On Monday night, one of the Ottawa ridings held a debate between the three Green Party leadership contenders: David Chernushenko, Elizabeth May, and Jim Fannon. Being a high-minded citizen journalist, and a long time supporter of the Green Party, I invited four little-g Greens out to the debate to see what they thought of the contenders.

What they had to say was interesting: there are two great candidates for leader. Each one would make a strong leader, but each appeals to a dramatically different crowd. They said that this election isn’t about choosing the best person for the job, it’s about choosing the direction for the party.

The informal focus group consisted of Alex, John, Cath, and Julie. They are like me: in their late twenties and early thirties, informed, and concerned with the state of our country. They are socially progressive. They want to see a Canada that can provide for our children and grandchildren as well as it provided for us. But they aren’t Green Party members, and they wouldn’t call themselves environmentalists. They are the centre that every party is fighting for.

How each candidate came across

All four agreed that David and Elizabeth both looked good, and that Jim Fannon’s unilingualism ruled him out as a serious national contender. Similarly, they reached agreement on how David and Elizabeth came across.

David got top marks for his knowledge, practicality, and pragmatism. Both John and Alex praised his “thoughtful” answers to a number of questions, while Julie described him as “trustworthy”. Where he fell down, however, was in his passion. He took a while to warm up to some of the questions, and, in others, he came across as somewhat stiff. While his answers were intelligent and interesting, he didn’t make them “punchy” enough, occasionally drawing them out.

Meanwhile, Elizabeth scored with her passion, knowledge, and ability to speak in soundbites. Her speaking ability stood out, especially her ability to make comments memorable. Interestingly, the group agreed that Elizabeth also had a passion problem. She came across as someone who felt so strongly about things that she wouldn’t be able to compromise. At the same time, all four agreed that some of her strongly held views seemed unattainable and unrealistic.

Jim Fannon, on the other hand, split the opinion of the focus group. They agreed that he was entertaining, fun, and approachable. He seemed less knowledgeable than David and Elizabeth, and had a habit for mentioning his business. He’s the kind of person that could make the party look good, but seemed likely to shoot his mouth off. Someone (Cath? Alex?) compared him to Carolyn Parrish. His strength was his populism. When didn’t have things to say, he fell back to telling the crowd to buy a membership in the party. Alex seemed the most taken with him, saying that he seemed sincere.

Which leader to choose?

All four of the consensus group agreed that both David and Elizabeth would make a strong leader, but that their leadership would make the party appeal to two very different crowds.

They said that Elizabeth’s inspirational speaking will draw in the activists, the environmentalists, and those who want to believe that the world can change. In Julie’s words: Elizabeth would make the Green Party look more like the NDP. Elizabeth would fail to draw in the more pragmatic and less idealistic folks from the other parties. Perhaps most importantly, she would reinforce the impression that the Green Party is just a bunch of tree-hugging hippies.

According to the group, David would present a very different face. His pragmatic approach would appeal to a broader audience. His apparent willingness to compromise and listen would make him a stronger ambassador to non-Greens. Whereas Elizabeth would draw votes away from the NDP, everyone agreed that David’s reasonable nature could draw votes away from all of the other parties. In Cath’s words: David seems like he could appeal to more than just “leftists”.

Jim Fannon’s unilingualism hurt him a lot, and so did his lack of knowledge. He was quick to pick up on good ideas from the other candidates, and when he was knowledgeable, he sounded good. But both Julie and John were a little creeped out by his constant sales pitch. Cath called him entertaining, but said that he babbled, and told the crowd “a little too much information”.

Who they chose

The focus group was unanimous. David was their choice. They said he came across as trustworthy, pragmatic, and intelligent. They said that he was the kind of person that Canadians would accept, and the kind of person Canadians would listen to.