G Huxley

Democracy is about choice so let there be a visual fair and even-handed choice and quit making excuses.

You don't understand the meaning of the word democracy, which is 'the rule of the people' the demos being the personification of the people. If you relegate a considerable portion of the populace to second class citizens then you are anti-democratic.

Exactly. It's just a form of discrimination relegating 500,000 people to 'second class citizens' subhumans. 'The fringes of society' who aren't to have their votes taken seriously.

'Fringe' is just a discriminatory label. 500,000 votes it not 'hardly anybody.'

No half a million people casting ballots out of 10 million people casting ballots is not meaningless. If you think their 500,000 ballots are meaningless then you don't believe in democracy itself.

Then how on earth is she fringe??? If even you think she'd make the best prime minister. Suggesting that people don't vote for her is false. She got elected with a majority in her riding.

Not only that, but if you label them fringe then you have to label May's riding fringe. You've essentially negated the majority of an entire riding and labelled them fringe. Or maybe they are Canadians like you and me and using their brains voted for Green.

Polls from Canadians have shown that she is the most respected party leader in Canada by a majority of Canadians. http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/09/three-way-tie-as-voters-try-and-sort-out-who-can-solve-the-economy/

So throw the baby (Democracy) out of the bath water why don't you. Whatever gives you an excuse that's all you're looking for.

The Greens have seats and they are not a one issue party, but you'd have to actually have read their platform to realize that.

"You're still missing the point. The point is that the Green Party has absolutely no influence." Their leader is the most respected parliamentarian in Canada and was voted as such. If May won the Nobel Prize you'd still be calling her fringe. It is simply a tactic to sideline democracy.

Your number is just an exclusionary tactic. Guaranteed she's going to get more than 4% this time.

Yes. 1. The anti-democratic movement to sideline May in the debates using Machiavellian methods of political hijinx to do it. This shows that The Conservatives followed by the NDP do not believe in Democracy. The Conservatives have shown their complete contempt for Democracy following David Cameron's lead in the UK. The NDP should take Democracy out of their name and the N too as they aren't new anymore. They should simply call themselves "The Party." 2. The Orwellian Bill C-51 The Conservatives followed by the Liberals have shown that they are happy to turn Canada into a total surveillance panopticon like the US/UK/Stasi/Totalitarian China. Democracies don't spy on all the Demos. This is a national disgrace. 3. Each party has promised the moon in order to get elected, Harper is throwing out bribes left right and center to get elected and the NDP and liberals are also throwing out promises of bribes to get elected. 4. Each of these parties are scrambling to say who can let in the most refugees, which brings up #5, which actually should probably be closer to the top. My stance against refugees and immigration in general is based on the destruction to the environment of population growth. Of course keeping the Greens out of the debate reiterates how much contempt there is against the environment in Canada. 5. Both the Conservatives and Liberals who have ultimately gone along with it are continuing the Neocon crusade in the Middle East, which has torn the region to pieces and caused all these refugees in the first place. I'm sure the public can think of many more reasons to be disgusted with the three main parties. I certainly can, but I'll leave these as the top 5 which shows my disgust for them off the top of my head.

Wow just when I didn't think Canadian politics could reach a deeper abyss. This election has shown the true nature of the three leading parties. A bunch of political opportunists willing to sell democracy and/or their grandmothers to get elected.

Well since you insist on it in lieu of letting Democracy having a chance I'll play your game for a bit. "Their cutoff is a great compromise and the only thing that makes me think it might work here." Their cutoff defeats the purpose actually since it is unfair to smaller parties.

Not necessarily if it was PR the Greens would have a much higher percentage of the vote as there wouldn't be all this 'lesser of evils' b.s. Also as I said I disagree with Sweden's cut off. You weren't under some mistaken impression that I considered their system perfect were you?

" They got less than 4% of the popular vote in the last election. That's virtually no support and enough to be shutout of some PR systems." I would be a bit more scientific in dividing. If you have 100 seats 4% = 4 seats. "Right now she's the leader of a fringe party with no hope of getting any more than a few seats." Ok let's talk about cutoffs if you're going to be anti-democratic all three parties are polling at less than a third support. Every single party is fringe to be fair then. Also if fringe people are to be disqualified from from a fair chance then the Conservatives should be disqualified for only have 2 seats in 1993.

Exactly parties have to build and Democracy means that have to have a fair chance to do so.

Don't lie if they had virtually no support they wouldn't have any seats. Polls show May is the most respected parliamentarian in Ottawa far ahead of the actual prime minister who has the lowest approval rating of any party leader there. Anyway I shouldn't have to argue that May is popular she is. The fact is your position is anti-democratic.

Right so she deserves a fair chance to them.

Again Democracy can't be based on statistical inference, but the actual results of the voters (demos). Statistical inference shows that fair exposure leads to more votes for parties, so to deny them that is to deny Democracy itself.

"I'm not opposed to that, but it certainly doesn't come without its dangers." What dangers? "No. Then we have government that will not get anything done" Of course the government will get things done. Forming coalitions doesn't stop things from getting done. "and allow unchecked immigration like they have in Europe. Destroying Canada." Have you noticed that Harper just let in 10,000 refugees?

The only way to change that is proportional representation.

Every seat has a meaning. Each represents their riding. Why are you such an anti-democratic authoritarian?

With a horse race like this actually they are likely to have some real influence and May's influence has already made an impact at least in the sense of compelling the left to actually address the environment and she exposes the crimes of the far right in Canada.