Friday, March 9, 2012

Green Party Of Canada Election Tactics 101...Or Robocalls For Dummies

So despite the denials, it appears the Green Party, led by Elizabeth May, along with the other parties, have voters lists that include party supporters as well as NON-SUPPORTERS. It's interesting because the mantra of all the opposition parties has been that it's only the Conservative Party that has a list of non-supporters, when in fact we now know the Green Party does as well, and apparently the other parties. At least according to someone well connected to both the Green Party and Elizabeth May.

"At the outset of the campaign, Elections Canada will provide paper, and electronic versions of the preliminary list of electors for your’ entire riding. The lists will be sorted into separate polls, and further sorted within the poll by street address. Your’ campaign manager will need to assign priority to those polls where the largest number of Green votes are expected to come from. Your’ campaign will NOT have the resources to do the whole riding, so you must pluck the low hanging fruit. By the same token, far more homeowners vote than renters, so, unless you have a compelling reason, you will probably be focusing on homeowners.

The job of your’ volunteers is primarily to canvass door to door, or by telephone, (If you have secured telephone numbers). You are basically asking people who they are going to vote for, and if they are willing to take a lawn sign. You record their answers, make sure you’ve got your’ supporters phone number, and move on to the next household. If somebody is leaning towards supporting the Green Party, you can spend a minute or so with them explaining the policy they are most interested in, but remember that you have about 40,000 households to visit, and only 30 days or so to do it in!At the end of a long day’s canvassing, you return your canvas sheets to the campaign headquarters, where they are transcribed, (or scanned if you’re lucky), to the supporters list for the GOTV.When the advance polls are about to open, you telephone the entire list of your’ known supporters, and ask them to go out and vote at the advance polls. Going door to door of known supporters is best, but will take a whack of volunteers.

This is IMPORTANT! The Green Party voters will be under attack by the Liberals, and NDP over the whole campaign, and the other Party’s will have good computerized lists of all the Greens. "

There is also one other post on this fellows blog that is somewhat cryptic, containing this: " It is clear that in order to win in SGI a significant chunk of voters, (3,000 votes minimum) will need to be poached directly from Gary Lunn’s Conservative support. In order for this to happen, the SGI campaign will need to broadcast a Conservative friendly message, and the National air war (media coverage) will need to reinforce these specific themes. The other side of the coin is that the Conservative vote in SGI will need to be suppressed a bit, and die-hard Conservative voters will need to be persuaded to stay at home on E-Day.

Oh, and by the way, apparently Elizabeth May was against robocalls before she was for them.

"And then, to cap it off, I was actually robo-dialled with an advance poll GOTV message from Elizabeth May this morning. It may not seem like rocket science that in the total absence of a volunteer base in most of the country, the National Campaign should be taking such measures to get out the vote. You must believe me though, this is unprecedented for the National Party. I remember well the scorn I recieved when I used robo-diallers to GOTV for Elizabeth May’s by-election campaign in London North Centre. Well it appears that the disdain from on high has been overcome, and a useful little direct communications tool has been incorporated into the National Campaign arsenal. Not only that, but the fact that any resources whatsoever were dedicated to GOTV for the advance polls indicates that a realisation of the significance of the classic GPC death spiral in the last week of a campaign, and the need to counteract it has taken root somewhere at a decision making level.


Bec said...

Oh this pit does get deeper and the bodies are starting to slide in one by one, two by two!

What a bunch of freakin'liars!

Anonymous said...

Send this to Sun News TV...the only media that report the hypocracy of this smear campaign

Fay said...

Wow, good work CAW and Gabby.
It is obvious the National press gallery is ignoring the facts and are looking just as corrupt as the parties they defend.
Thankfully we have Sun News to present the fair and balanced facts.

Anonymous said...

Good digging, Paulsstuff.

So all parties use robocalls, but they also use the notion of vote suppression, which the anti-Harper crowd has claimed is a recent import from the Republicans by the Conservatives. Imagine that, Saint Elizabeth the Finger Wagger used robocalls too!

Also gleaned from those blog posts by the Green guy is their strategy of attacks on their opponents, something the Saint often decries. She says she NEVER stoops so low as to use attacks on her opponents. She wants to see civil political discourse, don't you know.
"Since a large proportion of people vote by Party affiliation, and their loyalties, (especially Conservative voters) are fixed, the easiest way to keep them at home is to convince them that the Candidate is not worthy of their vote. That means directly attacking the record, and character of Gary Lunn."
-- Gabby in QC

Anonymous said...

