Time for the Green party to call it a day

If the Green party hadn't been so boneheaded four years ago, it might have several MLAs waiting to be sworn in today.
The party's failure to support the single transferable vote in the 2005 referendum is one of the great all-time political bumbles.
Greens would have been the big winners if STV had passed. It has enough support to be sure of winning seats under the system.
Bizarrely, then leader Adriane Carr first fought against STV and then said the party would be neutral.
STV received 58 per cent support in that referendum, just below the 60 per cent needed. An extra 500 yes votes in each riding could have changed the outcome. And a strong Green effort could have delivered those votes.
The Green referendum position reinforces the perception that most parties on the outside, on some level, are happy to be there. The hardcore base equates popular support with ideological weakness. It took Stephen Harper, after all, to drag the Reform/Alliance base into the mainstream from its comfy, crabby outsider den.
Carr, now one of two deputy leaders in the federal Green party, wanted a different form of electoral reform - a mixed member proportional system. That would see two kinds of MLAs. Some would be elected from constituencies and then others would be appointed, from lists proposed by the parties, to ensure the legislature reflected the popular vote.
The system is widely used in other countries and has its own strengths and weaknesses.
But the Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform didn't recommend it. The members, after months of study, thought STV was a better choice for B.C. That's what was on the ballot.
Carr initially threatened to throw the party into the battle against STV. After some internal wrangling, the Greens decided to remain neutral.
No one can know whether Green support could have tipped the balance. I think it would have.
This time, the Greens took eight per cent of the vote. That could have produced three seats under STV.
Earlier this year, polls had the party as high as 16 per cent. Many of those people abandoned the party because they judged a Green vote would be wasted. They decided that it was better to back a Liberal or NDP candidate. Or to stay home.
With STV, they would have stayed with the party, which could have meant more Green MLAs.
And then, of course, there are the other impacts. What high-profile candidates might have come forward to run for the Greens if they had a real chance of being elected?
But that chance was thrown away. STV fell just short in 2005 and was soundly rejected this time.
Which leads to a question. Is it time for the Green party to dissolve, at least as a party running candidates?
Leader Jane Sterk got 17 per cent of the vote in her riding, the best Green showing. She finished third. The party's overall support fell again, as it did in the last election.
It's hard to see the point of running for office if there is no hope of being elected. And equally hard to see the point of voting Green, particularly when that costs you a chance to have a say in the battle between the two main parties.
British Columbians, in rejecting STV, have opted for a two-party system. Greens could have influence by joining the Liberals or New Democrats and pushing their issues. They could become a voting bloc and support a party or candidates that back their goals.
Otherwise, they're going to a lot of trouble for an opportunity to be in candidates' forums.
And they are choosing not to have a voice in deciding who represents them and which party governs.
Certainly, the Green party can keep raising issues. But by failing to fight for STV in 2005, they lost any hope of electing MLAs. The party seems, if not pointless, at least an ineffective way to bring change.
Footnote: If Green voters had shifted to the Liberals or New Democrats, the outcome could have been much different - from an NDP majority government to a more dominant Liberal one. There were 18 races close enough that Green votes, redistributed, could have changed the outcome.