in canada, you don't vote for the greens if you're serious about what you're doing. it's a protest vote.

there are usually two or three serious options in canada - and four in some ridings in quebec. elections generally reduce to which party is best positioned to defeat the conservatives this time around if you're not one; conservatives default to the conservative party. and, we often split the vote.

this might be changing, particularly in parts of bc and parts of ontario. but, this is a reaction to a rightward movement in the major parties.

up until now, the fact is that voting green has just helped the conservatives. this is just simple math. there is a strong argument that the greens cost stephane dion the election in 2008, although they were much less of a factor in 2011 - partly because of an ndp surge.

further, the liberals have generally presented enticing platforms to environmentalists, even when the ndp haven't. the ontario liberals made a lot of very good progress on converting the grid to sustainable energy. the bc liberals introduced a carbon tax. the quebec liberals have been relatively good on this, as well. the federal liberals basically ran on the green party platform in 2008. so, this hasn't just been empty promises - they've made concrete steps. people suggesting otherwise are being dishonest.

trudeau's platform was really not in any way inferior to the green party's platform, and you'd realize that if you actually read both of them. most interesting to me was the idea of a green infrastructure bank that, as a subsidiary of the bank of canada, would essentially print money and use it for transition. that is the way you actually transition - not through market schemes. what we need is massive direct government investment, and they were broadcasting it. i realized at the time that this seemed too good to be true, but the ndp were in the pocket of the oil industry and the conservatives were the conservatives, so it was a hobson's choice - you picked what seemed best.

based on the information available, the liberals were the right vote for environmentalists in 2015.

unfortunately, they've abandoned their platform - and demonstrated that all three major parties are beholden to the oil industry.

but, see, this ironically opens up the situation where voting green becomes necessary as an act of protest. it is only when all of the major parties are the same, when there is no possibility of using the ballot as a means of change, that you revert to voting as an act of protest....

anarchists prefer to broadcast lifestyle changes, and i agree with that. i don't drive. i don't create waste. my carbon footprint is truly negligible. but, insofar as we interact with the voting system, we need to make changes intended to maximize potential outcomes. all anarchists recognize that this is not a full solution, but the smart ones realize it is a tool for our use, too.

it is when we reduce voting to a meaningless statement of values or principles as an act of self-righteousness that we are giving in to the apathy of the voting system - and that is what we are doing when we vote for a party that we know has no chance of winning, when there is an acceptable option in front of us that does have a chance of winning.