G Huxley

"She was in the first one. You already heard her. You got your way. She took on the big boys already. Now this woman can be quiet and let the three men take care of the real business." - Canada_First Yeah that woman had her 15 minutes, now she just needs to shut up and know her place while the men take care of business. (sarcasm)

How can a 'best event' be anti-democratic?

Name some.

The greens are a multi-issue party. Are you really scared of people representing the environment having such sway?

You've spent now well more than two hours debating that she shouldn't be allowed in a 1 hour debate. So whose time are you really concerned with?

"Just wish she was a *conservative...." If she was a *conservative Harper would keep her muzzled and locked away without a key. She has nothing in common with the conservative party.

You can't base democratic elections on statistical inference. The only important statistic in terms of results is what the statistic from the votes are on election day. Doubleing their elected MPs in an election is pretty good.

Of course because it's part of their strategy. Divide and conquer between the liberals and the NDP. They have to debate against someone at least or it's not a debate and even the pretense of democracy however falsely represenative of actual democracy would be gone. Not that it stopped David Cameron or Harper from emulating him.

It's a different kind of threshold entirely as we are talking about two different systems of representation so we are discussing apples and and oranges. The percentage of the oranges may be much much lower than the apples, but they are still two entirely different fruits. My point is that what is considered 'fringe' in Canada is considered mainstream in Sweden, because they have a more democratic system, not that it's perfect.

You can't base things on induction and she's building a party. She's gone from 0 to two or 3 MPs in a few years, and she's likely going to expand quite possibly with another MP coming from my riding this election. Anyway we shouldn't have to fight for a chance for fair and equal competition. It should be fair and equal the chance to begin with if it's really a democracy.

Easy to prove from the article: ""The Aurea Foundation, with assets of almost $16 million, reported no political activities in its most-recent filing with the CRA last year. It helped fund a group of largely conservative think-tanks, including the Fraser Institute, the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and the Montreal Economic Institute.""

Well said.

Not equal exposure by any means. What little comparative exposure she has she's had to fight for from authortarians constantly trying to sideline her from a fair political dialogue.

Yes but the point is the same that exposure translates into votes.

No it isn't. Democracy is rule by the people. If the head of State is a monarch it's simply not a democracy. Also minority governments without forming a coalition in a parliamentary system would be an Oligarchy rather than a Democracy.

Of course. My vote has only transferred into representation once in all the times I've voted so on average it's worth something like a .1 of a vote.

No it isn't. It's a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Sweden has proportional representation, while Canada doesn't.

No they aren't worth the same, because they don't necessarily translate into representation, while in a place like Sweden they are virtually guaranteed to transfer into representation.

The votes are counted, but they aren't represented and that's the difference. In a democracy voters are represented. In a place like Sweden the Pirate Party are a mainstream party, because the votes that go towards them aren't simply thrown in a gutter afterward like they would be in Canada.

The Official Party Status has to do with internal in the house politics and has nothing to do with the process of fair elections. In fact one could argue that it was a partisan piece of legislation drafted in the 70s in order to benefit the political elite and to ensure their unfair domination of politics, not to mention gain public funding for their parties.

Protest votes are still votes. In Sweden they count, whereas in Canada the protest votes are thrown in the gutter so no protest is really registered. That's what makes Sweden's system more democratic. People who protest shouldn't be deemed fringe and sidelined. Democracy needs protest and needs to take it seriously. Without dissent and differing views there is no democracy.

In Canada 'the pirate party' would be considered fringe, but in Sweden where they have a different approach they are mainstream. Often what keeps parties 'fringe' is simply the fact that they have been intentionally sidelined and not given a fair chance, not that they aren't considered an option by many people if they have equal opportunities.

Agreed but you referred to my vision of democracy and that is part of my vision of democracy.

I was referring to the different electoral systems being part of my vision of Democracy since the context was "my vision of Democracy."