Trouble has been brewing for a while behind the scenes in the Green Party; today it boiled over in David Akin’s National Post piece, which highlighted the upheaval over May’s leadership in the wake of a mass exodus of senior party officials. The exodus included the firing of Political Campaign Director Catharine Johannson, the resignation of Executive Director Maureen Murphy, and the resignation of the party’s Federal Council Donna Dillman — all in addition to the recent firing of 4 of the party’s 7 organizers and 3 other staff resignations, including its long-awaited and just-hired Quebec Press Secretary. Rumors are that the Greens are facing dire financial consequences, which has no doubt prompted widespread cutbacks.

With the release of Akin’s article, some May supporters are now calling for the removal from the party of the “traitor” who forwarded the “private” emails referred to by Akin (“The traitor should be found. They should be removed from the federal council and then their membership should be revoked… and elsewhere…”I’d like to remind everyone that the 9th circle of hell is reserved for the traitors”). The only problem is that the emails were not private — they were sent to public email listservs that are accessible to all GPC members, so quite literally any GPC member could be the “traitor” — that might make for a long witch-hunt.

Given the turmoil over May’s leadership and attempts to weed out dissidents, it is perhaps not surprising that some are attempting to postpone or cancel the constitutionally-mandated leadership vote to avoid May having to face the leadership when her 4-year term expires in August.

Interestingly, as the GPC turmoil was unfolding this weekend, May was rightfully chastising Stephen Harper for proroguing Parliament. But the parallel to attempts to postpone the GPC leadership vote are hard to miss. In fact, you can easily substitute “postpone” for “prorogue”, “Prime Minister” for “GPC leader”, and “Greens” for “Liberals” in May’s weekend comments and you have a description of what’s unfolding within the GPC…

“To postpone or not to postpone, that is the question. Whether it is nobler in the minds to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous Greens or simply to avoid that sea of troubles and, by postponing, end them.”

In one of last remaining media platforms she has (Jane Taber’s blog), May deflects criticism by declaring that “somewhere around 90 per cent of our membership (my guess!) is totally supportive all of the time.” There’s no need to guess, this support can be confirmed by simply proceeding with the mandated leadership vote in August. I have no doubt that May would prevail, although 90% support might be an exaggeration.

Of course, postponing the leadership vote seems to be moot now that May appears to have acquiesced to holding the vote — as she told Akin: “I’m happy to subject myself to anything.” Hopefully, this puts to rest the postponement drama, because it is becoming increasingly clear that the GPC has much bigger tofu to fry.

Update: I guess when it rains, it pours.

(apologies, this is longer than usual)

For the last couple months, the Green Party of Canada (GPC) has been plagued by an internal debate about whether to proceed with their constitutionally mandated leadership contest in Aug 2010 (i.e. 4 years after Elizabeth May’s Aug 2006 election) or do a last-minute constitutional (by-law) amendment at their August biannual general meeting (BGM) so May doesn’t have to face the membership before she has a chance to contest Saanich-Gulf Islands (SGI) in a general election.

Two competing motions have been put before GPC Federal Council by two at-large Councilors: (1) by David Coon of New Brunswick, to postpone the leadership race until the fall, after members have decided whether they want to change the constitution or not, or (2) by Dan Murray of Ontario, to proceed with the leadership race as constitutionally-mandated, but with no explicit provision to put the by-law change before members at the August BGM. But there is a solution that best meets the expectations of both sides: (1) proceed with a summer leadership race as mandated, culminating in an August vote *and* (2) propose the by-law change at the Aug BGM, so that the term limit change, if adopted, applies to the next mandate. That is, while it is perfectly acceptable to have Elizabeth May’s next term not be limited to 4 years if members so choose, it is wrong to postpone the leadership race so you can retroactively change the current term just as it is set to expire.

The case against postponing the GPC leadership race can be argued on at least 3 grounds: (1) the underlying strategic premise is flawed, (2) it has practical (negative) implications on the GPC’s finances, and perhaps most importantly, (3) it raises serious questions about democratic principle and unnecessarily sows division within the party.

Firstly, on the question of democratic principle, in her latest book, Losing Confidence: Power, Politics, and the Crisis of Canadian Democracy, Elizabeth May writes:

“A full, free and functioning democracy is not something we should lose without a fight. We must not be driven by fear or seduced by creature comforts into allowing democracy to slip between our fingers.”

Indeed, we must not. I applaud May for her leadership in calling out Stephen Harper’s decision to prorogue Parliament for what it was: sacrificing democracy for personal convenience. But the situation with the Green leadership race is eerily similar. GPC Federal Council must ask itself whether it is justifiable to sacrifice the democratic principles established by the GPC constitution in the name of convenience — the inconvenience that there might not be a general election before May’s first term is up in August (which wouldn’t allow them to test their strategy of getting Elizabeth May elected in Saanich-Gulf Islands).

