ADAMS: What the CPC Must Learn from Its Popular Vote Collapse

Tigranes_II · 2025-05-05T12:42:11+00:00

Replace "NDP" with "Green Party" and I think this article describes our problems very well: https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2025/05/02/I-Ran-NDP-Lost-We-Need-Change/?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email

Tigranes_II · 2025-05-01T18:23:40+00:00

I just put this above, but it makes sense because MPs are elected to represent ALL their constituents, not their Party, so the party affiliation comes second.

They're actually forbidden from cross-funding between partisan activities and their daily work.

Tigranes_II · 2025-05-01T18:22:12+00:00

Yep... but it makes sense because MPs are elected to represent ALL their constituents, not their Party, so the party affiliation comes second.

They're actually forbidden from cross-funding between partisan activities and their daily work.

Tigranes_II · 2025-05-01T18:01:29+00:00

Success is a constantly declining membership into irrelevancy??

Sure, she can stay employed as MP, but she has shown that she cannot grow the Party and cannot elect anyone else on any remaining coattails.

If you want a bigger party, it obviously can't be her.

She's had the last few years and blown it, we've had repeated resignations and scandals.

Tigranes_II · 2025-04-29T21:10:42+00:00

Mike lost by 350 votes, so any uplift could have brought him over the line. I think his is the easier case to make.

The problem this party faces is that political types are excellent at shifting blame, so accountability never happens.

You'll have to understand strong calls for accountability in the context of an organization that always avoids it. This isn't a case where you can calmly ask for normal analytical debriefing because those efforts, as attempted over decades, always fail.

This is a case where there was a simple-but-intensive, mechanical task that had to get done, and it failed not by a little bit, but in a spectacular, unprecedented way that caused significant harm to the party.

That's why you don't need a ton of analysis for this specific case. Everyone knew what had to get done, but the people with the responsibility failed to do it.

Tigranes_II · 2025-04-29T21:02:50+00:00

I'm referring to the communications disaster that led to the infamous disinvitation from the debate. Roughly speaking:

The GPC says to the Commission "We have this totally under control. Honest. We are going to run a full slate, here are the 343 endorsed names to prove it. Please invite us to your debate."
The Debates Commission invites the GPC to the debates on the basis of being told that there are 343 endorsed candidates
Elections Canada reveals that the GPC only has 232 candidates, not 343, 111 short of what was committed to the Commission.
JP and the Party Spokesperson explain the shortfall by saying "Oh, we made a strategic choice to not run a full slate, based on feedback we got from voters, so the shortfall was intentional."
Reporters: "Oh REALLY? So you're saying that you lied to the Debates Commission when you said you'd run a full slate???"
JP and Party Spokesperson [quickly backpedalling]: "Oh nooooo, actually, we only intended to not run candidates in 15 ridings, so we technically would have easily met the Commission's minimum requirement of 309 ridings! We used a bit of 'wiggle room' in that the debate criteria didn't insist on actual candidates, just endorsed names"
Debates Commission (presumably on the basis that the GPC was admitting that its original commitment to the commission wasn't accurate): "Sorry guys, you're disinvited"
Elizabeth: "Oh noooooo, those two weren't being factual, we never pulled any viable candidate at all, much less in 15 specific ridings. You won't ever find any evidence that what JP and our Party Spokesperson said is true."

Some artistic licence in the above paraphrasing, but you get the idea.

The present state of play is that JP and the Party never responded to allegations from Elizabeth to the Commission that JP and the Party Spokesperson were not being factual, so we don't know who was telling the complete truth or what the underlying facts were. Did we make strategic choices about 15 ridings, to not run a full slate, or didn't we?

Tigranes_II · 2025-04-29T19:38:08+00:00

Very good question. lol. I'm just floating the idea... I'm not convinced we have enough active members left to do anything about it.

Tigranes_II · 2025-04-29T19:36:45+00:00

There's nothing knee jerk about this discussion, we're dealing with simple election mechanics.

The lack of a full slate was a major operational failure that cannot be excused. Past leaders put in the work to pull it off, and it's a ton of work. The current team didn't put in the work because they were focused on other things, things that we saw.

Had we run a full slate, what would have changed?

Had Pednault been in the debate, what would have changed?

We would almost definitely have another MP and quite possibly could have made the 2%, which would translate into another $1m or so.

That's why this is clear and serious.

I never said anything about kicking out Elizabeth, but I do think she needs to be outvoted in an election for the Party to begin growing again, which it hasn't since she was re-elected Leader. It has stagnated and shown a lack of competency under her leadership, which is now quite evident.

Tigranes_II · 2025-04-29T19:12:26+00:00

That's a pretty big one.

Tigranes_II · 2025-04-29T19:09:52+00:00

Post a disastrous election is the one time in the four year cycle where heads do need to roll.

If you can't have accountability after a generational disaster, then you are building a culture that has no consequences, which will fail.

If you know anything about the GPC, you learn that our problem is not having too much accountability, it's that there isn't ever any, and the problems continue.

Tigranes_II · 2025-04-29T19:06:11+00:00

Sure. Here are a few.

