FVC: Consultations Provide Strong Mandate for Proportional Representation #ERRE

back to The Promise: “We will make every vote count” #ERRE

Canadians Deserve Better -Proportional Representation - on Canadian Flag background
This is the twenty-fifth article in the Whoa!Canada: Proportional Representation Series

[Guest Post by Fair Vote Canada]

Fair Vote Waterloo Community Dialogues #1The all-party committee on electoral reform (ERRÉ) has just finished four months of expert and public consultations. They will make their recommendation to Government by December 1st.

Of the ERRÉ witnesses with a position on voting systems, 88% recommended Proportional Representation. This reinforces the findings from decades of research from around the world and of 13 previous electoral reform processes in Canada, including two thorough and impartial citizens assemblies.

When the Government launched the process without a mechanism for collecting empirical data, Fair Vote Canada, a multi-partisan advocacy group, started tracking the process very closely. We are releasing the results of our work to the media because we believe the process needs to be transparent and accountable.

(You can find key a list of results below with links our spreadsheets.)

Fair Vote Waterloo Community Dialogues #@Despite a strong call for proportional representation across all of the consultative platforms, we believe reforming the electoral system could be in serious trouble based on recent comments from Prime Minister Trudeau and Minister Monsef.

President Réal Lavergne expressed Fair Vote Canada’s concerns “We are worried that the Minister and the Prime Minister are saying that we cannot count on the government keeping its promise to make every vote count. Yet experts and Canadians have clearly expressed themselves in favour of proportional representation, which is what it really means to “make every vote count.”.

David Merner, Vice-President of Fair Vote Canada , 2015 LPC candidate
David Merner, Vice-President of Fair Vote Canada and former LPC candidate (2015)

David Merner, Vice-President of Fair Vote Canada and a Liberal candidate in last year’s federal election adds “This is not the time for back-tracking. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Democratic Institutions have personally created a sense of hope in Canadians, building on the 2015 Liberal campaign promise of Real Change. Millions of voters believed that the government intended to keep its promises. We believed the political cynicism of the Harper years was behind us, and thousands of us participated in the government’s consultations in good faith.”

Merner says “Now is the time for the government to deliver on its promises.

Fair Vote Waterloo Community Dialogue ERRÉ in CambridgeHighly regarded Conservative strategist and spokesperson for the Every Voter Counts Alliance, Guy Giorno, adds that “committee members must endorse what’s right for Canadians, not what benefits any particular party. Given the weight of the evidence before the committee, the only legitimate option is a recommendation for proportional representation. Let’s also remember that electoral reform was a major issue at the last election, and voters overwhelmingly supported parties promising change.”

The weight of expert testimony in favour of PR was echoed across the country in hundreds of town halls and public dialogues.

ERRE Info Session at Ayr Branch Library

Over the next few days the ERRÉ will negotiate a recommendation for a new electoral system for Canada. The final report is due on December 1.

Fair Vote Canada’s President Réal Lavergne explains that “Once that recommendation has been made, it will be incumbent on the minister to carry it forward and for the government to act on it. Leadership will be required to educate both the public and parliamentarians, and to champion the proposed reform.”

“Based on all the results of the expert and citizen consultations, the committee’s only legitimate option is to recommend in favour of proportional representation.”

Key indicators from ERRÉ hearings

Canadian Electoral System expert Dennis Pilon testified before the ERRE Committee.
Canadian Electoral System expert Dennis Pilon testified before the ERRE Committee.

88% of expert witnesses who expressed a preference called for proportional representation

4% supported the Alternative Vote
(majoritarian ranked ballot systems tend to evolve towards a two-party system, often favour centrist parties and could further entrench the distortions brought about by our existing majoritarian system. )

67% thought a referendum was undesirable or unnecessary.

Detailed analysis can be found here in our Synthesis of witness statements and views.

Open Mic-sessions

From coast to coast, Canadians lined up at the ERRÉ open-mic sessions asking that the committee keep the promise and deliver PR.

According to data released this week by the NDP, out of 428 participants who spoke up, 374 (87.38%) called for proportional representation.

MP town halls

PR in the Back YardTotal number of town halls reporting: 174

The following indicates the level of support observed for proportional representation in MP town halls.

69.5% (121 town halls) – Majority of speakers calling for proportional representation.

