Green Party candidates tend not to win races in national or state/provincial legislative races conducted by plurality. The type of constituency Green parties cultivate is systematically under-represented by an electoral system that privileges regional concentration as the only way a smaller party (measured by jurisdiction-wide votes) can win representation. Nonetheless, even Greens are bound to have some local concentration, as a few near misses in recent Canadian elections discussed here previously have suggested. It seems it would be only a matter of time before some Green candidates begin to break through in FPTP jurisdictions, given the greater salience recently of the party’s signature issues.
In the UK, a recent local council by-election suggests growth within the range that would be needed to win a seat in the next general election. The seat in question is in Brighton, and bears watching.
Source: The Guardian; originally seen at Greens for Greens.
Update: In light of interesting comments from readers regarding Greens in Australia and New Zealand, I have now cross-planted this in those country blocks.
The Australian Greens did win a single-member seat recently, but it was “by default”. Michael Organ won the federal Reps seat of Cunningham (NSW) in a 2002 by-election because the Liberals didn’t stand a candidate: http://tinyurl.com/295ncq . The Organ-ic triumph only lasted until the next general election.
The Greens also came close to winning two lower house seats (Melbourne and Richmond) at the November 2006 Victorian State election.
(As conservative blogger Tim Blair noted: “Melbourne and Richmond are probably the two most densely-populated and urbanised seats in the entire state. How come Green voters never live where it’s *green*?” http://tinyurl.com/3yc9f5 ).
Seed planted by Tom Round — 17 December 2007 @ 00:15
Thanks, Tom. I did not know of that case.
And the name wordplay is great!
(And as to your parenthetical comment, I wonder if the more the organic farming revolution grows, the more one could see Green inroads into rural areas. But probably not. Organic farmers may still have more in common, in terms of political interests, with other farmers than with urban Green constituents. And while Blair’s question is cute–and maybe only intended in the spirit of cuteness–I think it is fairly obvious that Greens, in general, are much more likely to appeal to urban/suburban voters than to rural.)
Seed planted by MSS — 17 December 2007 @ 01:28
Where I live – northern NSW – (a) it’s very green indeed, and (b) Helen Caldicott, as an anti-nuclear Independent, helped Labor defeat then Nationals leader Charles Blunt [*] in his own electorate in 1990. Byron Bay Shire has a Green mayor (elected by IROV) and 2 Greens out of 12 on the Council (at-large STV) (originally 3, but one resigned to sit as an Independent).
[*] As distinct from the then Liberal leader, Andrew Sharp Peacock. That was Oz’s second Peacock vs Hawke contest. We narrowly avoided an Abbott vs Costello Liberal leadership race.
Seed planted by Tom Round — 17 December 2007 @ 05:20
Dr Ken Turner wrote in 1977 that the DLP “retains some political muscle, although its parliamentary representation is now (1975) reduced to one fluke seat in NSW… [w]here K Harrold won the safe Liberal seat of Gordon because the sitting Liberal member forgot to nominate in time.â€
“The Party Contest in the 1970s,” in Mayer and Nelson (eds) Australian Politics: A Fourth Reader, pp 461, 478.
Seed planted by Tom Round — 17 December 2007 @ 05:34
NZ Greens are tending in the ‘other’ direction, note that they are marginal for getting representation (5% or one electorate seat needed) in recent polling.
Seed planted by Errol — 17 December 2007 @ 09:39
Errol, are there constituencies (electorates, as they are called in NZ) where a Green would be likely to win? Perhaps Coromandel, which Fitzsimmons won in 1999 when the party was in danger of falling below 5% of list votes? Maybe others?
It appears that NZ voters are quite good at reading the marginality problem and, if they live in a district where such a marginal party has a chance of winning, voting strategically. That is, clearly significant numbers of Labour voters acted to “save” the Greens in 1999 in Coromandel and some National voters did the same for ACT in Epsom in 2005.
It can work the other way too, as strategic voters in Tauranga helped dump Peters, though NZ First (and Peters himself) still survived on list votes.
Seed planted by MSS — 17 December 2007 @ 17:55
Adding to my comment (#2) above, it would be interesting to investigate the distribution of Green support across rural areas in countries where there is a list vote (as in NZ and Germany).
In the USA, our small Green Party does have a rural caucus, but I have no idea what it is actually up to, or even if any actual farmers belong to it.
Seed planted by MSS — 17 December 2007 @ 17:59
The answer to your question is ‘probably not’ although Brighton Pavilion does represent their best chance (only chance I’d say).
As things stand Polls indicate a Tory win nationally at the next election probably in early 2010.The Tories will expect to recover all the seats lost originally in 1997 and more besides.This includes all three in what’s now known as Brighton & Hove city.Whilst Pavilion is the hardest of the three for them the resulting squeeze will hit the Greens whose best chance came in 2005 when Labour’s certain national victory enabled student and university employees to show understandable hostility to Labour (Iraq etc) by flirting with Greens in Brighton and Lib Dems elsewhere.
Local council election results are a poor indicator of Parliamentary ones (ask Liverpool Lib dems),local council byelections irrelevant.
I do agree however that come what may Brighton Pavilion will be one of the more interesting results and I’d be happy to be proved wrong in my forecasted Tory gain.
Seed planted by psg (London) — 17 December 2007 @ 21:36
NZ Green policy for the last 2 elections has been to focus on the Party vote, so it is hard to say what will happen if they switch back to trying for Coromandel. I haven’t seen any other electorates mentioned, and they were well off winning Coromandel in 2005. (and 1999 was by 250 / 34220).
You are correct about strategic voting in previous MMP elections, but National had an absolute majority in Coromandel in 2005, and the country’s swing is likely to be to National in 2008
Party vote by electorate is at the site above, 2006 census data at
http://www.stats.govt.nz/census/
When looking at recent NZ polls, remember that there is a good chance that the Maori Party will get more overhang seats (they just missed a second in 2005).
Seed planted by Errol — 18 December 2007 @ 09:07
In a further thread hi-jack, Jeanette Fitzsimons, Green Party Co-Leader has
announced she will not contest Coromandel in 2008.
Of the other possible electorates suggested for a ‘strategic’ win at kiwiblog, Wellington Central is urban, West Coast – Tasman is rural.
Seed planted by Errol — 21 December 2007 @ 22:33