Something that should have been done, though, is to have that Stuart/Elizabeth ‘debate’ session put on Youtube – that would certainly have shown the issues covered [or not] and then, after 2 weeks, have a vote.

It would have put some distance between the ‘popularity’ aspect and allowed deeper thinking about the party and its direction.

It would also have given others a good opportunity to think about their own parties and what is needed.

At the time, it seemed like a good idea. I didn’t vote in that election, but I might have voted for Elizabeth.

But the party has endured three years of her leadership, and she has hollowed out the party. Only Elizabeth-clones – female, activist and politically inexperiencd – have survived the purges.

Your point about her book and the state of democracy within the Party is exactly the question I put to her at the Saanich-Gulf Islands EDA AGM in July. Her inadequate reply started me to think about standing against her as a nomination candidate (see the conclusion of Part 1 of this series).

It’s a sad state of affairs. The only conclusion that an intelligent person can come to is that despite her high public profile, electing Elizabeth May as leader was the worst decision the Green Party ever made. It may never recover from her self-seeking depredations.

My first candidate application was “mangled in the fax machine” but no-one told me til I phoned them. I sent it again, a week later. A week lost.

I was told that the party had a policy against male candidates parachuting into adjacent ridings. This was reserved for females only. As a recent member of council, someone who knew the rules, I challenged this, and it was withdrawn.

The story of obstruction goes on at length, but it culminated with Elizabeth herself coming out – unannounced – to the nomination meeting in OWN in Apr 2008. Where she worked the room and told riding executives that “the party doesn’t want John to run here”.

She also stood up from the floor and debated me, which was *weird*. She brought along a group of staff/supporters, who also debated me. A long night. In the end, I lost by one vote

Elizabeth has a lot of nerve writing a book about the failure of democracy in Canada.

I’m going to offer an answer to this in a while on this site — so stay tuned!

There is no place for true environmentally conscious, altruistically aware, capitalist nonsupporters to go.

The problem with the Green Party is far deeper than your fairly accurate assessment of myself (except that I’m also a realist). Those Greens who agree with my position on internal party processes have mostly already quit the Green Party in disgust.

So I agree, even with a better timetable and process, I would still have been starting from way behind and doubt that the outcome would have been much different. No surprises there.

Assuming everything went according to your preferred timetable/process, I doubt the outcome would have been materially different. You are, let’s not forget, trying to winover members who have in all likelihood been convinced to fork over $10 by someone in person to join (or continue to support) the Elizabeth May lead party.

Even if there was a significant lead time, and you were allowed to sign up new members, do you really think the outcome would have been different? You strike me more as an idealist, not a retail “huggy” politician. The latter sell and maintain the memberships while pressing the flesh and stroking the egos. Very few of this group would be convinced to switch allegiances, realistically, as was demonstrated.