8.6%% (15 town halls) – Majority for electoral reform, but no clear majority specifically for proportional representation

Brantford-Brant Community Dialogue

5.2%  (9 town halls) – Support divided between majoritarian system and proportional representation

5.7%   (10 town halls) – Majority for the status quo

8.0% (14 town halls) – Report does not allow any majority view to be identified

2.9%   (5 town halls) – Majority support for the Alternative Vote

Detailed analysis can be found here in our
Synthesis of witness statements and views.

New Hamburg Branch info sessions

Citizen Community Dialogues & EventsWaterloo Region Greens Community Dialogue

Here are basic indicators from the 27 dialogues or town halls hosted by citizens and community groups posted on the ERRÉ site or for which we have directly obtained the information so far:

Total number of participants: 1,058

88% (22 events) – A majority of speakers calling for proportional representation

8% (2 events ) – A majority for change but no majority for any one option

12% (3 events) – Report does not allow any majority view to be identified.

We are aware of at least 15-20 other community dialogues that are not yet posted on the ERRÉ site.

Detailed analysis can be found here.

Minister Monsef’s Townhalls

Minister Monsef organized two types of town hall consultations: ones in her own riding, and others as part of a cross-country tour. Here is an extract from the report submitted to the ERRÉ on town halls held by Minister Monsef in her Riding of Peterborough:

“It is clear that there is an appetite for thoughtful change to the electoral system. While opinions on the various electoral systems did vary, most participants indicated their support for a more proportional electoral process that still respected the need for local representation and simplicity of the ballot.”

Although Minister Monsef routinely conducted straw polls on issues such as mandatory voting and online voting in town halls on the road, she did not do the same regarding support for proportional representation. FVC volunteers attended these events across the country and shared their opinions. Here are a few quotes from participants:

Toronto:
 “PR was clearly the main issue for most. With respect to PR, many attendees spoke passionately and eloquently in favour, and if anyone present opposed it, he or she was not bold enough to express that view.”

Vancouver: “It seemed that 90% of the audience… did want some form of PR.”

Edmonton: “ It seemed most people were in support of some sort of proportional representation.”

Yellowknife: “She asked whether the participants liked FPTP to remain, or Ranked system or STV or MMP or Proportional Representation implemented. One voted for FPTP. Many voted for MMP and a few voted for PR.”

Yukon: “Some Yukoners came in support of our current electoral system (First Past the Post); more were on the side of moving towards proportional representation.”

Halifax: “The feedback from the groups certainly favoured PR.”

Montreal: “There was an overwhelming support for PR in the room.”

Thunder Bay: “Of the dozens who rose to spoke, everyone spoke in favour of PR.”

Gatineau: “ Participants spoke to PR at every opportunity they had… However, the format made this difficult… Taking into consideration those interventions that spoke to the issue of PR vs FPTP or AV, the overwhelming majority of interventions – in the order of 70% or more – were in favour of PR.”

Waterloo: From the report of 4 MPs: “Every group discussed the need for our new electoral system to feature some degree of proportionality.”

Charlottetown: “ About 90% of the people there were pro-PR.”

Winnipeg: After noting that three people were for FPTP because they feared losing local representation. The rest of the comments I heard were mostly just preferences for the different PR systems.”

Happy Valley-Goose Bay: “What we said was that we wanted PR  BUT, it had to be a hybrid type that considered the lack of population and massive land mass of not only Labrador but 60 % of Canada, i.e. the North.”

Calgary: “There was overwhelming support for getting rid of the current system, with different groups mentioning STV or MMP as their top choice.”

The Hon. Maryam Monsef addresses the crowd in Waterloo Region.A concluding note

And, to conclude, this eloquent quote from a Fair Vote Canada volunteer at the Victoria town hall where the Minister said she “can’t promise you that I’ll be advocating for PR because I haven’t heard that from an overwhelming majority across the country.“

Victoria:

“The wheels were skidding out of control as we tried to combat the spin we received at last night’s town hall on Electoral Reform. Maryam Monsef, the Minister of Democratic Institutions hosted the gathering in Victoria billed as “the last chance” to give your input. But the tone of the meeting was quite acrimonious. They were clearly managing the message while backpedaling from an election commitment about changing the electoral system. Not only did she defend Trudeau’s recent comments about no longer needing this reform because we voted for HIM.”