It should be noted that the 4-year term limit was established only in 2006 (it was previously 2-years) — the same BGM when May was elected — and following both the Martin (2004) and Harper (2006) minority governments, so it’s not like the 4-year term limit is a relic of the past, nor was it passed in an era of majority governments. I would assume members knew what they were doing when they instituted the 4-year term limit (I’m guessing but it could be rationalized that since the GPC has no elected caucus to check the power of the leader, unlike other major parties, asking the leader to seek a renewed mandate every 4 years allows for some level of accountability).

This debate would end tomorrow if May simply applied the same democratic standard to which she holds Harper and agreed to seek a renewed mandate. She would be on solid ground asking for the confidence of the membership to build upon the accomplishments of her first term; after all, she led the GPC to an all-time high in votes last time. And I have no doubt whatsoever she would be re-elected easily (if she is contested at all; after all, I assume there would be a reasonable entry fee to ensure only truly serious candidates come forward). In fact, I suspect she could win without stepping foot outside of Saanich and without spending a dime. I’m puzzled by the fears that are driving these attempts to circumvent the constitution. These same fears were brought up when Stuart Hertzog contested May for the SGI nomination and yet it was a complete non-event; May won easily and the party came out looking more principled for allowing the contest. You can’t just say you do politics differently, you actually have to do it differently.

And going to questionable lengths to change the rules at the 11th hour is surely going to sow divisions within the party, and will no doubt lead to questions about the legitimacy of May’s extended tenure. It’s just not worth the damage it would do internally. Canadian political history is pretty clear that party leaders who unify their parties are far more successful than those who sow divisions.

Secondly, beyond questions of democratic principle, the underlying premise for postponing the leadership contest is flawed. The GPC has apparently concluded a leadership contest would be so damaging to May that they are going to extraordinary lengths to avoid her facing the membership. Why? I would argue the opposite: a summer leadership contest would bring renewed energy (more media exposure, new members, more contributions, etc) to a party that has largely fallen off the face of the Canadian political map. Far from hurting May in Saanich, it would help her.

And postponing risks a potential fall leadership race. A summer leadership contest is far more preferable than the fall for 2 reasons: (1) there would be a significant lost opportunity cost since the fall is the best time to organize, fundraise, knock on doors, etc — you don’t want GPC members working on a leadership campaign instead of building support for the next election, and (2) there is a far greater likelihood of a fall general election (the most common time for a Canadian election) than an August one (which has only happened once in Canadian history). And if the raison d’être of postponement is to avoid a potential conflict between leadership race and general election, it is clear that a summer race is the more prudent choice, since the chance of overlap is virtually non-existent.

Also, if the race is postponed and a fall election is called, it means going into an election with a leader whose term has expired — i.e. a lame-duck leader — which would be devastating (if not embarrassing), and almost certainly would preclude an invitation to the leaders’ debates. It just makes no strategic sense whatsoever and puts the GPC in an unnecessarily risky position. And for what? So May doesn’t have to seek a renewed mandate — a new mandate that she is virtually guaranteed to receive?

Thirdly, there are also practical financial considerations. Postponing also means less significant BGM in Toronto – a missed opportunity to grab the media spotlight (since August is a slow month for political news). And it will also cost the party more to hold separate BGM and leadership races (assuming the leadership race allows for both remote voting and in-person, as it did last time) — that means a second general meeting. That doubles the risk of running into a general election. But more importantly, given the precarious state of party finances, it would be imprudent to unnecessarily add to the party’s already significant debt. Two general meetings is a significant cost. Planning for the Toronto BGM is already well under way and the costs to-date are running at almost $250,000. Registration fees start at $200 and run up to $400. Assuming $250 on average, to break even at $250,000 requires at least 1,000 members to attend — over 4 times as many as attended the last BGM in Pictou, NS. Holding a second general meeting means going further into debt and it means another fee to members (unless the GPC plans on bearing the full cost of the in-person leadership component). Not only will that discourage attendance to the in-person leadership component but it also limits the amount of money members can donate to the GPC, since both registration fees would be included in the $1,100 Elections Canada yearly maximum. So it should be clear that postponing the leadership race has significant financial consequences for the GPC.

I’ve outlined why postponing the leadership race is unwise for at least 3 reasons: (1) democratic reasons, (2) strategic reasons, and (3) financial reasons. There is a much better solution: (1) proceed with a summer leadership race as mandated, culminating in an August vote *and* (2) propose the by-law change at the Aug BGM, so that the term limit change, if adopted, applies to the next mandate.

Council must weigh the odds of 2 events: (1) the odds of May being defeated for re-election, and (2) the odds that members will reject the by-law change to remove the 4-year term limit. The odds of May not being re-elected are slim at best, but the by-law change could go either way. It’s a very risky gamble to take and not at all the prudent course of action. Moreover, it is also likely that proponents of the by-law change will use the fear of adverse consequences to cow members into accepting the by-law change. Blackmailing and fearing members into accepting a preferred change that would have significant long-term consequences based on exceedingly short-term considerations is wrong. A party lead by one of the most vocal critics of such strong-arm tactics by Stephen Harper would be ridiculed for its hypocrisy. GPC Federal Council would be wise to step back and look at the bigger picture here. I have every confidence it will do the right thing: not postpone the leadership contest *and* ask members in August whether they would like the subsequent leadership terms to be limited to 4 years or not.

