The dominance of valence issues in electoral politics in Canada and other mature democracies such as Britain and the United States is typical but not inevitable. The upcoming Green Shift debate promises to be different because it will involve discussions about the efficacy of innovative government fiscal policies to protect the environment. Of course, the environment, by itself, is a quintessential valence issue -- everyone favors a healthy, pollution-free environment and its many attendant virtues. However, by proposing a radically revamped tax structure to achieve this highly valued consensual goal, the Green Shift becomes a contentious position issue. Thus, Canada's forthcoming Green Shift debate will provide an excellent opportunity to determine how voters make their electoral choices when confronted with a major, novel, position issue with strong normative overtones. The explicit link between environmental and economic consequences made by the Green Shift policy can be expected to appear in similar debates in other major democracies in the years ahead.
This study examines two topics: 1) the explanatory power of rival valence and position models of party choice in the new issue era; and 2) the dynamics of partisanship and consequences for Canada's new party system. The study re-interviews 6,018 Canadian citizens who participated in a survey conducted for the 2006 elections. The respondents are interviewed before and after the 2008 election to examine the impact of the Green Shift issue on traditional vote choice models and to consider the factors causing changing partisan attachments in the Canadian electorate across two election cycles.
