policy positions. Liberals and New Democrats would be better off supporting electoral reform instead — to introduce some element of proportionality into our voting system, so that the composition of parliament closely resembles the level of support a party receives (which can be done by still directly electing every MP without the dreaded closed party lists that some people fear).

Single-party federal majorities are becoming a thing of the past. No single party is truly national. We have a party whose support is largely rural and suburban (Conservatives), a party whose support is largely urban (Liberals), a party whose support is largely in heavily unionized areas (NDP), and a party whose support is in Quebec (Bloc). I don’t see this fundamentally changing any time soon. These are natural tendencies, given different shared interests.

And Canada has been living with a minority government for six years already. We’ve been operating in a situation where one party has to count on the support of another on an issue-by-issue basis. That would be fine if not for our voting system, which is the very thing that creates uncertainty and instability. Why? Because minute shifts in public sentiment can reward one party with a bounty of seats won by narrow margins. So we see endless games on Parliament Hill. A better (more stable) situation instead of perpetual minorities governments and political charades would be stable two-party coalitions, which would be the most common result of a more proportional voting system.

Electoral reform is not only more genuine than merger, in that Liberal and NDP supporters could still vote for their respective parties (and not limit democratic choices), but it is also more strategic, in that the net support for the two parties individually is actually higher than would be for a merger entity. Recall when the Alliance and PC merged, they lost 1 in 5 votes from what the have individually (the Alliance had about 25% support and the PCs 12% — 37% individually — but ended up with about 30% under the new banner). Put it this way: the Liberals currently have about 28% support and the NDP 17%, collectively 45% — strong enough to form a stable coalition government — but a “Liberal Democrat” party might expect to lose 1 in 5 votes, giving it only 36% — and likely still lose to the Conservatives, who would be the beneficiary of that lost support.

So Liberals and New Democrats, it’s time to start taking embrace electoral reform seriously and put away talk of merging.

NATIONAL
Conservative – 146 seats (37.5%) - range: 125 to 157 seats (36.0% to 39.0%)
Liberal – 80 seats (29.0%) - range: 70 to 103 seats (27.5% to 30.5%)
Bloc Quebecois – 47 seats (9.9%) - range: 43 to 53 seats (8.4% to 11.4%)
NDP – 35 seats (16.0%) - range: 24 to 42 seats (14.5% to 17.5%)
Green – 0 seats (6.4%) - range: 0 to 0 seats (4.9% to 7.9%)

ONTARIO
Conservative – 53 seats (39.9%) - range: 45 to 55 seats (38.4% to 41.4%)
Liberal – 38 seats (34.5%) - range: 36 to 49 seats (33.0% to 36.0%)
NDP – 15 seats (15.9%) - range: 11 to 17 seats (14.4% to 17.4%)
Green – 0 seats (8.8%) - range: 0 to 0 seats (7.3% to 10.3%)

QUEBEC
Bloc Quebecois – 47 seats (38.2%) - range: 43 to 53 seats (36.7% to 39.7%)
Conservative – 11 seats (19.1%) - range: 7 to 11 seats (17.6% to 20.6%)
Liberal – 16 seats (25.9%) - range: 13 to 21 seats (24.4% to 27.4%)
NDP – 1 seat (13.6%) - range: 0 to 2 seats (12.1% to 15.1%)
Green – 0 seats (2.5%) - range: 0 to 0 seats (1.0% to 4.0%)

BRITISH COLUMBIA
Conservative – 22 seats (43.0%) - range: 19 to 26 seats (41.5% to 44.5%)
Liberal – 5 seats (19.9%) - range: 3 to 7 seats (18.4% to 21.4%)
NDP – 9 seats (25.9%) - range: 6 to 11 seats (24.5% to 27.5%)
Green – 0 seats (9.6%) - range: 0 to 0 seats (8.1% to 11.1%)