Disturbing news out of the Green Party: the GPC Campaign Committee has recommended to the party’s Federal Council that Elizabeth May’s leadership term be extended (update: to be more precise, the GPC Campaign Committee has recommended to the party’s Federal Council a constitutional change that would result in Elizabeth May’s leadership term being extended), from the constitutionally mandated 4 years (which would require a leadership vote by end of August 2010) to an open-ended “6 months after the next general election.” At issue is the uncertainty of the next federal election and the possibility it might coincide with the GPC’s leadership race. I’m frankly surprised the GPC would even consider doing this for several reasons…

First, it sends a terrible message that the GPC leader is seeking to desperately hold onto power (please note I am not saying that Ms May is desperately seeking to hold onto power, only that changing the rules to extend her term sends that kind of message). There are plenty of examples in the world of people clinging to power and I would think the GPC would not want to be associated with even a hint of that kind of behaviour.

Second, I would think that such a recommendation lies well beyond the Campaign Committee’s mandate which is to plan and execute campaigns, not change the governance of the party:

Understanding that a “campaign” includes a general election, a by-election, and any ad-hoc political campaign to build support for issues that further the strategic interests of the Party, the Campaign Committee plans and executes those campaigns. (GPC Campaign Committee Mandate)

Third, the GPC constitution is quite clear that the leader is elected to a four-year term (as May was elected in August 2006, her term expires in August 2010; she is of course free to stand for re-election):

2.1.4.2 All Council members shall be elected to serve a two year term or until their successors are elected, except the Leader who shall serve a four year term or until a successor is elected.
…
2.1.4.5 The Leader shall be elected in 2006 and every four (4) years thereafter. (GPC Constitution)

Fourth, extending the leader’s term would require a constitutional amendment and that requires a vote of membership at a general meeting (not a mail-in ballot, as is being proposed) (update: the GPC claims this gives them license to hold a special meeting for the sole purpose of extending the leader’s tenure, although I would be surprised if they went that route, since it would be poorly attended and thus seen to lack legitimacy, never mind the party doesn’t have spare funds to pay for a special general meeting)…

10.2.3 Amendments shall be adopted by a majority of the votes cast by Members in good standing at a General Meeting. (GPC Constitution)

Fifth, how many times has Canada had a federal election in August?

Answer: Only 1 of 40 Canadian federal elections took place in August and that was 56 years ago (in 1953). So the odds of an election in the middle of summer are extremely low. Indeed, historically, August has been the least likely month of a federal election (tied with April and May). Two-thirds of Canadian elections have been held in June or the fall (Sept-Nov).

January: 2 times – 5% of the time
February: 2 – 5%
March: 3 – 7.5%
April: 1 – 2.5%
May: 1 – 2.5%
June: 9 – 22.5%
July: 2 – 5%
August: 1 – 2.5%
September: 5 – 12.5%
October: 7 – 17.5%
November: 5 – 12.5%
December: 2 – 5%

That there is so much uncertainty about the timing of the next GPC leadership race is puzzling, given how clear it is in the Party’s foundational document. Likewise, it has already been announced that the next biannual general meeting (BGM) will be in Toronto (Aug 20-21 or Aug 27-28, 2010 are the most likely dates), and traditionally, leadership votes are held at BGMs. So it falls to GPC Federal Council to re-affirm its commitment to the GPC constitution and announce/make plans for a leadership vote to be held at the August 2010 BGM in Toronto. Of course, it would be prudent to have a contingency plan in the highly unlikely event that an August election is called — and that’s pretty straight forward — if an election is called, the BGM and the leadership race would be suspended (in part, due to Elections Canada finance laws), in which case the vote could be held by the end of 2010.

But in any case, Federal Council would be wise to reject the Campaign Committee recommendation to extend Elizabeth May’s leadership term to the open-ended “6 months after the next general election”.

Note to Facebook readers: since Facebook does not import tables, please click the “see original post” link at the bottom.

I thought it might be useful to see what the demographics in Saanich-Gulf Islands tell us about potential voting patterns. First, I went through the last five Ekos polls for B.C. (Jul 22 to Aug 28) — I use Ekos since they give a handy age breakdown by province and as they poll weekly, we get a good sized sample. I then compared the average support for each demographic group relative to the provincial average for each party — this tells us how well each party fares in each demographic group. The results are below.

There are clear patterns. The Conservatives fair poorly among the < 25 group (16 points below the provincial average), but very well with 65+ (14.4 points above average) -- in fact their support varies directly with age, the older the group, the better the support. The Greens are exactly the opposite -- the older the group, the worse they do (+9.6 points above their provincial average for the 18-24 group and -9.6 for the 65+ group). Liberals and NDP are fairly even across demographic groups, slightly better among young people and slightly worse about seniors.

Second, I looked at the demographics of Saanich-Gulf Islands, then third, I looked at the historical turnout for each group in B.C. (and pro-rated this to roughly 70% turnout in Saanich-Gulf Islands). Taking these together, we get a clearer picture of the potential voter pool for the riding. I then did an estimate of the baseline support by group using the matrix in Table 1 above and what current polling tells us. The results are below.