“After months of hearing expert witness by the proportionally cross-partisan panel, and while MPs held public consultations with thousands of Canadians across the country, are we now to believe there is no appetite for Proportional Representation? Monsef said that she has not yet made up her mind but the implication of her words was troubling. Will the government diminish the committee’s well-researched, democratic report in December by championing their predetermined preference? For many of us who attended last night the so-called consultation felt like a sham.”



PS from Laurel:

I’ve chosen to used my own photographs, here, not only because they are free culture photos (licensed to share under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License) but because the number of electoral reform events in and around Waterloo Region has been staggering, and I wanted to share some of them with you, but there were so many local ERRÉ events that I attended (and I didn’t attend them all)  that there isn’t enough room here to use photos from them all!

There was a time not long ago when I knew nothing about electoral reform.  It was only when I was asked to take photos at local Fair Vote Waterloo events that I found myself listening to what the Fair Vote folks had to say, and after a while I even started understanding it.   This was not an easy process, nor was it fast.  It can take a while to really gain an understanding of something completely different from what we’re used to.  

That’s why every electoral reform event must incorporate an education piece.  The thing that I have seen over and over again is that even though Canadians may not know the words for it, or how to fix it, we know something is wrong with our voting system that needs to be fixed.

That is why Mr. Trudeau’s “We will make every vote count” resonated with so many people.  

And what I have learned from every discussion and every ERRÉ event I’ve attended is that when Canadians have a chance to understand the difference between winner-take-all and Proportional Representation, we almost always want some form of PR.    I think that’s because most Canadians value fairness, and the only way to get to a point where the votes of most Canadians actually count will require some form of Proportional Representation.  

Fair Vote Canada suggests Canadians who want to see the implementation of some form of Proportional Representation would do well to let the ERRÉ Committee know about it, and to make it easier for us, they have an automated tool to help us send a letter urging the committee to recommend PR here:

http://fairvotecanada.good.do/thankyou/keepthepromise

back to #The Promise: “We will make every vote count” #ERRE

Proportional Representation Series So Far:• Proportional Representation for Canada
• What’s so bad about First Past The Post
• Democracy Primer
• Working for Democracy
• The Popular Vote
• Why Don’t We Have PR Already?
• Stability
• Why No Referendum?
• Electoral System Roundup
• When Canadians Learn about PR with CGP Grey
• Entitlement
• Proportional Representation vs. Alternative Vote
• #ERRÉ #Q Committee
• #ERRÉ #Q Meetings & Transcripts
• Take The Poll ~ #ERRÉ #Q
Proportionality #ERRÉ #Q 
• The Poll’s The Thing 
• DIY Electoral Reform Info Sessions
• What WE Can Do for ERRÉ
• #ERRÉ today and Gone Tomorrow (…er, Friday) 
• Redistricting Roulette 
• #ERRÉ submission Deadline TONIGHT!
#ERRÉ Submission by Laurel L. Russwurm
• The Promise: “We will make every vote count” #ERRÉ
FVC: Consultations Provide Strong Mandate for Proportional Representation #ERRÉ

 and don’t forget to check out the PR4Canada Resources page!

Special Committee on electoral reform

The Honourable Maryam Monsef, Minister of Democratic InstitutionsDuring the 2015 Federal Election, the Liberal Party promised to convene an All Party Committee to consider electoral reform so that 2015 would be our last election using First Past The Post.

Minister Monsef and House Leader LeBlanc are scheduled to Make an Announcement on Electoral Reform at 9:00am today ~ Wednesday, May 11, 2016

From the Order Paper we learn the Canadian Government has announced the electoral reform committee:

Government Business

No. 5
— May 10, 2016
— The Minister of Democratic Institutions —
That a Special Committee on electoral reform be appointed to identify and conduct a study of viable alternate voting systems, such as preferential ballots and proportional representation, to replace the first-past-the-post system, as well as to examine mandatory voting and online voting, and to assess the extent to which the options identified could advance the following principles for electoral reform:

(a) Effectiveness and legitimacy: that the proposed measure would increase public confidence among Canadians that their democratic will, as expressed by their votes, will be fairly translated and that the proposed measure reduces distortion and strengthens the link between voter intention and the election of representatives;

(b) Engagement: that the proposed measure would encourage voting and participation in the democratic process, foster greater civility and collaboration in politics, enhance social cohesion and offer opportunities for inclusion of underrepresented groups in the political process;

