M.Dancer Posted September 2, 2008 Report Share Posted September 2, 2008 Nevermind, I made a mistake because of ambiguity. The Bloc received 10.48% of the popular vote for all of Canada, not just 10.48% of Quebec. Which I guess doesn't make sense anyway. Why? They just about polled twice as many voters as the greens.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 What does that mean in numbers? Near as I can figure, they received about the same number of votes. The Block won ridings, where the Greens didn't.I hate having to support The Green Party because I don't necessarily agree with their platform, however, I don't see it being a particular problem to allow any party that can run a candidate in every riding a spot at the debate. I could not disagree more. Anyone can run candidates. Having candidates is not a measure of political viability, electability is. If having candidates in every riding becomes the new standard, every fringe party will just make sure that they have that and chaos will ensue. Enough elected members to achieve official party status is the only real way for a party to prove that they have anything close to the support that they claim they have. Comparing the Greens to the Bloc is largely a smokescreen. If the Greens objections to the Bloc were realized, it would be more likely result in the exclusion of the Bloc, not the inclusion of the Green. I'm not so sure that would be a bad thing either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanInOttawa Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 CTV: Liberal MP to sit as GreenWelcome news. Welcome new federal party. There's no excuse now to have Greens excluded from the debates. New and hopefully, fresh air is much welcome in the stale federal politics. I also welcome the green party to the house of commons. I think they have put in their dues. However, there is a problem, that is the Liberal/Green agreement to not run canidates in each of the two leaders riding. I don't like that, either you are with them or you appose them, but in politics you can't have them both. It will be interesting to see how the main stream media treat this. Will they let May in the debates or not? I heard two things today: The Green Party has hired a lawyer and the media were meeting today to discuss this. Have not heard anything on the second. May has scheduled a press confrence for Wed. to anouse the lawyers name. Statement by the Hon. Stephane Dion, Leader, Liberal Party of Canada and Elizabeth May, Leader, Green Party of CanadaApril 13th, 2007 Out of respect for each other and out of our shared commitment to a greener Canada, we are not running candidates in each other’s ridings. http://www.elizabethmay.ca/features/May ... eement.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ontario Loyalist Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 You seem to be missing an important factor. To be elected, they have to get more votes than the second choice. Getting a seat isn't simply getting 5 out of a 100 people to vote for you.....it's about getting the largest block in any one riding. I guess the whole concept of "truely democratic system" is a little to complex for you? Do you want me to clarify what a democracy is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ontario Loyalist Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 Nevermind, I made a mistake because of ambiguity. The Bloc received 10.48% of the popular vote for all of Canada, not just 10.48% of Quebec. Which I guess doesn't make sense anyway. That's irrelevant; they don't run candidates outside of Quebec. Every single elector in Quebec could vote for them and still wouldn't matter. They are not a national party while the Green Party is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 I guess the whole concept of "truely democratic system" is a little to complex for you? Do you want me to clarify what a democracy is? No I'm quite up to speed thank you. Would you like me to give you a primer on the Canadian Parliamentary System? A point which may have escaped you, it is truely democratic. Never mind, I think I already did... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ontario Loyalist Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 No I'm quite up to speed thank you. Would you like me to give you a primer on the Canadian Parliamentary System? A point which may have escaped you, it is truely democratic. Never mind, I think I already did... LOL, if you think Canada's system is "truely democratic" then you are sadly mistaken... like usual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanInOttawa Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 So you just made up this arbitrary criteria, or does it have a rational basis?The fact of the matter is that they are a major party based on their level of organization, support, and performance in the last three or four elections. Virtually every other democracy has a PR electoral system; if Canada had one, they would have elected between 9 and 15 MPs in these last elections. I would be saying the same thing if we were talking about the CAP or neorhino.ca, etc. (just not any Communist parties--these should be illegal for good reason). I have been reading a few details about the Ex-Liberal Blair Wilson. I am starting to see why he is an Ex-Liberal. I am starting to think that this is purely a poliyical move on the Greens part, one that may backfire on May. - nochodaddy http://speakyourmindeh.ca/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4Bill Lougheed, Wilson's father in law, made several allegations in the October 28, 2007 edition of The Province[4], a Vancouver-based newspaper. The Province's article alleged that Wilson and his wife were subject to Social Services Tax Act liens on three properties and owe $2.1 million in bank mortgages, that Wilson misled the media about the true extent of his business success, exaggerating the number of restaurants he founded and claiming to have sold an accountancy business his in-laws claim closed, among other discrepancies, and that when Wilson's two restaurants, Mahoneys and Wilson's Steakhouse, closed, he was taken twice to the B.C. Employment Standards Tribunal for refusing to pay employees, was sued twice for failing to pay contractors, was twice compelled by the courts to pay GST owing, and was also taken to court by a supplier over $33,839 that was owed (this amount was later paid). - Wikipedia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 LOL, if you think Canada's system is "truely democratic" then you are sadly mistaken... like usual. LOL LOL. The concept of universal suffrage, local, regional and federal elections needs explaining in detail, LOL. LOL. Or perhaps you know a secret that no oe else does LOL. LOL I would