kengs333

Yup, that's "democracy" for you; a ten percentage point difference between the Liberals and PC leads to a forty percentage point difference in representation in parlaiment. And 8% of voters are denied representation altogether.

That article is pretty much a joke; one day after the elction it's predicting the rapid decline of the Green Partyof Ontario--erroniously referred to as a "single-issue party"--based on what?--the fact that it had it's best showing ever in an election? The environment was a non-issue in the election, and always has been with the Liberals and PC, who only pay lip-service to the issue. Even if these parties step up their rhetoric, they will only be able to do so within the framework of their parties' archaic approach to the issue. Neither of these parties will be able to address the issue to the satisfaction of people who have a serious concern about the environment. I think what is more likely is that people from other parties will start migrating to the Green Party, thus making them more mainstream. I stated a few weeks ago that the Green Party will eventually work its way into the role of "third party" at the expense of the NDP. This will probably occur in the 2011 election.

Some people join the party to push their own single-issue. If you care to read his other posts and those that he has deposited on other message forums, then you'd realize what led him to join the Green Party and just how insincere he is about the welfare of the party. Why he is elected in his riding is a matter for that specific riding association; I know little about the process that brought this about, but I would assume that many of marijuana smoking buddies had something to do with it. So does he really represent the the Green Party voters in that riding--probably not. The riding never does all that well, and my guess is that a significant number of traditional Green Party voters in the riding switched to a different party.

During the election coverage on CBC they profiled a few e-mails in which people claiming to be PC stated that they voted Green Party. When you think of it, this is quite logical; it's the NDP that is on the opposite end of the political spectrum, and voting for the Liberals would be voting for one's arch enemy. The Greens are a legitimate option because many of their economic policies are conservative, their concern about agriculture and urban sprawl is something that appeals to people living in rural regions, they are a major party and voting for them as opposed to a fringe party may result in representation, as it almost did in Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound. The Greens have always styled themselves as neither left nor right. How often have I heard the Greens being refered to as "leftwing"? It only reflect's the accuser's lack of political understanding and their own political stripe.

Very interesting results from this election in terms of votes for the Green Party. Starting with Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, where the candidate placed second with 33.52% of the vote, the Green Party managed to place third in a distinct block of ridings, in which they received at least 10% of the vote in all but one (Barrie - 9.51%) of the seven other ridings. The question is, is this the result of increased concern for the environment or acceptance of Green Party platform in this ridings, or is it the result of discontent with the PC party?

Sorry, but I don't know any Christians that are "quite willing to kill to fulfill sick prophecies" so I would like to know where you are getting this from. If you are referring to people like Jim Jones, then it's pretty clear that you don't understand what is written in the Gospels. There is a difference between people who claim to be Christians and true followers of Christ. Many so-called Christian denominations have become quite formalized; I would argue that they are not truly Christian, although in the end it is for God to decide what fate people who follow this path will have. Others are the product of false prophets, etc. Lumping all "Christians" together is not valid, since most denominations have arisen from disagreements on doctrine. Putting me in the same category of "Christian" as Catholics is not only an serious error on your part, I find it quite offensive.

Anybody hear anything about voting irregularities in their part of the province? I heard that there are a number of Burlington residents that have to vote outside of their riding in Milton.

For once I will admit that she has a point, and I might add that in any proposed "point system" as you suggest, basic math should also be included.

Christ taught nonviolence, never advocated the use of violence or killing to spread the word of God. That fact is readily enough proven just by reading the Gospels. What people who claim to be Christians do in the name of God is another matter. Jesus states that many will hear the Word, but most will later deny it or not live up to God's will. Only the few will reach eternal life by faithfully abiding by God's will. One can assume that those who kill in the name of God will not find God's favour, but that is only a matter for God to decide, as written in the Gospels. One has to draw a distinction between those who claim to be Christians and those who are true followers of Christ. In my opinion the people who come closest to being true followers of Christ are members of Anabaptist sects, although they certainly are not all perfect. Ask any Amish person if they believe they will go to Heaven, the vast majority will state that they don't know, but God willing they will. As they should. Nobody knows what God has in store for them. One thing is for sure--and the Bible is very clear on this--anyone who subscribes to a Christian denomination in which rituals, idol worship has been introduced has been led astray. And people who follow supposed Christian leaders--Jesus warns of false prophets--are also being led astray.

This thread should be closed. It's way off topic.

