Sunday, September 11, 2011

Debunking "What If Lizzy May Was In The Debates?"

A few people out there have stated something so simple, so ground in common sense, that it defies logic to argue against it: that had Elizabeth May been in the national televised leaders debate during the 2011 federal election, the Green Party wouldn't have suffered the nearly 50% loss rate of supporters that it did on May 2nd.

Well, I am arguing against it, for a simple reason that I outlined in a post at the beginning of the election:
This a serious issue for the Green Party. They have two options at this point: either pollsters are a lot more accurate and they're stuck at 6-7%, or they're facing a big drop on election day unless things turn around, and for some reason I doubt May's exclusion from the debates will be that thing.

The key thing to seeing of the Greens can pull themselves out of this decline will be whether or not, come the 14th day of the election, their average is within the range of 5.5% to 7.0% of the vote - if they can outperform 7%, then they'll have a good shot at turning things around. If not, well, it may be that the Greens aren't destined to be the force many thought they could be.
Well, surprise surprise, after the 14th day of the election, the Green Party's average was just 5.9%, meaning they were at the very low end of the threshold I described in that post.

What does this mean? It means that the Greens were doomed to begin with, and the reason is relatively clear to me. While Lizzy May could have heightened her party's profile if included in the debates (though in 2008, there was no noticeable difference), the fact is that the Greens were on a downward spiral to begin with, and May 2nd was just the result of poor management.

1 comment:

  1. I agree. The Green party was polling below where they were in the last election, and they got a low results as a result.