Note: POP % is the % of eligible voters (i.e. 18+ years); Voter % is the % of total voters; % per party is the % of each age group won; T/O is the estimated turnout.

As you can see, the demographics clearly favour the Conservatives, which gives us a clue why Gary Lunn has held the riding for the past 12 years. By contrast, the demographics work against the Greens. And this is exacerbated by the projected turnout — young people (40%) turnout at only half the rate as people 45 and up (80%). So the net result is that just 26% of voters are under 45 (the most likely to vote Green) while 74% are over 45 (the least likely to vote Green). So baseline support using a demographic/turnout projection is around 38% for Conservative incumbent Gary Lunn, 23% for the Liberals, 22% for the NDP and 17% for the Greens. There’s little doubt that GPC leader Elizabeth May will exceed the baseline support of 17%, but clearly the demographics are working against her.

While it is a moot point since May has chosen Saanich-Gulf Islands (although she’s waiting until Sept 8 to make that official), I thought it might be interesting to compare SGI to the riding that my analysis says was the best riding, Guelph.

We see a similar pattern in Ontario as we did in B.C. — Conservative support goes up as the age group goes up, while Green support goes down as the age group goes up. Liberal and NDP support is more even, with the NDP dipping and the Liberal increasing slightly among seniors. Again, I then looked at the demographics of Guelph and the historical voting patterns by age group in Ontario (and pro-rate to roughly 65% turnout in Guelph). I then used the matrix in table 3 above with current polling to give a baseline projection for Guelph using a demographic/turnout approach.

Note: POP % is the % of eligible voters (i.e. 18+ years); Voter % is the % of total voters; % per party is the % of each age group won; T/O is the estimated turnout.

So baseline support in Guelph using a demographic/turnout projection is around 35% for Liberal incumbent Frank Valeriote, 28% for the Conservatives, 23% for the Greens and 14% for the NDP.

As you can see comparing Guelph to Saanich (table 2), Saanich is a much older riding, which helps explain why it has about 5% higher turnout (since older people tend to turn out in larger numbers). While 30% of voters in Saanich are 65+, only 17% are in Guelph. There are slightly more voters 45-64 in Saanich — 44% vs 38% in Guelph. But the biggest difference is in the 25-44 group — 20% in Saanich vs 36% in Guelph, 80% more.

What’s also interesting is that young voters (18-24) in Ontario historically turn out at a slightly higher rate than in B.C. (40% in BC vs 45% in ON), while those 65+ turn out as slightly lower rate (80% in BC vs 70% in ON). Again, that exacerbates the underlying demographic differences in Guelph’s favour. While there are slightly more youth voters in Guelph (9% vs 6%), this is probably understated because it doesn’t account for the student population at the University of Guelph. While Saanich is also home to students from the University of Victoria, students here are split across 3 ridings (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Victoria and Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca). These numbers also show why a strategy of significantly increasing the youth vote — long held to be a winner for Greens — will have little impact because the youth voter pool is so small. For example, increasing 18-24 turnout from 40% to 60%, only closes the gap between Lunn and May by about 150 votes, which is inconsequential.

The net result is that only about 1/4 of the voters in Saanich are under 45, while a bit less than 1/2 are under 45 in Guelph, almost twice as many. This is significant because as tables 1 and 3 show in both BC and Ontario, the vast majority of Green votes come from people under 45.

So Saanich’s demographics and turnout patterns work against the Greens while they are more favourable in Guelph. This shows another reason why I have reservations about Elizabeth May running in Saanich-Gulf Islands over Guelph. It means May will have to significantly buck the demographic trends to win in Saanich-Gulf Islands.

Briony Penn, the former prominent Green Party of Canada supporter who ran for the Liberals last time (and nearly won) has launched a pre-emptive strike against Elizabeth May, taking to the local papers last week to pour cold water on May’s chances of winning in Saanich-Gulf Islands (May’s candidacy has yet to be formally announced). In Penn’s words:

“As you know, I want to see Green Party of Canada leader Elizabeth May elected to the House of Commons, but having come to know this riding well, I do not believe she can be successful in Saanich-Gulf Islands.”

Penn goes on to tout her preferred candidate, Liberal nominee Renee Hetherington but also refutes the claim that Saanich-Gulf Islands is the best Green riding and even specifically calls out Guelph as a better riding (which is significant coming from her since Guelph is currently held by a Liberal).

“Though it is sometimes touted as “the greenest riding in Canada,” this is not actually true. Further, in another riding —Guelph, Ontario — the Green vote has steadily been increasing on the Liberal incumbent, making it a much better bet statistically for Elizabeth to win there. However, apparently she does not want to run against a Liberal and would prefer to oust Gary Lunn.

Penn also points out the difficulty May will have attracting small-c conservatives in Saanich, where most of the population is:

But the bulk of our population lives in Saanich, which has been well described as “a small-c conservative riding.” Such voters who did not support me will not support Elizabeth, but they may well decide to support Renee with her strong understanding of the economy and with Michael Ignatieff as her party’s leader.