I seem to recall this being in the news over the last year or so, and anyone who follows Ontario politics should have known that the process was going on. As for making people aware of it, I've seen ads everywhere. When I e-mail, when I received my voters registration card, in the newspaper, etc. It takes all of five minutes to read the literature, because the change is fairly basic and shouldn't be all that difficult to grasp for people who are literate. How much easier does it have to be before it's understood by the majority of Ontarians. Or maybe we should just forgo all of this and adopt the FD (facist dictatorship) or AM (absolute monarchy) mode of government. That would save the unwashed masses from having to concern themselves with the intricacies of electoral reform all together.

Ummm, "massive majority"? Try virtually a dictatorship. The PCs got about 70% of the vote, yet they received 43/47 seats. I don't have my calculator on me but that would be about 90% of the seats. How democratic.

No, the process has been going on for quite some time, and you weren't paying attention. The sad thing is the NO side is probably going to win because the majority of people don't pay any attention to provincial politics and simply don't know what's going on. Being politically aware is an obligation of each citizen in a democracy. You're not justified in making this situation seem as though it was suddenly foisted upon the people, because that's just not the case. You have only yourself to blame for your lack of knowledge about the referendum.

They're just fear-mongering, mouthing what they've read in their favorite mainstream newspapers which all seem to be opposed to MMP. The elites don't want a change in the system because they dominate the game as it is; MMP will open up politics to the people and no longer confine it to the political elites of a few major parties.

Isn't it closer to 500,000 muslims?

And what if a report was sent...?

No, I'm still Green, just a conservative alternative. I've been a Green Party member and supporter for longer than you can remember, and they will always be my first consideration in an election. As for, "Unless I change my mind and feel like pulling your strings some more as it so easy," this is a pretty blatant admission that you're nothing more than a TROLL. So please shut up and go away.

So in other words, for an issue to have legitimacy in the FPTP system, it has to have widespread support in a concentrated geographic area--the arbitrary 'electoral district'--rather than moderate support nation wide. So if, for example, 50,000 people in a riding can elect an MP, why should it be that 50,000 people nation wide can't? Either way, it's the political choice of 50,000 people, but with the FPTP system, if by some fluke they all don't happen to be residing in the same electoral district, the votes of 50,000 people have no legitimacy. That's not democracy. Spare me the "handpicked" business, that not how it will be. Any party that tries that won't get votes. (Besides, most people vote for the party as opposed to local candidate anyway...) Any way you look at it, in GB there are a slew of single-issue parties in Parlaiment. Is there chaos, an ineffective government? If that's not the case, then why would it be with MMP? It's the process of choosing MPPs that's being determined, not how legislature conducts itself.

MMP has been proven to work just fine, which is why it was chosen. The system is more representative, and that's the point of the legislature, to represent the people. If the electorate is divided between many parties, then that needs to be reflected in the legislature; if the electorate overwhelming supports one or two parties, then that needs to be reflected in the legislature. But as it stands, it looks like about 40% of the electorate is going to elect a majority government. Hardly what I call democratic.

Again the system used by Italy and Israel have nothing to do with MMP. Pakistan and India aren't exactly glowing models of democracy, nor is the United States with its screwed up elector system. And Great Britain has a slew of single-issue parties in Parliament with one or two seats.

If you really believe that, then you're much more of an..., er, naive than I thought. Oh, do tell! This sounds soooo intriguing. So how are you going to go about doing this? Insulting them? Accusing them of living in fear of you? Tell them sob stories from your life? Distribute fliers detailing your lengthy criminal record? I sure they will just be flocking to you in droves. Your part of BC is hardly prime Green territory. Never will be with the likes of you representing the party. As for "uniting all parties"--you're delusional. The difference between "fear" and "obnoxious" is quite considerable. I don't recall ever losing an argument with you. The main reason being that you've never made much of an argument about anything; you just rant and insult... With your every post you just make yourself look like more and more of a fool. You're the Carrot Top of Canadian Politics. Incidently, the likelihood of my voting GP has diminished considerably these last few days. I'll likely go with a conservative alternative.

But you have been banned from them. Returning to sites where one is banned isn't exactly unheard of. The fact that you've been banned is bad enough, but that you return and pick up where you've left off... Some people just never learn. Smoking marijuana does things to the brain, you know... Have fun running for the Green Party; you'll never get elected, and you'll only end up scaring away more moderate supporters.

Yeah, Pakistan the great model of democracy...

You're wasting your time and energy. Somebody like him can't be reasoned with. I don't think he will be around here for all that much longer.

http://forums.cannabisculture.com/forums/u...;Number=1330571