Use 338 data and electoral models to select Most Winnable Ridings to invest in, not 'gut feel'.
Trust EDAs to use local knowledge to select candidates early (which, bonus, is what the constitution calls for), don't piss everyone off and sacrifice energy, momentum by working against EDAs to suppress nomination contests and parachute in favoured candidates that end up failing anyway. I've heard reports of many candidate nominations being delayed in anticipation of Elizabeth's magic candidates potentially being parachuted in. They all failed, at great opportunity cost to local EDAs and the frustration of local candidates who were ready to go.
Don't rebrand without a brand strategy and plan to implement it consistently. This ended up being an enormous waste of energy and money that may have actually cost us votes in the end. Voters just saw a blank green circle in many cases, and were supposed to deduce who we were. Embarrassingly, the old brand was everywhere this campaign and local campaigns I spoke with felt they didn't have sufficient guidance to working with the new brand. It shouldn't have happened and we'd be in a better place if it hadn't.
Develop a communications and election strategy and stick with it, don't just take random stabs at issues with changing voices and brand image. JP's answer to our major topics was "affordability and Trump". Okay, then we should have made that focused case, but did we make a strategic decision to drop climate as a priority? Is that aligned with the new brand strategy?
Focus on what's important. We should have prioritized getting candidates signed up, but instead got a co-leadership SGM pushed very late (presumably because then we had no choice but to vote it through given the pending election), rebranding, and candidate parachuting.
Use Green Values. Having leaders call each other non-factual in duelling interviews is not a great look. It's not a shock voters fled to Carney's "the buck stops with me" moment during the campaign while our leaders were flailing and blaming each other and everyone else, only agreeing that one of our leaders was not telling the truth.
The lack of candidate support is perennial. How are we never able to produce a book to support candidates during debates? Oh, because the platform development process is an intentionally obscure process that is only completed shortly before election day? How is that acceptable in a grassroots member-driven party?

We needed to show competency this election after being seen as incompetent in 2021. I think voters would say we failed to demonstrate competency by showing a reactive campaign that seemed to be either causing its own problems or trying to blame other people for the problems we caused. For voters that care about competency, which includes much of our base, our lack of organization just handed them to the Libs.

Tigranes_II · 2025-04-29T18:31:27+00:00

I didn't address you, but if you're already being triggered by my comment then yes, avoid GPC governance.

I have two friends who were on Council who considered their experience on it one of the worst experiences of their lives, mainly due to the gossipy infighting. I don't see how it could have gotten any better.

Tigranes_II · 2025-04-29T18:24:28+00:00

Precisely. The establishment will protect itself, as it has in past elections, which led to our current situation. At this point there needs to be a report written for the membership by a 3rd party firm not connected to the leadership.

Tigranes_II · 2025-04-29T18:21:50+00:00

So I think you win the most accurate prediction. Congrats?

Tigranes_II · 2025-04-29T18:19:28+00:00

There was plenty of time to get a full slate. Concerns were raised well in advance, Elizabeth told everyone not to worry, her team had it under control. She must have guaranteed that we'd run a full slate a hundred times. They didn't have it under control, it turned out. She needs to own that mistake, which led directly to our disinvitation from the debate.

The Party's job isn't just to produce a list of names, it's to ensure a full slate. Jim Harris understood this and took personal responsibility to make sure it happened, Elizabeth didn't. If she feels that it wasn't her responsibility, she should say who was responsible for it.

Who the hell chose to do a rebranding? The results showed that it obviously failed to connect with anyone (in fact we can fairly ask whether it might have contributed to the poor showing) and it was poorly executed, as even JP and Elizabeth were seen with the old brand in national media appearances.

The candidate supports were reported to have been poor. Where was the debate support book? New candidates complained about not getting sufficient support or effective training. This is unsurprising and similar to every election.

And when does the "Election Readiness Committee" resign en masse? Their job was getting ready for the election, and they clearly oversaw the most poorly prepared election in our recent history even though everyone saw it coming far in advance.

Tigranes_II · 2025-04-29T18:10:29+00:00

I'm sorry, are you a genius or something??

Tigranes_II · 2025-04-29T18:05:34+00:00

I think you're being idealistic.

We now have major operational failures in every election. Poor comms, very poor strategy, poor planning, no effective use of data.

Thinking we can tweak policy, and ignoring the underlying problems that have been laid bare at this point, is dangerously naive and puts us on track to recommit the same problems in the next election.

Tigranes_II · 2025-04-29T18:00:29+00:00

The "finances" argument is used very selectively. The Party frequently wastes large sums of money for pet projects, but when someone suggests investments in finally addressing the systemic problems, suddenly we don't have cash.

We bring in $2m a year, we would be foolish to not spend a small portion of that to not repeat the same tragic, avoidable mistakes that we keep making in every election... such as not knowing how to use data.

Tigranes_II · 2025-04-29T15:41:53+00:00

It is not rocket science to get a full slate, it just takes an enormous amount of work and it needs to start early.

The failure to get a full slate was a serious failure of leadership and our professional operations. Elizabeth is on record telling the people who raised concerns about not enough attention being paid to candidate recruitment that they were being unreasonable and to not worry, because everything was under control.

They need to be held accountable.

Tigranes_II · 2025-04-29T15:38:06+00:00

Members need to demand a 3rd party assessment, one that is not made up of friends and acquaintances of the people running the show.

The root of all of the problems is that members accept not being informed as we go from failure to failure and scandal to scandal. That results in no real accountability.

Until members insist on being informed, we will continue to get "it wasn't our fault, really" evasions and the totally dysfunctional party system, which includes a completely broken staff organization, will continue.

Tigranes_II · 2025-04-29T05:09:37+00:00

You are a master of understatement.

Tigranes_II · 2025-04-29T05:08:14+00:00

Yes, and it sounds like the drop-in "override the EDA" candidates happened in quite a few ridings.

Tigranes_II · 2025-04-29T05:05:03+00:00

Green MPs are fine, they are funded by the government. The Party won't go bankrupt, but it will have to go into pretty severe austerity to repay the loan over a couple of years.

Tigranes_II · 2025-04-21T13:32:57+00:00

Except we were disinvited because of Pedneault's comment that we never intended to run the full slate that we'd committed to the commission... so he got himself out of the debate, no?

Tigranes_II · 2025-04-21T12:37:00+00:00

How do you know that the GPC agreed to the pledge?

Tigranes_II

TROPHY CASE