The Greens lost about 4,000 votes to the Liberals in Saanich last time (their “natural” vote, given 9.4% support provincially, should have been around 10,500 or 16-17%, but they got only 6,732 or 10%). They are likely to re-gain a good portion of those, but with Penn pushing hard for the Liberals, will all of those former Green votes come home to roost?

May Challenged in Saanich-Gulf Islands

It appears that long-time B.C. Green Stuart Hertzog is challenging leader Elizabeth May for the nomination in Saanich-Gulf Islands. That can’t be welcome news to the GPC campaign team, as it means dedicating limited resources to winning a nomination battle. I don’t think it’s a bad thing for May, though, as it will force their team to mobilize local support early, so it’s probably a blessing in disguise for May (although if Hertzog is able to muster anything more than token support, there might be lingering feelings about May being parachuted into the riding).

The central party, via a message yesterday by Political Campaign Director Catharine Johannson to a public GPC email list (which drew a subtle scolding by May since Saanich hasn’t been made official yet), and reinforced today in the Globe, is putting on a brave face, saying it shows how the GPC does things differently, welcomes internal debate, isn’t top-down, etc. Some Greens in the know might get a chuckle out of the spin, but there’s not much else they can do, and it’s the right political move (maybe they are learning how to message after all!). But let’s be honest, it’s hardly a typical local race between two people on level footing, since the central party has infinitely more resources at their disposal than Hertzog. And the outcome is not in doubt — May will secure the nomination, as well she should, since she gives the Greens the best chance to win the riding.

Conservatives Up, Liberals Down

In related news, the latest Ipsos-Reid poll is probably also unwelcome news for the Greens. Not because their support has changed — it’s holding steady in the 9-10% range, as it typically does until election day approaches. But the poll shows the Conservatives picking up strength and the Liberals beginning to fade. The poll shows the CPC at 39%, the Liberals at 28%, the NDP at 14%, the Greens at 10% and the Bloc at 8%. The Aug 18-20 sample is 1000, meaning a MOE of +/- 3.1%, 19 times out of 20.

It looks like a bit of an outlier and it’s only one poll — so should be treated with caution — but it does support a trend that we’ve seen over the past month or so. It’s bad news for the Greens because they’ve clearly hitched their wagon to a Liberal victory by running their leader against a Conservative cabinet minister instead of taking on an weaker opposition MP. That’s not a bet I would’ve taken — it’s more likely that Canadians will step back and say, you know what, these guys haven’t done all that much but they haven’t screwed things up that much either; they haven’t had any major scandals and the economy is recovering, so I’m betting after 3 consecutive minority governments and endless partisan gamesmanship on all sides, voters are probably more inclined to give the Conservatives a majority than hand the Liberals a minority. That’s my gut feeling. Rookie Liberal leaders typically don’t win on their first try; people will probably need more time to warm up to Ignatieff.

The polling trend reinforces why I think Guelph was a better choice (but only if she mended fences with the local team, of course). Instead of taking on an incumbent Cabinet Minister who has held his riding for 12 years at a time when the Conservatives are possibly headed for a majority, it just makes more sense to take on a first-term Liberal opposition MP who barely won last time. The Liberals held Guelph running on a green platform. With Michael Ignatieff abandoning that green platform in an attempt to distance himself from Stephane Dion — tossing aside the carbon tax and championing the Alberta tar sands — the Greens have ample ammunition to target eco-friendly Liberals in Guelph (of which there are many). In fact, it would play to May’s traditional strengths. Instead, May will have to step outside of her element and campaign on meat-and-potato economic issues, and specifically their principle of limiting growth, to Green-resistant suburban voters in Saanich. It’s not a question of whether they are right or wrong, it’s just hard to convince average folks that it’s bad to have a growing economy (and with it, more jobs and more prosperity) in the thick of an election campaign.

I wish May and the Greens luck, as the nearly one million Green voters across the country deserve a voice in parliament. But unfortunately, the news that May faces local opposition and that the Conservatives are gaining strength both suggest that the hill that is Saanich-Gulf Islands is looking a bit more steep today.

Update:
A straight average of the last 5 polls (Aug 2-20) shows the following (allowing 1% for others):

Conservative – 33.8%
Liberal – 30.8%
NDP – 16.0%
Green – 9.7%
Bloc – 8.6%

Update-er-er-er:
Harris Decima has a poll showing a statistical dead-heat, further illustrating why any single poll is fairly meaningless. Including this one, here are the current #s (Aug 4- 23), again allowing 1% for others:

Conservative – 33.8%
Liberals – 30.5%
NDP – 15.4%
Green – 10.6%
Bloc – 8.7%

Earlier, I posted a breakdown of the riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands, where Elizabeth May is reportedly running, for the 2004 and 2008 elections. So what does looking at these sub-regions tell us? You can see the different areas of strength in the map below, which shows quite clearly the 3 distinct areas of the riding — the Greens (and to a lesser extent the NDP) are strong on the Islands, the Liberals do well in the suburban areas closest to Victoria and around UVic, and the Conservatives do well in the middle, on the Saanich Peninsula.

