14 October 2008
27 Sep
This is the last in a series of four posts about each of the four major parties in the Edmonton-Strathcona riding, which are posted in the order of the 2006 vote totals. This post deals with the Greens.
2006 results
| Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conservatives | Rahim Jaffer | 22,009 | 41.7% | +2.3% | |
| New Democrats | Linda Duncan | 17,153 | 32.5% | +8.7% | |
| Liberals | Andy Hladyshevsky | 9,391 | 17.8% | -11.2% | |
| GREENS | Cameron Wakefield | 3,139 | 5.9% | -0.6% | |
The Greens did quite well across Alberta in the 2006 election, increasing their vote totals almost across the board, often drastically. Edmonton-Strathcona, on the other hand, was the only riding in the province where the Green vote went down last election, both in terms of percentage and in terms of actual votes. This seems to be traceable back to the presence of local environmental lawyer and international environmental law consultant Linda Duncan as the NDP candidate, who came a strong second.
The winter of 2007 was nomination season in Edmonton-Strathcona, and the Greens were no exception. In mid-February Don Hill, former broadcaster for the popular Wild Rose Forum on Edmonton CBC radio, was nominated as the candidate. This was confirmed a few weeks later in the See Magazine article “The Return of Don Hill: Broadcaster carries Green flag in Strathcona” (which can now only be read in cache), and in a letter from Elizabeth May about issues concerning the nomination procedures in the riding, reposted in a blog.
I won’t be delving into the details of rumours I don’t have print sources for, but just generally we can talk about the period that followed as the rumour period. First, there were rumours that, for various reasons, Hill wasn’t actually going to run. Then there were rumours that David Parker, who actually ended up running in Edmonton Centre, was going to replace him. Then there were rumours that the local Greens were thinking about not running a candidate in Edmonton-Strathcona at all, so as not to dig into the potential vote for NDP candidate Linda Duncan. Finally, current candidate Jane Thrall was nominated earlier this month.
Thrall was raised in Edmonton and schooled in her field of optometry at both the University of Alberta and at the University of Waterloo. She is not only a professional optometrist, but also a writer and an artist who has worked professionally as a food writer. She has traveled to Central and South America to provide volunteer vision care services to local communities, and regards maintaining public health care as one of her key priorities.
So far, it seems to have been a low-key campaign. I’ve seen no Green signs, received no Green leaflets, and Thrall has no independent website. And this is pure speculation on my part, but I suspect this might be deliberate. In an article published VUE Magazine in late 2006, NDP candidate Duncan was reported as saying: “Frankly, the message from the Green candidate in this riding last time was, at the end of every forum, ‘I hope my votes don’t keep you from getting elected.’” It therefore seems quite possible that the local party ultimately chose to nominate a candidate so as to preserve their supporters’ right to vote for the Greens, but to keep their efforts in the riding low-key in an attempt not to contradict their federal leader’s call that Greens vote for the candidate who can best defeat the Conservatives. If it’s true, then they’ve successfully navigated two very conflicting priorities.
Further reading:
Jane Thrall’s page on the Edmonton Greens site
Edmonton-Strathcona: a snapshot
Edmonton-Strathcona: the Conservatives
Edmonton-Strathcona: the New Democrats
Edmonton-Strathcona: the Liberals

Conservative Party
Liberal Party
New Democratic Party
Bloc Québécois
Green Party
Christian Heritage
Progressive Canadian
Marijuana Party
Marxist-Leninist Party
Canadian Action Party
Communist Party
Libertarian Party
First Peoples Party
Western Block Party
Animal Alliance Party
neorhino.ca
3 Responses for "Edmonton-Strathcona: The Greens"
1. It’s normal not to have an independent website for your candidate in the Green Party. The fact is, we don’t have the resources to do that. We run on less than a 1/4 of the budget of the other parties.
2. http://www.greenparty.ca/en/releases/26.09.2008c
The Green Party wishes to reiterate that leader Elizabeth May has never advocated strategic voting. In an interview with the Toronto Star and in response to NDP leader Jack Layton suggesting he was open to a potential Liberal—NDP coalition, Ms. May suggested that all opposition leaders might consider some larger coalition effort before the vote. In the course of a two-hour interview, it was one of many ideas discussed in quite hypothetical terms. Honesty about the perverse and anti-democratic outcomes of the first-past-the-post voting system takes nothing away from the reality that Canada needs Green MPs in the House of Commons.
Amanda,
Unless the Star lied about the material in that article, May did advocate strategic voting. She refused to call it strategic voting “because that leads people to simply vote Liberal,” instead urging people “to examine their riding and figure out how best to keep the Tories from winning.” But assuming that the Star journalist isn’t making things up, she did in fact advocate a form of strategic voting. A much more nuanced form than just voting for a single other party across the board, but it’s still strategic voting. There’s even a direct quote from May in the article saying: “I’d rather have no Green seats and Stephen Harper lose.”
I certainly agree with you that the Greens should have MPs, though–and in any serious democratic system, you already would have many. I hope you do win some.
Amanda,
As a former Green (due to May’s leadership), it is obvious by her quote that she is recommending strategic voting.
“I’d rather have no Green seats and Stephen Harper lose, than a full caucus that stares across the floor at Stephen Harper as prime minister, because his policies are too dangerous.”
Perhaps you should revert to the Elizabeth May weasel tactic of infering that we misunderstood her words.
Leave a reply below or start a thread in the discussion forums
Note: Sometimes people try to portray more support for their candidate or their perspective in the comments section by posing as different people. If you attempt to do this, we will delete all of your comments.Update: despite the above warning, people are attempting to use multiple aliases, so we are now moderating all comments to check against possible abuses. We apologize for this inconvenience, however we will work to get comments posted as soon as possible.