(c) Accessibility and inclusiveness: that the proposed measure would avoid undue complexity in the voting process, while respecting the other principles, and that it would support access by all eligible voters regardless of physical or social condition;

(d) Integrity: that the proposed measure can be implemented while safeguarding public trust in the election process, by ensuring reliable and verifiable results obtained through an effective and objective process that is secure and preserves vote secrecy for individual Canadians;

(e) Local representation: that the proposed measure would ensure accountability and recognize the value that Canadians attach to community, to Members of Parliament understanding local conditions and advancing local needs at the national level, and to having access to Members of Parliament to facilitate resolution of their concerns and participation in the democratic process;

that the Committee be directed to issue an invitation to each Member of Parliament to conduct a town hall in their respective constituencies and provide the Committee with a written report of the input from their constituents to be filed with the Clerk of the Committee no later than October 1, 2016;

that the Committee be directed to take into account the applicable constitutional, legal and implementation parameters in the development of its recommendations; accordingly, the Committee should seek out expert testimony on these matters;

that the Committee be directed to consult broadly with relevant experts and organizations, take into consideration consultations that have been undertaken on the issue, examine relevant research studies and literature, and review models being used or developed in other jurisdictions;

that the Committee be directed to develop its consultation agenda, working methods, and recommendations on electoral reform with the goal of strengthening the inclusion of all Canadians in our diverse society, including women, Indigenous Peoples, youth, seniors, Canadians with disabilities, new Canadians and residents of rural and remote communities;

that the Committee be directed to conduct a national engagement process that includes a comprehensive and inclusive consultation with Canadians through written submissions and online engagement tools;

that the Committee be composed of ten (10) members of which six (6) shall be government members, three (3) shall be from the Official Opposition, and one (1) shall be from the New Democratic Party; and that one (1) member from the Bloc Québécois, and the Member for Saanich-Gulf Islands also be members of the Committee but without the right to vote or move any motion;

that changes in the membership of the Committee be effective immediately after notification by the Whip has been filed with the Clerk of the House;

that membership substitutions be permitted, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2);

that, with the exception of the Member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, all other members shall be named by their respective Whip by depositing with the Clerk of the House the list of their members to serve on the Committee no later than ten (10) sitting days following the adoption of this motion;

that the Committee be chaired by a member of the government party; that, in addition to the Chair, there be one (1) Vice-Chair from the Official Opposition and one (1) Vice-Chair from the New Democratic Party, and that, notwithstanding Standing Order 106(3), all candidates for the position of Chair or Vice-Chair from the Official Opposition shall be elected by secret ballot, and that each candidate be permitted to address the Committee for not more than three (3) minutes;

that the quorum of the Committee be as provided for in Standing Order 118, provided that at least four members are present and provided that one (1) member from the government party and one (1) member from an opposition party are present;

that the Committee be granted all of the powers of a standing committee, as provided in the Standing Orders, as well as the power to travel, accompanied by the necessary staff, inside and outside of Canada;

that the Committee have the power to authorize video and audio broadcasting of any or all of its proceedings; and

that the Committee present its final report no later than December 1, 2016.

Notice Paper | No. 53 | Wednesday, May 11, 2016 |2:00 p.m.

Of concern to me is the composition of the 10 members of the Committee:

  • 6 Liberals
  • 3 Conservatives
  • 1 NDP
  • 1 Bloc
  • 1 Green

Which is 12 seats on the committee of ten… which seems confusing until you read the part that says the Bloc and Green MPs are unequal members of the Committee,

 

…without the right to vote or move any motion;”

So it seems that the promised “all party committee” is more optical illusion than a reflection of reality.

This does not bode well.

a horizontal border of red graphic maple leaves

Image Credit:

“The Honourable Maryam Monsef, Minister of Democratic Institutions” by Laurel Russwurm is released under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

Tom Mulcair on the BDS Motion

"Let's be clear, the Conservatives are proposing to limit what topics Canadians are allowed to debate. That's not the role of government. This goes against our fundamental freedoms and the NDP will be voting against it." — Tom Mulcair “Let’s be clear, the Conservatives are proposing to limit what topics Canadians are allowed to debate. That’s not the role of government. This goes against our fundamental freedoms and the NDP will be voting against it.”
— Tom Mulcair

Sounds like CBC is waking up ~ read the article Liberals denounce and agree with Tory motion condemning Israel boycotters

Mr. Harper Won’t Be Forming Government

HarperThere is less chance Mr. Harper will form even a minority government than there was Tim Hudak would in Ontario.  The Harper Government’s heavy handed governance in combination with the proliferation of scandals has seen to that.  Even with the media soft pedalling the worst of it, even remaining Conservative supporters have an inkling.