AREAS OF STRENGTH IN SAANICH-GULF ISLANDS

Note: blue = CPC, red = LPC, green = GPC, yellow = NDP)

The map illustrates the challenge that Elizabeth May faces. She will no doubt run up big numbers on the Islands by campaigning on her core environmental issues in this more “hippy” demographic. But getting out the vote here is challenged by sparse population and great distances to polling stations. And even still, it’s only 13% of the population. To win the riding will require winning the suburbs (about 1/2 of the population), where Greens are not typically strong — that will require campaigning on meat-and-potato economic issues that resonate with families in the middle-aged demographic in this area. It also means limiting the Conservative margins in their traditional strong areas in the middle (North Saanich, about 1/3 of the population) — and that will require narrow-casting a message that will resonate with the older demographic in that area. So as you can see, winning requires balancing 3 distinct messages, without alienating any one of them. The Greens are strong in one of these 3 areas/demographics, but they will have to significantly broader their message to appeal to the other two.

Collapsing the NDP vote by campaigning on core environmental and social justice issues is the easiest of the 3 tasks. We saw last time, after their candidate dropped out, NDP voters were willing to back the Liberal in large numbers, with about 3/4 shifting. But, barring another bizarre incident, the NDP will have a candidate this time and will certainly not be as low as the 5.7% they got last time with no candidate. We might normally expect the NDP to be in the 20% range in Saanich, given where the NDP is provincially right now. In Central Nova, by my estimation, almost 40% of NDPers shifted towards May (dropped from about 33% to 20%). But that was because there was no Liberal and May was perceived to be the most likely to topple Mackay. So expecting more than 1/3 of NDP voters in Saanich to back May is overly optimistic. Even still, stealing 1/3 of the NDP vote won’t win you the riding.

The Greens won’t steal many votes directly from the Conservatives, many of whom are older, as this is a demographic that is particularly entrenched in their voting behaviour, but also one that votes in large numbers (a recent Ekos poll (note: PDF) puts Green support at < 6% in the 65+ group). But winning votes directly from Lunn is especially difficult in Saanich, where a look at pre-merger results tells us that only about 1/6th of Conservative votes are of the "Progressive" variety (who are more likely to switch to Green) and 5/6s are former Reform/Alliance voters. So the best the Greens can do here is limit the damage, cut into Lunn's margins, and pull a couple points away.

The key, then, is winning the suburbs, which is typically evenly split between Liberals and Conservatives. The Liberals will be easier to attract than the Conservatives. But as we saw in Central Nova, many Liberals simply vote Liberal no matter what and would rather stay home than back May (in Central Nova, a rough estimate tells us that May won about 1/2 the Liberals, about 1/4 stayed home, and the remaining 1/4 scattered between Mackay and the NDP). If only 1/2 of the Liberals backed May when there was no Liberal candidate, expecting more than 1/4 of the Liberals to vote for May is probably overly optimistic, especially since their candidate (I'm guessing it will be Renee Hetherington) is backed by Briony Penn, the star candidate and former Green who ran last time.

So under an best-case scenario, assuming the Greens can narrow-cast their messages, the Greens could steal 5 points from the Liberals, 7 points from the NDP and 2 points from the Conservatives. With a base of about 16% (assuming they fully recover the 6 points they lost to the Liberals last time), that only gets May to a maximum of 30%, with Lunn at around 37%, again best-case for the Greens. As you can see, the Greens need a perfect storm and then some to pull this off. Not an easy task, especially since they are largely starting from scratch in canvassing and IDing support, and moreover, since a perfect storm requires balancing 3 messages across 3 district areas of the riding.

Note to Facebook readers: click on ’see original post’ link at bottom to see the table, since Facebook doesn’t import tables.

I previously broke down Saanich-Gulf Islands into 25 sub-regions plus advance, absentee and mobile polls for the 2008 election. Below, I do the same for the 2004 election, when the Greens ran a fully-funded campaign; this gives a better idea of where the Greens are strongest.

