October 1, 2008   

Elizabeth Nader, dividing but not conquering   

 

Often, the best defense is a strong offense. Say something untrue enough times and, left unchallenged, people start to believe.

Here's the challenge.

Ask Elizabeth May  about vote-splitting and you get two scripted responses.

The first goes something like this, 'back when I was at the Sierra Club and I was considering running for Green Party leader I thought about Ralph Nader and how Al Gore would have become President had Ralph Nader not said the things he said. But then I realized (read as rationalized) the mistake Ralph Nader made was in saying there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush when in fact there was a world of difference.'

And the second thing Elizabeth May will puppet if asked about vote-splitting is, 'we poll (take votes away) from the Conservatives.'

Let's deal with the second claim first. To put it politely, Bovine Feces!

It is true that for 28% of Conservative voters their second choice is the Green Party. But conveniently neglected is that Green isn't the Conservative voter's first choice for their second place vote. The Liberals are. In fact, when you ask Conservative voters how many seats they want each party to have, they put the Greens in last place, even behind the Bloc.

The notion that Elizabeth May will - when she performs strongly tomorrow night in the English debate - somehow cause an avalanche of voter support away from the Conservatives and toward the Greens is unsupported by the evidence. 

In the London by-election, where Elizabeth May nearly beat Liberal Glen Pearson, May will tell you she took votes away from the Conservative Diane Haskett. No argument really, except that for every vote taken from the Conservative, three came from the Liberal and five came from the NDP. That isn't polling from the Conservatives - it's vote-splitting pure and simple.

With regard to 'Ralph Nader's only mistake was saying there was no difference between Bush and Gore,' Elizabeth May justifies her position by vowing to never say the other parties are all the same. Great! so we have well-informed, as opposed to an ignorant, splitting of the vote.

But the question remains, how does this accomplish Elizabeth May's supposed prime objective of ensuring Mr. Harper's defeat? As argued at length by this observer, it does nothing of the sort. It [vote-splitting] in fact ensures a return to power for the Conservatives which, if Mr. Harper can weather his latest gaffe in Quebec will earn him, my guess, 164 seats.

As we head into tonight's French debate, but especially tomorrow's English debate, I leave you with this:

As recently as last week Elizabeth May told the Toronto Star editorial board "No. I never wake up in the middle of the night. And I actually sleep well. I have a clear conscience."

Don't believe it, at least not the clear conscience part. Elizabeth May is conflicted. Very conflicted. If indeed she sleeps well at night this only points to the frivolity with which she considers her contradictions. 

Conflicted about running in a riding she has no chance of winning. Conflicted about Stéphane Dion as prime minister but unwilling to commit to the full set of mechanics to make that happen. Conflicted about strategic voting which she strongly advocates but is forced to retract on nearly a daily basis.

And finally, the conflict over the 'stupidity of Canadians.'  Which are we to believe? "I will not be able to live with myself if anything I've done contributes to Harper winning..."  or, even if Greens fail to elect a single MP, what if this time on election day Green Party popular support remains in the 12% range of a higher voter turnout? Has anyone else done math impact of a tripling or quadrupling of Green Party official funding? Colour me silly, but I don't know of many CEOs who get in trouble for tripling their gross revenue even if other objectives aren't met.

The data could not be more clear. In 2006, with only 4% of the popular vote, there were 21 seats the Liberals would have won combining just the Liberal and Green vote. Three seats went Bloc, five went NDP, and a whopping 13 seats went to the Conservatives. With Green party support hovering in the 10-12% range, how many more seats is Elizabeth May singlehandedly ensuring Stephen Harper will get in 2008?

In 13 days, or less, we will see just how conflicted Elizabeth May is. If it's true the Green Party Leader will not be able to live with herself when the numbers above pan-out, and they will, then by all accounts you can expect to see Elizabeth May pull out of the election shortly after the English debate. And if she doesn't, then Elizabeth May should easily enough be willing to live with the 2006 label she affixed to Jack Layton as the politician that propped up Stephen Harper.   

Fetal position anyone?