ALBERTA
Conservative – 27 seats (61.8%) - range: 27 to 28 seats (60.3% to 63.3%)
Liberal – 0 seats (15.7%) - range: 0 to 0 seats (14.2% to 17.2%)
NDP – 1 seat (10.0%) - range: 0 to 1 seats (8.5% to 11.5%)
Green – 0 seats (10.1%) - range: 0 to 0 seats (8.6% to 11.6%)

PRAIRIES
Conservative – 22 seats (50.0%) - range: 20 to 23 seats (48.5% to 51.5%)
Liberal – 2 seats (21.5%) - range: 2 to 3 seats (20.0% to 23.0%)
NDP – 4 seats (20.7%) - range: 3 to 5 seats (19.2% to 22.2%)
Green – 0 seats (7.1%) - range: 0 to 0 seats (5.6% to 8.6%)

ATLANTIC CANADA
Conservative – 10 seats (33.9%) - range: 7 to 12 seats (32.4% to 35.4%)
Liberal – 18 seats (40.3%) - range: 16 to 21 seats (38.8% to 41.8%)
NDP – 4 seats (22.3%) - range: 4 to 4 seats (20.8% to 23.8%)
Green – 0 seats (2.8%) - range: 0 to 0 seats (1.3% to 4.3%)

NORTH
Conservative – 1 seat (34.8%) - range: 0 to 2 seats (32.3% to 35.3%)
Liberal – 1 seat (32.2%) - range: 0 to 2 seats (30.7% to 33.7%)
NDP – 1 seat (22.9%) - range: 0 to 2 seats (21.4% to 24.4%)
Green – 0 seats (9.4%) - range: 0 to 0 seats (7.9% to 10.9%)

see http://democraticSPACE.com/canada2009 for details.

3 Lessons
Last week, the Green Party of England & Wales made history by electing Caroline Lucas as their first MP to national office in Brighton Pavilion (BP). Lucas’s election illustrates three points that the Canadian Greens have ill understood: (1) the need to elect Greens to other levels of office as a stepping stone to national office, (2) the need to build strong regional bases of support and (3) the need to be more strategic in where they run star candidates and invest resources. Having already elected Lucas as an MEP, built a strong regional base in the South East, and ran in a riding without an incumbent, Lucas was in a strong position to win BP. Canadian Greens can learn from these lessons, but it will require change.

Stepping Stones
Lucas’s election in BP did not happen overnight; it was the result of many years of hard work. The UK Greens have elected a large number of people (currently 120) to local office, including 2 of 25 in the London Assembly. They have built a solid base in 2 regions in particular — SE England and London, where they elected 2 MEPs to European Parliament (including Caroline Lucas in the SE). That Caroline Lucas was a South East MEP played a big part in why she was elected as a national MP.

Why so few Municipal Greens?
Canadian Greens of course don’t have the luxury of an EU overlay (elected by PR). But they can elect local Greens (not officially under a “Green” banner, since municipal politicians are usually without party affiliation). But unfortunately, Canadian Greens want instant gratification — they want to go directly to national office without building their influence locally. Despite a Green presence in Canada for 27 years and a purported advocacy for bottom-up change, there are only a handful of Greens that hold municipal office in Canada. If the Greens want to elect people federally or provincially, they first need to start electing people locally.

Leveraging Federal Resources
Federal campaigns should be used to build a candidate’s name locally, and these candidates should then, in turn, run for municipal office. Unfortunately, Canadian Greens have done a poor job of leveraging federal per-vote funds to elect Greens locally. People only have so much time for politics, but it’s curious why more Greens don’t run municipally (the vast majority don’t). I suspect the current GPC leader’s focus on top-down initiatives (for example, a global Kyoto-like commitment to cutting CO2 emissions, an economy-wide carbon tax, etc) has attracted a different breed of Green candidate than those who’ve traditionally advocated more bottom-up change. Whatever the reason, there is a paucity of Greens with municipal credentials.

