"Not just specific trades in different ridings, but an effort to be more collaborative so that we can figure out -- in a first-past-the-post system -- can we work together to ensure that (Prime Minister Stephen) Harper enjoys a one-term period as prime minister.
"We cannot afford more than one term of this government."
There was a comment left on one of my posts, which had a certain inherent logic, if you take May's resolve to the final conclusion:
I May wants so badly for Harper to be defeated - why is her party running any candidates at all?? Name me one riding in all of Canada where having a green party candidate running in addition to a Liberal and an NDP candidate running is somehow going to help end Harper's reign as PM. If she wants Harper to lose so badly, why doesn't she pledge NOT to run any candidates at all and instead that she will endorse whichever NDP or Liberal candidate she thinks has the best chance of defeating the Conservatives in the next election. Or at the very least should could unilaterally pledge not to run any candidates against any NDP or Liberal incumbents.
If her singular goal in politics is to defeat Harper - that's what she will have to do.
I ask the following seriously, rather than an attempt to draw the ire of Greens, people which I respect- should the Greens pull candidates from ridings where the prospects of their running benefits the Conservatives? Following the May logic, in ridings where the fight is clearly between the two main parties, wouldn't an exit by the Green candidate, with an endorsement, be the best way to end the Harper reign? Unless a Green has a realistic chance of winning in a riding, then isn't the strategic play, the moral one, according to May, to coalesce around the candidate with the best chance of defeating the Conservative?
Are these fair questions?