Green Party of Vancouver to run four candidates for council in 2014 election

In the 2011 civic election,  Adriane Carr made history by becoming Vancouver's first Green city councillor. Now, her party hopes to quadruple its seats on council. 

At its February 6 annual general meeting, the Green Party of Vancouver decided to field up to four council candidates in the upcoming November 15 election.

Carr and lawyer Cleta Brown have declared they are seeking nominations, according to a party news release issued today (February 12).

“We have felt strongly for quite some time that Councils dominated by a single political party are not conducive to genuine democracy,” Green party chair Jacquie Miller said in the release. “The reality is there’s more adversarial politics and less collaboration and consultation at the Council table.

“There’s less collaboration with the public, too - hence the many clashes Vision Vancouver has had with local residents over community plans, development proposals and community centre control. The Green Party of Vancouver believes that better, more democratic decisions come from parties and councillors working collaboratively with the public and with one another instead of one party exerting dominance and pushing through its own agenda."

The Greens say they have yet to determine how many candidates they will run for park board and school board.

Carr was the party's sole candidate in the 2011 election.

In the 2008 election, the Greens successfully ran Stuart Mackinnon for park board as part of an electoral alliance with Vision and COPE.

Comments (19) Add New Comment
Vision Vancouver is the greenest city council of any major Cdn. city and yet the Greens feel they need to split the progressive vote which will only help the conservative NPA in their attempts to ungreen Vancouver.
Rating: -45
“We have felt strongly for quite some time that Councils dominated by a single political party are not conducive to genuine democracy,” Green party chair Jacquie Miller said in the release.

So why run only four candidates to elect 2? Why not a full slate and the potential of getting 4 elected? Are civic politics still being colluded behind the scenes by the a small interchangeable group dedicated to keeping civic CBAs generous and the Developer Party (har har) out of power?

A full slate indicates diversity and interest in your party; running 4 merely indicates a willingness to do the minimum in order to keep your tax exemption status as a party and continue to raise money for elections you never contest.
Rating: -41
collarbone o'hare
Ah, ha....Adriane (the Egg Plant) Carr - Green at tip only, thinks she can create a power base. It's her prerogative, but why doesn't she just run for the leadership of the NPA. She supports them 99% of the time. Nothing wrong with that, if that's the way she feels. But it sure ain't Green.
Just sayin'
Rating: -12
Stuart Parker
Hurray! I knew my former party would find a way to make sure anti-Vision vote-splitting increased! It's a team effort in this town. I am absolutely confident that the NPA, Cedar Party, Vancouver First, Team 2.0, NSV, COPE and the Unnamed Chudnovsky-Aquino vehicle can find a way to divide the votes of the 65% of Vancouverites who oppose Vision in such a way that our governing party can lose votes AND gain seats this fall.
Rating: -13
An Inside Observer

You speak of which you not know what may be coming

In politics 1 week is a lifetime, 2 weeks an eon, a month is an eternity,

Just wait, things can change in a hurry

There is lots laying in the weeds for Vision.
Remember what goes around comes around.

Forget the malarkey pumped out by Vision and their trolls, all is not well in the land of "look here all shiny nothing to see there.... move along"
Karma can be such a b,.tch at times

Rating: +6
Rick in Richmond
Some of the commentators here are politically naive.

Running a partial slate can be an extremely smart move, and maximize the impact of a (relatively) small group of electors. How?

Plumping. Something the Greens have obviously, and cannily, considered.

Plumping means to cast only a restricted number of ballots available to you. If you have 11 votes (for 11 Council seats), and you only cast four of them, you have -- in effect -- withdrawn votes from the other 7. If you cast only 4 votes for only Greens, you have thereby 'plumped' your slate, and denied votes to others.

Democratically, it means you vote ONLY for the people you want.

Arithmetically, plumping gives added weight to your vote. It is how small parties make inroads into the territory of big parties. It is smart politics, and the Greens know it.
Rating: +20
Chris Green
Adrienne Carr just shot herself in the foot. The only way she made it into the top 10 last time was by being the only Green candidate, thus receiving 100% of the 10th votes from supporters of all the other parties who wanted one Green councilor. By giving those voters four choices (especially if there's a Green candidate whose name starts with A or B), she's ensured that her term in office will be coming to an end.

Of course, this may be part of a master plan to be available to campaign 24/7 for the Vancouver Centre seat in Parliament in 2015.
Rating: -3
James Blatchford
The Greens: making it safe to split the progressive vote again.


May 14, 2013.
Rating: -10
Stuart Parker
Inside observer, I assume you are referring to the NSV-COPE-Green deal that Tim Louis is negotiating. The Greens have thrown Tim into that briar patch exactly as Chris has described.
Rating: -5
Bela Bugliosi
The Greens are nothing more than a spoiler party with the goal of getting the NPA back in power. The ONLY thing green about the Green Party is the envy they have for those who are already paid by the tax payer. If the NPA were to control city hall again, 2 or 3 Greens would be sure to get cushy patronage plums. What a bunch of losers. They're so desperate for a sinecure they'll sell out cheap.
Rating: -1
Rick in Richmond; You are close. But plumping is probably quite rare. Most people will want to use all of their 10 council votes. (the 11th vote is a separate one for mayor)

Running a restricted number of candidates is smart though. Running a full slate is splitting your own vote, as only party faithful would give all 10 council votes to the same party. Hopefully a lot of voters will endorse the actual candidates they like. (and not vote strictly along party lines)

Vancouverites may actually be ready for 4 greens on council. A coalition between left/green parties can only make that more likely.
Rating: +4
An Inside Observer
NSV - COPE now there is deal made in heaven lol... NOT
An electoral coalition doomed to finished as close to the bottom as possible.