Potential Future Success
There are a few examples of Greens who’ve been successful municipally, and these folks hold promise as future Green candidates provincially or federally. Local city councilor Bob Bell has been nominated in Guelph, which bodes well for the Greens next time (especially since it was the riding that came closest to winning for last time and Bell would be running against a first-time opposition MP in a party whose support appears to be falling). Angela Reid’s election to Kelowna city council should one day put her in a strong position should she again seek election to provincial or federal office as a Green candidate. Other Greens such as Whistler mayor Ken Melamed and city councilors in Victoria and Vancouver, for example, would one day make ideal Green candidates. But given the success of UK Greens in electing local politicians, it is clear there should be far, far more Greens in Canadian municipal politics.

Singular Focus on Elections
Unfortunately, since the vast majority of GPC electoral district associations (EDAs), where they exist at all, only come alive when there is a federal election, there is a tendency to see federal elections as quite distinct from local politics. Rather than see campaigns as singular electoral events, EDAs must run small local campaigns all the time — whether they be hosting events, membership drives, door knocking, issue-based campaigns, etc. That is, running a small campaign *is* organizing (versus the traditional GPC approach to organizing, which has been largely seen as simply getting a full slate of candidates, which clearly is only the first step). That means nominating a candidate *early* and getting that candidate out in the community. This would build the profile of local candidates, which would help their chances when running for local or higher levels of government. The problem is, most EDAs are tiny and lack the time or money to organize on-going campaigns.

Organizing Regionally
This is where the second lesson from the UK comes in — the need to build regional strength. A region does NOT mean an entire province, contrary to what many Greens believe; except for Atlantic Canada, provinces are comprised of more than one region. Provinces like Ontario and Quebec are simply far too large to organize as a unit. But more importantly, the different regions within each province have sometimes wildly different concerns (think of the differences between Toronto and Northern Ontario, for example). Even B.C. cannot be seen as a single region — the concerns of people in the Okanagan are not the same as in Vancouver. Likewise, a region does NOT mean a riding. In the vast majority of cases, ridings are smaller than regions. Thus a focus on a single riding is unlikely to build enough of a base to win seats.

Dysfunctional Structure
Unfortunately, the GP’s organizing structure (to the extent it exists at all) and dysfunctional and overly bureaucratic administrative structure does not recognize or encourage building regional bases. Some regions — Toronto, Ottawa, Southern Alberta — are beginning to recognize the importance of regional organizing on their own and pooling together. But these efforts are taking place of their own initiative and certainly not at the encouragement of the GPC leadership and central office. A more sensible approach would be to completely re-think the organizational structure of the party, in particular to align the organizing, administrative, governance structures (what I call OAG) into a single regional model. I’ll have more on this in a separate post later.

Strategic Targeting
The third lesson Canadian Greens could learn from the UK Greens is about where to put limited resources. It is appropriate for the Greens to target a few specific seats, although that should not be to the exclusion of the first two lessons (electing Greens locally as a stepping stone and building regional bases of support). Moreover, target-to-win should be reserved only for cases where the Greens can truly compete to win. There are very few seats in Canada where the Greens are even remotely competitive — Guelph, Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, Vancouver Center, Saanich-Gulf Islands (mostly due to the large investment there). And only a couple of these are realistic since, as Brighton Pavilion demonstrated, you need a 4-way split of votes (i.e. low threshold to win, Lucas won with 31%) as well as weak opposition (there was no incumbent in BP). Unfortunately, Elizabeth May’s decision to run not once but twice against a sitting cabinet minister, rather than against low-hanging fruit (where there is no incumbent or a weak, first-time opposition MP) has seriously undermined her chances.

Recap
The Greens can learn 3 lessons from the UK Green’s election of Caroline Lucas: (1) the need to elect Greens to other levels of office as a stepping stone to national office, (2) the need to build strong regional bases of support and (3) the need to be more strategic in where they run star candidates and invest resources. To apply these lessons will require changes to the GPC structure, which will be the subject of another post.

With the UK Liberal-Democrats pressing for electoral reform in exchange for supporting the Tories, I thought it might be interesting to look at what a mixed-member proportional system might look like in the UK (note: it is already the system used for the Scottish and Welsh national assemblies). We might also then use the election results to estimate what parliament might look like (with the huge caveat that voting behaviour would no doubt change).