BTW, Paul, I think what was meant by the part you refer to as "cryptic" -- "the SGI campaign will need to broadcast a Conservative friendly message" -- is that Greens needed to shed their leftist image and come across as holding conservative views in order to attract some conservative voters away from Gary Lunn.
-- Gabby in QC

Anonymous said...
I found this interesting it needs some investigation as to the smearing without evidence of Gary Lunn MP
in the 2008 election
was the call made without party recognition
Lizzy May seems well versed in DIRTY TRICKS

Anonymous said...
Briony Penn was Liberal candidate and ran as Liberal in 2008 election against our Conservative Candidate Garry Lunn
was the Robo call used by someone as a trial balloon
to test election Canada's ability to unearth the culprits
this becomes more sinister the more we dig

Joseph said...

So let me get this straight.
EC provides a list to each campaign?
Here's a theory then that might clear some of the fog.
Each party also has a web site where you can register as a supporter, but same registration cannot filter out false addresses, or aliases. So if opposing party supporter registers themselves on a list using an address outside of the riding they actually live in, would a campaign worker auditing the gotv vote list make an attempt to contact that individual to tell them their poll has been moved?
Then once contacted, would same be convinced the caller was trying to redirect them from where they actually vote?
Every action has a reaction.
Point is that the issue is being used as a smoke screen.

paulsstuff said...

That's an interesting comment I never thought of. Another thing not mentioned is people move. It wouldn't be that hard to think someone moved to another address in the same riding, but would have a different polling location than thier previous address.

Bec said...

That was one of my first theories Paul.
I called many Conservative voters that after a few calls (other volunteers trying and retrying) the Conservative voters were actually getting a bit weary of the duplication.
These people were cell phone users only and they had moved a few times since 08. Same ## different riding.

Technology has not kept up with reality and I have always suspected this could indeed be a big factor.

Back to Lunn's (whoops..May's) riding....I would love to hear some of the shenanigans that may have gone on there.

paulsstuff said...

"Back to Lunn's (whoops..May's) riding....I would love to hear some of the shenanigans that may have gone on there."

More coming Bec. New post about Green tactics SGI.

James OGrady said...

I think you have your facts wrong. Matt Day wasn't involved in the Green Party SGI campaign in 2011. Matt had a falling out with Elizabeth May shortly after the London North-Centre bi-election in 2007. What he had written for LNC was a canvassing guide for new volunteers. Up until very recently the Green Party did not have an organized canvassing campaign, like the other parties have been using for many, many years. Why do they have these lists? Because like business, this is how you identify supporters, potential supporters and non-supporter for E-Day so you can get out the vote. In contrast to the old line parties, the Green Party tries to remain positive at all times. Engaging and encpuraging non-voters to vote is one of the Green Party's main strategies for improving their vote total. Voter supression is not a tactic the Greens would use because it's not in their interest to do. Perhaps the reason why the mainstream media is not picking this up, is because it's not accurate.

paulsstuff said...

James, part of the quotes were from what he posted during the 2011 election, including the part about being robocalled by May.

Because of space limitations, I didn't copy his entire post, but did provide a link to his blog. To say he was out of the loop in the 2011 election doesn't jive with his own comments. Perhaps this helps, from the 2011 campaign:

"Then there is something unprecedented that popped into my inbox last week. I received an email from the National Campaign, which I can only assume was recieved by the entire contact lists. The email encouraged me to join a national effort to ID the vote in SGI through the virtual phone bank. It is unprecedented during a national election, because normally one would expect Green Party members and supporters to be working diligently on their local campaign. Since there is a decided lack of effective local Campaigns, why not serve the primary objective and put hundreds of people to work building the E-Day database for SGI?"

Your argument falls on deaf ears. My newest post mentions tactics meant to supress and keep the senior citizens of SGI home on election day, that is if they were going to vote Conservative.

Isn't May the one saying we need to encourage more people to vote.

paulsstuff said...

"Because like business, this is how you identify supporters, potential supporters and non-supporter for E-Day so you can get out the vote"

And yet we have the leaders of the opposition parties along with their MP's stating over and over that it is only the Conservative Party that keeps records of mthose not supporting the party on election day.

You and I both know that is complete BS. Also, don't try and repeat May's tired line about the Greens being positive, when this gentleman already alluded to the Green strategy to demonize Lunn through Linda Keen.