SUB-REGION	ELECTORS	T/O	CPC	LPC	GPC	NDP
Central Saanich [3]	11507 (13.3%)	67%	2934 (38%)	1922 (25%)	1153 (15%)	1632 (21%)
Cordova Bay [2]	2607 (3.0%)	70%	692 (38%)	613 (34%)	205 (11%)	308 (17%)
East Saanich [2]	1068 (1.2%)	63%	271 (40%)	166 (25%)	74 (11%)	161 (24%)
Elk Lake [2]	454 (0.5%)	67%	120 (40%)	89 (29%)	36 (12%)	58 (19%)
Fulford Harbour [1]	1088 (1.3%)	70%	108 (14%)	93 (12%)	344 (45%)	213 (28%)
Ganges [1]	6186 (7.2%)	65%	937 (23%)	699 (18%)	1341 (34%)	1011 (25%)
Gordon Head [2]	4166 (4.8%)	65%	794 (30%)	923 (34%)	424 (16%)	531 (20%)
Lake Hill [2]	3150 (3.6%)	64%	569 (28%)	606 (30%)	290 (14%)	553 (27%)
Mayne [1]	676 (0.8%)	87%	168 (28%)	103 (17%)	215 (36%)	104 (18%)
North Galiano [1]	385 (0.4%)	82%	68 (22%)	46 (15%)	69 (22%)	131 (42%)
North Saanich [3]	8697 (10.1%)	68%	2539 (43%)	1536 (26%)	1033 (17%)	815 (14%)
Pender Island [1]	502 (0.6%)	73%	109 (30%)	65 (18%)	132 (36%)	60 (16%)
Port Washington [1]	1205 (1.4%)	67%	209 (26%)	120 (15%)	308 (38%)	171 (21%)
Royal Oak [2]	896 (1.0%)	74%	311 (47%)	231 (35%)	55 (8%)	67 (10%)
Saanich [2]	32864 (38.0%)	64%	6367 (30%)	6547 (31%)	2946 (14%)	5037 (24%)
Saturna [1]	263 (0.3%)	75%	57 (29%)	38 (19%)	39 (20%)	59 (30%)
Sidney [3]	8669 (10.0%)	66%	2353 (41%)	1385 (24%)	885 (15%)	1092 (19%)
South Saanich [2]	509 (0.6%)	44%	41 (18%)	45 (20%)	34 (15%)	102 (46%)
Sturdies Bay [1]	464 (0.5%)	70%	82 (25%)	59 (18%)	70 (22%)	112 (35%)
Advance Polls	-	-	5424 (40%)	3249 (24%)	1906 (14%)	2803 (21%)
Absentee Ballots	370 (0.4%)	-	610 (42%)	324 (23%)	226 (16%)	275 (19%)
Mobile Polls	703 (0.8%)	74%	221 (44%)	145 (29%)	30 (6%)	100 (20%)
THE ISLANDS	10769 (12.5%)	68%	1738 (24%)	1223 (17%)	2518 (34%)	1861 (25%)
SOUTH SAANICH	45714 (52.9%)	64%	9165 (31%)	9220 (31%)	4064 (14%)	6817 (23%)
NORTH SAANICH	28873 (33.4%)	67%	7826 (40%)	4843 (25%)	3071 (16%)	3539 (18%)
MAINLAND	74587 (86.3%)	65%	16991 (35%)	14063 (29%)	7135 (15%)	10356 (21%)
TOTAL	86429	74%	22050 (35%)	17082 (27%)	10662 (17%)	13763 (22%)

Note: T/O = turnout; 1 = Islands, 2 = South Saanich, 3 = North Saanich; note also the 3 red dots in the Islands are 2008 data; it’s likely that they would be Green or NDP areas had they been broken out in the 2004 data.

As you can see, the Greens did well on the Islands winning 34% of the vote, double their riding-wide average. Given that the Liberals went from 17% in 2004 to 58% in 2008, it shows that many Gulf Islanders are willing to line up behind the candidate deemed most likely to defeat Lunn, which bodes well for Elizabeth May.

However, you can see that the Greens did worse where the bulk of the population is, on the mainland. North Saanich was a strong Conservative area (40%), while South Saanich was dead-even between the Conservatives and Liberals (31% each). Unfortunately for the Greens, their worst of the 3 areas was South Saanich, where more than 1/2 the riding population lives. So they will need to radically alter that trend if they are to pull off a victory in Saanich-Gulf Islands.

Note to Facebook readers: click on ’see original post’ link at bottom to see the table, since Facebook doesn’t import tables.

I’ve broken down Saanich-Gulf Islands into 25 sub-regions (see map) plus advance, absentee and mobile polls.