Certain control freaks within NSV are scraping bottom after TEAM 2.0 booted them to the curb.

I am afraid RJ and his group and Tim and his group and Adrienne and her group (NSV doesn't count as it's basically run by an out of control, control freak) may siphon off enough votes on the left that no one gets elected from that side.

On the right Cedar (run by yet another control freak) and Vancouver First won't offer much fight against daddy big pockets Armstrong and the NPA.

So you basically have VISION and TEAM in the middle and unless TEAM gets its act together, Vision will have the centre right/centre left vote to itself as it bamboozles its way through yet another sleepy election.

The loser of course, the City we live in.

Rating: -3
Quite a lot of partisan posturing on this board: from the jilted former Green to the Vision shill and everything between.

Some points to consider:
- 'vote plumping' is indeed a legitimate and oft used voter technique (for those 30% that bother to show up) indeed, I've never voted for a "full ticket" nor do people I speak with. I vote for the handful of candidates I think are doing or could do a good job. Thus, I don't vote slates and ever vote for School Board (I am under informed). I certainly won't be voting for ANY Vision candidates this time around.

- Vision will run a full slate and a well funded media/advertising campaign with 'fun' and 'progressive' announcements in the months leading up to election.

- Vision is assuming people will vote for the full Vision slate and give them absolute confidence to run the City unfettered by any opposition. I have a hard time imagining any Vancouverite but for the most koolaid lip-stained rube having that degree of confidence in Vision.

- The "Green as NPA" ruse is a hackneyed red herring that was first employed by Vision's communication team to discredit opposition that might usurp the notion that Vision are the greenest. Carr votes in line with NPA? inaccurate - but as one of the three opposition councilors on a highly partisan Vision dominated council, it's true that she mightn't always support Vision, but to suggest NPA affiliation based on opposition would be like saying all Federal Liberals are NDP because they are in opposition to Harper.

- If you want to talk about "green as NPA" (note not capitalized Green) look no farther than Vision Vancouver, both parties glean hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of real estate/developer contributions, the only difference being the greenish patina on the Vision front. The Green Party on the other hand, don't take developer money, period.

- Squandered opportunity for an NSV-COPE-Green coalition? The fact the Green's aren't running more than four suggests an interest in diversity in council, which is probably a good thing. But any blame for COPE's situation and likely poor showing in November must rest on their own leadership and infighting.

IMO Greens have a real place in the upcoming election, presumably from progressives who can't stomach Vision's bullying, rhetoric and pandering to developers.
Rating: +1
collarbone o'hare

Can you refresh my memory,Wankoover,and cite ONE major issue (even a minor one) where Adrienne (The Egg Plant) Carr has not supported the NPA on? I will be forever eternally grateful. Please enlighten us all.
By the way, some former NPA'ers like Peter Ladner and Gordon Price are Green, and I admire them.
Adrienne Carr!!!???
I hope your not a purposly dumbed-down troll in Mr. Armstrongs employ.
Rating: -3
@collarbone o'hare

I think the onus would be on you to support YOUR claim of Carr "supporting the NPA 99% of the time", It was after all your claim, which you offered without any examples or reference.

I hope you are a purposely dumbed down troll in Mike Magee's employ, because frankly the Vision attacks reek of desperation and a fat-cat party that is 100% out of tout with the people who actually live here.
Rating: +1
collarbone o'hare

Ah, you are!!! (LOL) You said: "Carr votes with the NPA? inaccurate." Ok,if I was I will apoplogize. Just give me ONE instance. Just ONE. That was all I asked.

See, dear readers. Ah, WEN will this all end? (LOL)
Rating: +2
@collarbone o'hare

If only to prove you are a petty troll - with little to offer but hubris, innuendo and hackneyed Vision rhetoric, here's your ONE item, per all you asked.

Point Grey Road bike route.

Now, I am waiting for YOU to back up your utterly baseless claim that Carr is an NPA supporter.
Surely, as you've quite confidently proclaimed she is one "99% of the time" I'm expecting you will have many examples to share with readers. I for one, am waiting in rapt attention. Please don't feel obliged to provide all "99% of the time support" examples, just one is fine (but try and make it a good one)...

Before you waste your time, and waste my time responding to you (I am not in the employ of a deep pocketed party's communication staff) — I'd like to educate you on a very simple distinction, because I suspect you have a limited grasp of how civic politics work:

Voting against a Vision motion, is NOT implicitly the same thing as supporting the NPA, it means not supporting Vision.
Rating: +10
Adriane Carr
Mike Magee was the first that I know of to concoct the line that I vote with the NPA. It's a ploy, of course, to try to stop people dissatisfied with Vision from voting Green by spreading lies. Truth is, I regularly move Amendments and Motions to support what the public asks Council to do that the NPA votes for, but Vision votes against. Truth is, there's times I'm the only Councillor voting with the people, like against the Rize development in Mt. Pleasant. Truth is, this article is about the Greens deciding to run up to 4 Council candidates because people want change, support for the Green Party is on the rise, and two-thirds of Vancouverites say Vancouver would be better off with no one party dominating Council and able to ram through their agenda at their whim.
Rating: -6
Bela Bugliosi
Carr says: "support for the Green Party is on the rise"

Thanks for the laugh. Now run along and pretend you're the Mayor and that everyone loves you.... you right wing flunky.
Rating: +7
Add new comment
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.