The Harper Government has angered Canadians, including many of their own supporters across the board (from Rex Murphy to veterans). I could make a long list, but the internet is awash in such things.

There is no doubt in my mind we will have a new government tomorrow.

Yay.

 

The only real question is: who will form government?

 

Liberals?

The polls tell us the three biggest parties are neck in neck in neck, but as the election approaches, they all favor Mr. Trudeau.  Is this surprising?  Not when you consider the upholders of the status quo … the corporatocracy, multinationals, the elite, the rich, the 1% … whoever they are —  will only support the two parties that can be trusted to uphold the status quo.  In other words, the Conservative and Liberal parties.

 

When every Canadian on the street knows we are going to heave steve and stop harper, the two media giants that control the mainstream media have come out in favor of the Conservative Government.  Even they say we should Heave Steve… but keep his government.  Seriously.

 

The “political class” on the other hand, much prefer Liberal status quo defenders. They want to return to the Liberal glory days, and hope to re-establish the supremacy of the Liberal brand through the installation of Canada’s answer to George W. Bush, our own second generation political royalty, Justin Trudeau.  Never mind that Justin Trudeau had no track record at all before being anointed.  Before he became Party leader, his only claim to fame was his name.  Whenever the media needed a mild mannered soundbite, they would go to the non-threatening MP who happened to be the son of Pierre Trudeau.  And while it is true Mr. Trudeau has knuckled down and shown his commitment to getting the job throughout the campaign, he has made some serious errors, the most egregious being his steadfast support for  Bill C-51, a law that makes a mockery of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.   When you consider the Charter is probably the single most important thing the Liberal Party has ever done for Canada — the thing every Liberal could point to with pride — it is unsurprising so many life long Liberals chopped up their cards and abandoned ship.

 

Thomas Mulcair, federal NDP LeaderNDP?

The NDP will scrap the so-called Anti-Terror law (formerly known as Bill C-51) and restore the Charter.  The NDP has also firmly committed to Proportional Representation.    These two things are essential if Canada is to have any hope of being a free country.  Don’t vote for anyone who will not commit to both of these.

 

Not taxing big business and the rich has certainly contributed to the fact Canada is the only OECD country still in a recession.  (Mainstream media propaganda has tried to foster the idea this is the second recession on Harper’s watch, but the reality is that we never really got out of the first one.)

 

What has become apparent to those of us online is that most of the Liberal policies effectively continue the Conservative policies of the last decade.  The Modus Operandi if both the LPC and CPC is to “give big business everything.”   As Canada ha signed Trade Agreement after Trade Agreement, the lot of Canadians has increasingly plummeted.  Canada has yet to come out ahead on any of them.  And these secret agreements keep getting worse, with provisions that allow foreign corporations to overrule local governments on issues like protecting the environment.   Maybe a multinational doesn’t care about clean water, but we humans can’t live without it.   The China deal is set to run more than 30 years, and now the TPP doesn’t end, ever.

 

Both Liberals and Conservatives are on board with these agreements, but the NDP promises to scrap TPP.  Yay.

 

And while the NDP is offering some good social programs, they are tippy toeing.  $15 minimum wage sounds great, but if I’m not mistaken, that wouldn’t be applied across the board; but only for FEDERAL employees, and it will be phased in over time.  When $15 an hour isn’t a wage large enough to lift Canadians out of poverty today, that is just too little too late.

 

Then, too, that $15 a day day care sounds good, but it too is going to be phased in, and will only help a limited number of Canadians.

 

The Fear Factor

The problem is that Mr. Harper, (like Mr. Hudak), makes a good boogeyman.  It is easy to scare people into voting for *your* candidate when you can fan the flames of fear.  That’s how strategic voting works.  Has anyone selling strategic voting ever offered to support your candidate instead of their own?

 

Although strategic voting is always sold as the way you have to vote to make sure the boogeyman doesn’t win, if such strategies work, why is there always a worse boogeyman the next time?