First, here’s what the MMP results might look like…

CON Conservative (36%) – 204 local + 49 regional = 253 seats (39%)
LAB Labour (29%) – 174 local + 40 regional = 214 seats (33%)
LD Liberal Democrat (23%) – 40 local + 110 regional = 150 seats (23%)
SNP Scottish National Party (1.7%) – 4 local + 8 regional = 12 seats (1.8%)
DUP Democratic Unionist Party (0.6%) – 5 local + 0 regional = 5 seats (0.8%)
SF Sinn Fein (0.6%) – 3 local + 2 regional = 5 seats (0.8%)
PC Plaid Cymru (0.6%) – 2 local + 3 regional = 5 seats (0.8%)
SDL Social Democratic & Labour Party (0.4%) – 2 local + 1 regional = 3 seats (0.5%)
UCU Ulster Conservatives & Unionists (0.3%) – 0 local + 3 regional = 3 seats (0.5%)
GRN Green (1.0%) – 1 local + 0 regional = 1 seat (0.2%)
ALL Alliance (0.1%) – 1 local + 0 regional = 1 seat (0.2%)
OTH Others (6.7%) – 1 local + 0 regional = 1 seat (0.2%)
(TOTAL SEATS: 434 local + 216 regional = 650 total)

(note: I assumed a 2:1 ratio of local to regional seats, counting is at the level of the 12 meta-regions; I assumed parties would need to earn a 5% threshold to qualify for meta-regional seats)

Comments
The two major parties both receive fewer overall seats — the Conservatives drop form 307 (306 plus 1 seat yet to vote) to 254 and Labour drops from 258 to 214. However, the proportion of Conservative-to-Labour remains about the same (307-to-254 and 253-to-214 are both about 1.2-to-1), so there is no advantage or disadvantage relative to each other for the Conservatives and Labour. Both major parties still receive a slight advantage under MMP, since small parties (those winning < 5% in their meta-regions) don't get regional seats. The Liberal Democrats are clear winners under MMP -- while they received just 8.8% of the seats (57 seats) despite winning 23% of the vote under FPTP, under MMP they receive exactly they fair share of seats (150 seats). The Scottish National Party gains under MMP, doubling their seats from 6 to 12. The Democratic Unionists in Northern Ireland drop from 8 seats to 5, while the Ulster Conservatives pick up 3 seats, after being shut out under FPTP. Plaid Cymru picks up 2 seats, going from 3 to 5. All other parties remain the same -- Sinn Fein, Social Democratic & Labour, Green, Alliance -- all with 1, and the 1 independent retains her seat.

Implications for Forming a Government
As you can see, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats could still form a stable coalition government; in fact, MMP would result in a stronger (and thus probably more stable) coalition (403 seats or 62%) than the current situation created under FPTP (363 seats or 56%). But while Labour and Liberal Democrats won a majority of the votes (52%), under FPTP, a Lab-Lib coalition only gets 315 seats or 48%, just shy of majority territory. But since MMP more accurately reflects how people voted, a Lab-Lib coalition would get 364 seats or 56%, roughly as strong a Conservative/Lib-Dem coalition produces under FPTP. So MMP produced not one, but two, two-party possibilities for forming a strong coalition government, whereas FPTP produces only one strong option. Ironically, then, MMP would produce a more, not less, stable outcome than FPTP.

Here is the regional breakdown…

(1) North East – 29 seats (19 local + 10 regional)

CON 282,347 (26%) – 2 local + 5 regional = 7 seats (24%)
LAB 518,261 (48%) – 15 local + 0 regional = 15 seats (52%)
LD 280,468 (26%) – 2 local + 5 regional = 7 seats (24%)
OTH 108,847 – 0 seats

(2) North West – 75 seats (50 local + 25 regional)

CON 1,038,967 (34%) – 15 local + 11 regional = 26 seats (34%)
LAB 1,292,978 (43%) – 31 local + 1 regional = 32 seats (43%)
LD 707,770 (23%) – 4 local + 13 regional = 17 seats (23%)
OTH 236,515 – 0 seats

