Susan Low had this to say about voting Green, even when youre under pressure to use strategic voting. I tried sharing her comments with the share option, but it took out her comments and went to the attached article. So here it is, copied and pasted. She speaks my mind! Theres a critical flaw in thinking that the Greens should just strike a deal with either or any of the other parties. That assumes the membership of the party will see electoral success as more important than the principles at the heart of the party, which one has to assume are not shared by the other parties; if they were, why would so much effort and so many years have been put into building the Green Party as a separate entity? Why should it be the Greens who bend their principles under the yoke of another party just to win? If winning is all that mattered, wouldnt the Green Party members have just sucked it up and joined another party by now? No. Im a Green Party member, both federally and provincially. The reason is that I believe in the six core Green principles, and I believe they offer a better basis for building a strong and equitable society. Ill acknowledge most people have no idea what the six principles are (now is when you open a new tab and Google them, pls). Thats a communications problem, not a policy problem. Society is changing and becoming more aware of the need for sustainability, social justice, etc. and that is why Green political successes are growing. We are coming into our time. I have friends in all of the political movements. (Theres an odd thing about politics - you may disagree with your friends, but love their commitment and passion). I fully respect my NDP and Liberal friends (and even my holdout Conservative friends). Their parties have achieved many successes which have shaped the way our world is now. I believe they are good... but I believe the Green principles are the way we need to move in the future. I am not Green because I *dislike* the other parties, but because I like the Green party most. I like to vote FOR something. Do we need to cooperate temporarily in order to achieve proportional representation, or preferential balloting? Cooperation might move things along faster, certainly. But whose principles would be left in the dust? Would we win a few ridings more, but have to agree not to raise a stink about hunting licenses? Take an extra seat in this or that community, but shush about a pipeline? Our principles are worth standing up for. Thats what the people who started the Green Party 30+ years ago were doing with their time. Theres a maxim that I find useful, much of the time: cheap, fast or good: you can only pick two. In this context, we could get to our electoral successes faster, and maybe not have to put so much effort in (cheap), but the successes would be not nearly as good. (Right now the evolution of the Greens has been very much cheap and good, but not fast). This is why I get so annoyed when people talk about strategic voting, or cooperation, or avoiding vote-splitting. Call me an idealist, but Id rather work FOR something in my politics than simply strike a deal in order to win. My principles are worth more than that.
Posted on: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 04:13:11 +0000