As a side note, I'm glad Lunn was defeated, as I think he was a poor minister and came off arrogant. But to try and say May and her party took the high road in SGI during the campaign is stretching the realm of truth to it's furthest extreme.

bluegreenblogger said...

There have been a number of blatant mis-representations in these comments. First off, I did NOT have anything to do with the 2011 electiion campaign. To pretend that I was talking about the actual GPC strategy or tactics is false. What I posted was an outsiders analysis of what would be needed to give Elizabeth May a shot at winning the election in SGI, but I did not expect for a second that it would actually be implemented. If you want to know what I actually said and wrote, then follow the link to the article, and try to do something you obviously find difficult. Engage your cirtical faculties, and read the words that are written, instead of skimming for what you are hoping to find. You will see that I did not think that SGI was a good target riding, but that once the riding had been selected for Elizabeth May to run in, then about 3,000 Lunn supporters would need to stay at home on Eday. For you to view this as some kind of smoking gun is plain silly. Lunn made all kinds of egregious mistakes, and said some things that would make his previous supporters very uncomfortable with him about. Calling those supporters to remind them what he said and did is a totally legitimate exercise in voter suppression. If you prefer I could sugar coat the language and say 'hold Lunn accountable for his statements', but it is the same thing that every party EXCEPT the Green party does. The Green Party is not competent to follow my advice, and never has been. There have only been two campaigns EVER (as far as I know) that have had the resources and skills to contact more than 25% of the electorate. Those two were LNC bi-election, and SGI campaign. As far as targeting opposition voters for well deserved 'holding accountable' (lol), there is little appetite, and fewer resources in the GPC for it.

paulsstuff said...

First of all I'm on the record saying I'm glad Lunn lost. I thought he was a poor minister, smug and arrogant to boot.

Secondly, I included a link to your about-me page, for everyone to look at. Included is this: "managed the Etobicoke Lakeshore federal campaign in 2005-6. I returned to active GPC politics during Elizabeth May’s Leadership bid, where I filled the slot of Ontario Organiser for the EMay campaign. After my (failed) bid to win a city council seat in Toronto’s Ward 6, I headed straight out to London North Centre by-election, where I worked on the GOTV efforts".

You worked on the campaign to get EMAY elected leader of the GP,as well as certain by-elections in some capacity. That is the tie I alluded to. I get you don't like E May, and agree with your arguments why. But the fact is you have played a roll in the GP, and continue to post about it.

You also boasted about receiving a robocall from May as part of the GOTV. You yourself stated the GP has a list of both supporters and non-supporters. You yourself stated that the Liberals and NDP both have similar lists and will be trying to get those GP supporters away. All of which is the opposite of what the three parties are saying publically.

paulsstuff said...

By the way, I might suggest you take your own advice.

"Engage your cirtical faculties, and read the words that are written, instead of skimming for what you are hoping to find."

Your blogpost dated March 4th, 2012 has one major flaw in it, that makes it's entire premise false. You state as fact that 31,000 voters have complained about receiving misleading phonecalls, when in fact EC received 31,000 contacts through an online petition with NDP ties.

I appears you yourself "skimmed" to get that 31,000 number. You might want to include an update on your blog, because all that blather about CIMS, and the 31,000 "complaints" is about as far away from reality any individual can get.

p.s. I'm not that good at math, EC had roughly 30 complaints about misleading robocalls, what percentage of 31,000 is that?

Anonymous said...

Bluegreeenblogger, not that Paul needs me to defend him ... the only personal reference to you that I can see is where Paul says in the opening paragraph: "At least according to someone well connected to both the Green Party and Elizabeth May."

Most of Paul's post consists of excerpts from your own posts, used to illustrate the following points:
• The Conservative Party is not the only party to use robocalls, as has been portrayed in the media.
• The sanctimonious (my word, not Paul's) Ms May has changed her position on robocalls, as you yourself pointed out.
• Lists of voters, supporters & non-supporters, are available to all parties, another fact misrepresented by the media, which portrayed the Conservatives' CIMS (constituent information/issue management system) as somehow sinister.
• That the notion of a form of "voter suppression" is alive and well in other parties, like the Greens. The as yet unproven use of it by the Conservative Party has been condemned, but it is presented as a legitimate tactic in your blog post.

I honestly fail to see why you seemed to take such offence.
-- Gabby in QC