SUB-REGION	ELECTORS	T/O	CPC	LPC	GPC	NDP
Ardmore [3]	1305 (1.4%)	62%	386 (48%)	301 (38%)	74 (9%)	32 (4%)
Brentwood Bay [3]	1322 (1.4%)	63%	388 (47%)	287 (35%)	96 (12%)	49 (6%)
Capital G [1]	248 (0.3%)	32%	12 (15%)	51 (64%)	8 (10%)	7 (9%)
Central Saanich [3]	3170 (3.5%)	64%	964 (48%)	683 (34%)	254 (13%)	101 (5%)
Cordova Bay [2]	4358 (4.8%)	65%	1459 (52%)	1031 (37%)	213 (8%)	19 (3%)
Deep Cove [3]	2112 (2.3%)	66%	631 (45%)	581 (42%)	140 (10%)	25 (2%)
East Saanich [2]	1682 (1.8%)	54%	490 (54%)	218 (24%)	109 (12%)	75 (8%)
Fulford Harbour [1]	1268 (1.4%)	65%	116 (14%)	570 (69%)	100 (12%)	24 (3%)
Ganges [1]	5305 (5.8%)	57%	728 (24%)	1771 (58%)	405 (13%)	95 (3%)
Gordon Head [2]	4390 (4.8%)	60%	1056 (40%)	1116 (43%)	249 (9%)	177 (7%)
Keating [3]	3432 (3.8%)	64%	1135 (52%)	669 (30%)	238 (11%)	143 (6%)
Lake Hill [2]	3480 (3.8%)	59%	791 (38%)	833 (40%)	233 (11%)	186 (9%)
Long Harbour [1]	508 (0.6%)	59%	91 (30%)	168 (56%)	34 (11%)	8 (3%)
Mayne [1]	851 (0.9%)	58%	182 (37%)	232 (47%)	61 (12%)	13 (3%)
North Galiano [1]	475 (0.5%)	68%	77 (24%)	204 (63%)	31 (10%)	7 (2%)
Pender Island [1]	1413 (1.6%)	57%	251 (31%)	389 (48%)	133 (17%)	25 (3%)
Port Washington [1]	421 (0.5%)	58%	66 (27%)	140 (58%)	32 (13%)	3 (1%)
Saanich [2]	34190 (37.4%)	60%	8209 (40%)	8406 (41%)	2082 (10%)	1607 (8%)
Saanichton [3]	5260 (5.8%)	63%	1714 (52%)	1063 (32%)	357 (11%)	135 (4%)
Saturna [1]	300 (0.3%)	65%	63 (32%)	98 (51%)	30 (15%)	2 (1%)
Sidney [3]	11479 (12.6%)	61%	3710 (53%)	2142 (30%)	779 (11%)	332 (5%)
South Saanich [2]	478 (0.5%)	43%	71 (34%)	60 (29%)	39 (19%)	33 (16%)
Sturdies Bay [1]	426 (0.5%)	69%	83 (28%)	173 (59%)	25 (9%)	11 (4%)
Swartz Bay [3]	1857 (2.0%)	63%	559 (48%)	449 (39%)	124 (11%)	21 (2%)
Vesuvius [1]	961 (1.1%)	60%	185 (32%)	323 (57%)	48 (8%)	11 (2%)
Advance Polls	-	-	3736 (49%)	2790 (37%)	674 (9%)	353 (5%)
Absentee Ballots	376 (0.4%)	-	658 (47%)	533 (38%)	145 (10%)	73 (5%)
Mobile Polls	755 (0.8%)	46%	180 (53%)	85 (25%)	29 (9%)	28 (8%)
THE ISLANDS	12176 (13.3%)	59%	1854 (26%)	4119 (58%)	907 (13%)	206 (3%)
SOUTH SAANICH	48578 (52.9%)	60%	12076 (41%)	11664 (40%)	2925 (10%)	2169 (7%)
NORTH SAANICH	29937 (32.6%)	63%	9487 (51%)	6175 (33%)	2062 (11%)	838 (4%)
MAINLAND	79646 (86.7%)	72%	26137 (46%)	21247 (37%)	5835 (10%)	3461 (6%)
TOTAL	91822	70%	27991 (43%)	25366 (39%)	6742 (10%)	3667 (6%)

Note: T/O = turnout; 1 = Islands, 2 = South Saanich, 3 = North Saanich

As you can see, there is a big difference between results on the Gulf Islands and result on the mainland (Saanich Peninsula) — Briony Penn more than doubled Gary Lunn (58% vs 26%) on the Islands, winning every region, but Lunn did better on the mainland (46% vs 37%). The Greens did a bit better on the Islands than the mainland (13% vs 10%). However, the vast majority of the population (87%) is on the mainland. On the other hand, with turnout at just 59% on the Islands vs 72% on the mainland, there is an opportunity to increase Islands turnout, but that would require significant effort as population is sparse on the Islands. You can also see that the Conservatives did well with advance and mobile polls as well as absentee ballots; the Greens will want to mobilize a strong advance poll campaign to eat into these margins.

I’ve also added a breakdown of the mainland into two: North and South Saanich. The more suburban South Saanich, with over half the riding’s population, is a classic battleground, while the Northern half is strong Conservative territory (Lunn 51% vs Penn 33%). So as you can see there are 3 distinct areas within the riding, each displaying different voting patterns.

I will also produce a similar breakdown for the 2004 election, when the GPC ran a fully-funded campaign (i.e. most analogous to Elizabeth May’s campaign). This will give a better idea of Green areas of strength.

Since there has been no announcement from the Green Party where Elizabeth May will run, I’ll continue to make comparisons between the top two choices, Saanich-Gulf Islands (SGI) and Guelph.

I can’t help but think that SGI is a difficult riding to canvass (and thus to mount an effective ground campaign needed to win) — far more difficult than Guelph (and as previously noted, the Guelph Greens have already canvassed a sizable portion of the riding while they are essentially starting from scratch in Saanich). Both ridings have a population of about 115,000 people. But Saanich-Gulf Islands is 5-1/2 times larger in area and spread over a dozen large islands (and countless small ones) plus a portion of mainland. Below are maps of both ridings published at the same scale (click on image for larger version). Guelph on the other hand is a compact mid-size town no bigger than the mainland portion of SGI, i.e. the Saanich Peninsula.

What do you think? Does size (and shape) matter? Does Saanich being 5-1/2 times bigger and spread over at least a dozen large islands (and countless small ones) make it more difficult for Elizabeth May to win?

SAANICH-GULF ISLANDS

GUELPH

Note: 86.7% of the population is on the Saanich peninsula while on 13.3% is on the Islands. Unfortunately, GPC support is high on the Islands than the mainland (at least mainland Vancouver Island), and voter turnout is considerably less on the Islands (59% vs 72% on the mainland).