Harper Government

There are plenty of good reasons to fear another Harper government, but there just isn’t going to be one.  And everyone knows it, including Mr. Harper.  When I was young, Brian Mulroney’s government was so reviled that after he passed the reins to Kim Campbell, the party was destroyed — reduced from a crushing majority to only TWO seats — by an election.  But compared to Mr. Harper, Brian Mulroney was loved.

 

This is not a campaign on the rocks. This is a campaign in flames.

 

Greens?

Kim Campbell was an unfortunate first female Prime Minister, but we could make up for that by installing Ms. May.  Everyone likes Elizabeth May, even people who would never vote for her want to hear what she has to say.  They say 80% of Canadians wanted to see her in the debates.  But it was worth it to the “big boys” to keep her out anyway, because when Elizabeth may talks, people listen.  Not just because she’s smart, or the best parliamentarian.   People listen because what she says makes sense.  It is, after all, easier to pretend the Green Party only cares about the environment if people don’t ever get to hear from the Green Party.

 

But Elizabeth May is Lizhands down the best of the major party leaders, so you would thing that the Canadians who vote for the leader (which I am told is most of us) would be voting Green.

 

But people don’t vote Green.  Not because they don’t think she would make an excellent Prime Minister, but because they don’t think she could get elected.  And yet, the Green Party runs candidates across the country, so the possibility exists that she could become Prime Minister.  All it will take is for enough eligible voters to vote for enough Green Party Candidates.

 

This year my husband has been running as a Green party Candidate here in Kitchener-Conestoga.  Throughout the campaign I have had the opportunity to meet a great many Green party candidates, and I have been very impressed; the overall calibre of the Green Party Candidates I’ve met has been staggering.  It may be because so many Canadians are engaging in politics like never before, simply because it is starting to come home to us how fragile our democracy is.  Any of the Green Candidates I’ve met would be a credit to their constituents, and I believe many of them are exceptional.

 

Green Party policy is based on a solid bedrock of fiscal conservatism, even as it appears to be pie in the sky stuff.  After all, none of the other major parties even mention poverty as a rule, let along roll out a plan to eliminate it.  The problem isn’t so much that Canadians like poverty, but that people don’t believe eradicating it is possible.  Even though there was a successful Liberal pilot project decades ago that demonstrated it can be done in a way that would make society stronger in many many ways.  But none of the other major parties are selling it, so we think it can’t be possible.  But the truth is, Canada is a rich country that could easily afford to eliminate poverty by implementing a Guaranteed Livable Income.

 

If it was such a good idea, you might wonder why we didn’t adopt Mincome in the 1970’s.  That’s easy: for the same reason so many good things don’t get done in Canada: our unstable uncooperative electoral system.  When your electoral system consists of alternating dictatorships, thinking tends to be very short term. In a winner-take-all electoral system the new king of the castle never implements the old king’s policies, so when the Liberals were voted out mincome was shelved.   And no subsequent Liberal Government even considered revisiting it.

 

What nobody tells us is that the cost of implementing the Guaranteed Livable Income would be a tiny fraction of what we spend waging war.  Maybe the cost of a single helicopter.  But we all have our priorities, right?

 

All it takes is the political will.  

 

So long as we believe we can’t vote for what we want, we will never get what we want.

 

The Real Way to Change

People have the idea that the only way to make sure we don’t elect Mr. Harper is by giving one party a majority government.  That is simply not true.  Although the NDP and Liberal Parties are happy we think this because people who might otherwise vote for what they want will be voting for the big party they think could win.  The truth is that majority government is always the worst possible result for Canadians.

 

But we don’t need to replace a majority government with another majority government.  All we have to do to move Mr. Harper out of 24 Sussex Frive is to unseat enough of the MPs in his party.  There is even much less chance the Marxist-Leninist Party will form even a minority government than the Greens will.  But if the Kitchener Centre ML Candidate defeats Stephen Woodworth, that’s one less Conservative seat in Parliament.  Vote for the person or party that offers what you think is most important.

 

VOTE.

If you haven’t yet, please vote today. (And bring a friend.)  Only you can decide who will best represent you in parliament.  That’s who you should vote for.

 

Here’s hoping we all vote Green.

 

Green Party candidates

 

a horizontal border of red graphic maple leaves