Isn't It a Shame?

Hmm...that and another 20,000 votes (concentrated in one riding) might've even won them a seat!

Seriously, though, there's no way that I'd be happy with Harris if I was still with the Party. Their vote basically stagnated, and they failed to win a seat...which is made worse by the fact Harper will probably get rid of the taxpayer subsidy. If I were in your position, I'd be begging Harris to resign now, and hope that whoever took over from him would be willing to devote every ounce of the Party's energy to winning one seat before the next election...
 

Matt,

We both know I've never been a huge man of our man Jim Harris. I think he's a decent speaker, but nothing earth shattering. I don't know much about his management style or his leadership abilities, however I certainly think he's done a good job bringing the party to "the next level" from where they were before he took over.

I'd debate whether or not the vote stagnated - they didn't change much in terms of popular vote on a percentage basis, but did manage to bring in almost 100,000 votes more than last time - an increase of something like 13%. Something however that you cannot argue is that they clearly did not win a seat.

I wish I knew what the answer was to making the Green Party a bigger player. More than ever this election has made me realize how difficult of a task winning one seat really is, and will be. When someone like David Chernushenko or Andrew Lewis, both people that I have huge amounts of respect for, barely manage to achieve 10-11% of the vote, it really makes you wonder what it WOULD take to have that breakthrough.

I think the leader - whether that's Jim or someone else - needs to somehow get the media to pay attention to them during the "down time" until the next election. I think they need to be pushing NOW to try to change the way that debate participation is decided. I think they need to do a better job of trying to grow the party from within. And, ultimately, I think they need to choose one, two, or three ridings in which to focus a LOT of effort and energy to increase visibility, presence and participation.
 

Given that they only went from 4.3% of the vote to 4.5%, it's pretty reasonable to say their vote stagnated. Basically, their vote only grew in proportion to the higher voter turnout...which is to say, not nearly as much as it should've, given all the supposed advantages the Greens had going into this election that they didn't have last time around.

If you want to know the answer to the problem of how to make the Greens matter, you have the answer to the problem right in your very last paragraph: they need to quit trying to get candidates in every riding, and instead focus all their energy on a handful of ridings -- maybe up to 10 -- where they have a realistic shot at winning. They know they won't be included in the debates if they have 308 candidates; that's been well-established, and at this point the only thing they're proving is that they can find 308 people in Canada who are willing to put their names on a ballot. They'd accomplish far more if they spent their money wisely, and identified the ridings where they might win, and then devoted every resource they had to winning one of those seats. Of course, as long as they have Harris, that's not going to happen, since he's so ridiculously stubborn...but, given that he hasn't resigned yet, I don't think you guys are going to be rid of him for at least another two years, meaning you'll continue to wallow in electoral oblivion...