say that I'm all ears and interested in why you think Canada is not "truley democratic", but I would be fibbing, LOL, but go one ae annyway, someone here may be an insomniac, LOL LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 Why? They just about polled twice as many voters as the greens....And the NDP got nearly twice as many votes as The Bloc, while the Liberals and Conservative each garnered at least 3 times as many votes. Big deal and completely beside the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ontario Loyalist Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 LOLLOL. The concept of universal suffrage, local, regional and federal elections needs explaining in detail, LOL. LOL. Or perhaps you know a secret that no oe else does LOL. LOL I would say that I'm all ears and interested in why you think Canada is not "truley democratic", but I would be fibbing, LOL, but go one ae annyway, someone here may be an insomniac, LOL LOL I guess you already know that you're a loser, so I won't bother reminding you. Never mind, I think I already did... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 And the NDP got nearly twice as many votes as The Bloc, while the Liberals and Conservative each garnered at least 3 times as many votes. Big deal and completely beside the point. Not really. No one questions whether the NDP (or the conservative and the Liberals) have a legitimate place at the televised debates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 LOL, if you think Canada's system is "truely democratic" then you are sadly mistaken... like usual. That's your opinion. Others DO consider our "first past the post" system to be democratic. There are many flavours of representative democracy. Who decided YOURS was the ONLY one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 Not really. No one questions whether the NDP (or the conservative and the Liberals) have a legitimate place at the televised debates.That's my point. WHen the conservatives lost official party status, I thought they were still allowed to the debate. I'm suggesting that one of the fairest metrics for deciding is if a party can gather enough people to run in every riding in the country. This won't allow fringe parties with minimal support to take part in the debates, but it will allow for smaller, yet fully functional, parties like The Greens to participate. Unfortunately, making that a stipulation for the federal debate eliminates The Bloc from taking part, but as far as federal politics are concerned, they're a provincial party that doesn't have the interests of all Canadians in mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 The first Green MP. Bit of a Soylent Green, I'd say. He will never win another election in BC most assuredly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 This won't allow fringe parties with minimal support to take part in the debates, but it will allow for smaller, yet fully functional, parties like The Greens to participate. Not to mention the various communist parties, the Libertarian Party and my personal fav...the Natural Law party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 Not to mention the various communist parties, the Libertarian Party and my personal fav...the Natural Law party. Should they be excluded because you personally dislike their stance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 (edited) I see two problems with this one, the Greens have never had a member elected into parliment, and that this liberal at the time of the campaign will never have sat in the commons as a green. So I say no May should not be in the leadership debate. Now if they do have this liberal re-elected as a green they should be able to participate, or someone crosses the floor during the parlimentary session and sits in the commons as a member, not just annouce their intention and then go into a campaign. They should be able to participate if either of these two condidtions are met. Otherwise as of now nothing has changed. Edited September 3, 2008 by Alta4ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normanchateau Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 Do you want me to clarify what a democracy is? A democracy is where a candidate can be elected a Liberal MP, be found in violation of the Canada Elections Act three times, be booted out of the Liberal party, and become a Green MP with the full endorsement of Elizabeth May. Opportunist Blair Wilson almost makes Belinda Emerson look ethical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 Should they be excluded because you personally dislike their stance? No not at all. They should be excluded because just about everyone dislikes their stance as proven by their performance in the elections. There is no sense having a party in the debates of the major parties simoly because they can field 308 people who will tally last on the count on election night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normanchateau Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 I'm suggesting that one of the fairest metrics for deciding is if a party can gather enough people to run in every riding in the country. Having such a metric will encourage parties like the Christian Heritage Party to run 308 candidates. Maybe that's not such a bad idea. It would siphon off some of those Harper voters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 Personally I would set the bar quite low. 10.1% of the popular vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 So what if those parties do have 308 people running? Let the leaders have a voice at the debates. As long as the debate is organized, timed, etc... They should take the time to allow all of them to speak. Who cares if relatively few vote for Christian Heritage or Marxist-Leninist, the point is that there are some people who vote for them, they're a national party with a person running in each riding, so those party leaders should have an opportunity to speak. Not allowing certain federal parties to speak at the debate is nothing short of censorship, imho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ontario Loyalist Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 Not to mention the various communist parties, the Libertarian Party and my personal fav...the Natural Law party. The NLP is a deregistered party... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ontario Loyalist Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 Having such a metric will encourage parties like the Christian Heritage Party to run 308 candidates. Maybe that's not such a bad idea. It would siphon off some of those Harper voters. They couldn't if they wanted to, or they already would be doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.