(3) Yorkshire and the Humber – 54 seats (36 local + 18 regional)

CON 769,895 (36%) – 13 local + 6 regional = 19 seats (35%)
LAB 821,368 (38%) – 21 local + 0 regional = 21 seats (39%)
LD 543,684 (25%) – 2 local + 12 regional = 14 seats (26%)
OTH 233,330 – 0 seats

(4) East Midlands – 46 seats (31 local + 15 regional)

CON 915,933 (45%) – 21 local + 0 regional = 21 seats (46%)
LAB 661,813 (32%) – 10 local + 5 regional = 15 seats (33%)
LD 462,988 (23%) – 0 local + 10 regional = 10 seats (22%)
OTH 183,409 – 0 seats

(5) West Midlands – 59 seats (39 local + 20 regional)

CON 1,044,081 (44%) – 21 local + 5 regional = 26 seats (44%)
LAB 808,114 (34%) – 16 local + 4 regional = 20 seats (34%)
LD 540,160 (23%) – 2 local + 11 regional = 13 seats (22%)
OTH 248,110 – 0 seats

(6) Eastern – 58 seats (39 seats + 19 regional)

CON 1,356,739 (52%) – 34 local + 0 regional = 34 seats (59%)
LAB 692,932 (26%) – 3 local + 10 regional = 13 seats (22%)
LD 564,581 (22%) – 2 local + 9 regional = 11 seats (19%)
OTH 265,065 – 0 seats

(7) South East – 84 seats (56 local + 28 regional)

CON 2,140,895 (53%) – 49 local + 0 regional = 49 seats (58%)
LAB 697,567 (17%) – 3 local + 10 regional = 13 seats (15%)
LD 1,124,786 (28%) – 3 local + 18 regional = 21 seats (25%)
GRN 62,124 (1%) – 1 local + 0 regional = 1 seat (1%)
OTH 268,868 – 0 seats

(8) South West – 55 seats (37 local + 18 regional)

CON 1,187,637 (46%) – 24 local + 1 regional = 25 seats (45%)
LAB 426,910 (17%) – 3 local + 6 regional = 9 seats (16%)
LD 962,954 (37%) – 10 local + 11 regional = 21 seats (38%)
OTH 195,942 – 0 seats

(9) London – 73 seats (49 local + 24 regional)

CON 1,174,568 (37%) – 19 local + 8 regional = 27 seats (37%)
LAB 1,245,637 (39%) – 25 local + 4 regional = 29 seats (40%)
LD 751,561 (24%) – 5 local + 12 regional = 17 seats (23%)
OTH 229,551 – 0 seats

(10) Scotland – 59 seats (39 seats + 20 regional)

CON 412,855 (17%) – 1 local + 8 regional = 9 seats (15%)
LAB 1,035,528 (43%) – 27 local + 0 regional = 27 seats (46%)
LD 465,471 (19%) – 7 local + 4 regional = 11 seats (19%)
SNP 491,386 (20%) – 4 local + 8 regional = 12 seats (20%)
OTH 60,482 – 0 seats

(11) Wales – 40 seats (27 local + 13 regional)

CON 382,730 (28%) – 5 local + 5 regional = 10 seats (25%)
LAB 531,601 (39%) – 17 local + 0 regional = 17 seats (43%)
LD 295,164 (21%) – 3 local + 5 regional = 8 seats (20%)
PC 165,394 (12%) – 2 local + 3 regional = 5 seats (12%)
OTH 91,801 – 0 seats

(12) Northern Ireland – 18 seats (12 local + 6 regional)

SF 171,942 (29%) – 3 local + 2 regional = 5 seats (28%)
DUP 168,216 (28%) – 5 local + 0 regional = 5 seats (28%)
SDL 110,970 (19%) – 2 local + 1 regional = 3 seats (17%)
UCU 102,361 (17%) – 0 local + 3 regional = 3 seats (17%)
ALL 42,762 (7%) – 1 local + 0 regional = 1 seat (5%)
OTH 77,620 – 1 local + 0 regional = 1 seat (5%)