Disenchanted with Liberals, Conservatives & NDP?

[Army Guy]

Hahahaha you are kidding right? The conservatives are so far right that no Liberal could dare call themselves liberal if they vote for Harper. The man is an authoritarian who aims to take us back in time to the 50's. Liberals are progressive not regressive. The main difference between the Libs and new democrats is that the NDP have a strong leader, and no corruption scandals. All true liberals should support Layton.

Show's in the polls, in Fact they are third in a three man race, Jack's leadership abilities are so strong that he is behind MR Dion's....that fact has got to say something....

[PoliticalCitizen]

Show's in the polls, in Fact they are third in a three man race, Jack's leadership abilities are so strong that he is behind MR Dion's....that fact has got to say something....

The only way to take over the the Conservatives would be to form G(o)LD coaliton: Green Liberal Democrat

[segnosaur]

So are Greens the real stewards of the earth? Are they the new defenders of Eden? Are they the ones who will teach us to flow in harmony with the goodness that is nature and God? Will they bring about a healthy natural world again where we will live in heavenly bliss?

Actually, no... the green party and their supporters only think they're the 'real stewards' of the earth. In reality, they and their policies seem to be totally out to lunch when it comes to dealing with the realities of environmental science and economics.

I know people who are green party supporters. However, when it comes to actually having useful knowlege about the environment, they're about as dumb as a bag of hammers. In their case, their knowledge of science and the environment goes no further than knowing what slogans to chant.

Granted, I certainly don't think EVERY green party member is scientifically ignorant. And I certaily don't think that the conservatives, Liberals, or NDP are really any better. But then again, those other parties aren't claiming to be 'stewards of the earth'. Given the fact that the green party has an 'environmental' focus, you'd expect them to have a better clue about what they're talking about. Sadly, they don't.

I could also point out that the Green party has, as part of their health care platform, plans to push 'alternative medicine'. Since alternative medicine is usually a code word for "stuff that doesn't work", their scientific abilities should be viewed with a lot of skepticism.

Here's a suggestion... go buy a copy of the cable TV series Bullsh*t, by Penn and Teller. In one of the episodes, they go to some environmental rally, where they actually get people to sign petitions calling for a ban on Dihydro Monoxide. Granted, that was filmed in the U.S., but the green party in Canada seems to appeal to the same demographics as those that were attending that rally.

Here's a suggesion... if you want to actually help the environment, ignore the 'environmental movement'. Instead, get a basic education in science, and try hanging out with skeptics and others who tend to take a more evidence-based view.

_ Will they shut down that pollutiong slave labour camp called China?

Ummmm.... just wondering, what exactly do you think will happen to all that 'slave labour' if Canada and the rest of the western world decide to stop buying chinese products?

It is true that China is a state with a repressive government, but frankly they were repressive BEFORE they started becoming an industrial powerhouse, and they would likely be repressive AFTER we stopped trading with them. The main difference is that at least the quality of life in China has improved as they have begun trading more.

[M.Dancer]

The main difference between the Libs and new democrats is that the NDP have a strong leader, and no corruption scandals.

Another BIG difference is that Liberals understand that before you can redistribute wealth, you have to create wealth. The NDP has never figured that out, always wiling to cook the golden goose....

BURNABY, B.C. — Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion flatly rejected forming a coalition government with the New Democrats today on the heels of hints from NDP Leader Jack Layton that he'd be open to the idea.

Mr. Dion, speaking after an address to a Vancouver-area business crowd today, said he could not work with Mr. Layton in this way because the NDP leader wants to hike taxes on business.

“We cannot have a coalition with a party that has a platform that would be damaging for the economy. Period,” the Liberal leader said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/politics/home

[Rovik]

Another BIG difference is that Liberals understand that before you can redistribute wealth, you have to create wealth. The NDP has never figured that out, always wiling to cook the golden goose....

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/politics/home

Come on..and Dion's platform with the carbon tax is fiscally viable and will redistribute wealth. That is hiliarious..Dion's platform will have a huge detrimental impact on Canada's wealth..almost like the pot calling the kettle black.

And in regards to Leyton wanting a coalition with the Liberals; the media has blown this out of proportion...he said he was willing to work the parties to get things done...not a coalition. And if I were the NDP, I wouldn't touch the Liberals with a ten foot pole. The Liberals are the most arrogant (yes, even more so then the Conservatives) bunch of individuals I ever seen. And i can't see how anyone can support them after the hiding "under the blankets" routine they pulled in the last sitting of the HOC (because they were scared to force an election.) They were more concerned about their own political lives then the Canadian people they represented.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Another BIG difference is that Liberals understand that before you can redistribute wealth, you have to create wealth. The NDP has never figured that out, always wiling to cook the golden goose....

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/politics/home

So much for the coalition talk, then...

[DrGreenthumb]

Come on..and Dion's platform with the carbon tax is fiscally viable and will redistribute wealth. That is hiliarious..Dion's platform will have a huge detrimental impact on Canada's wealth..almost like the pot calling the kettle black.

And in regards to Leyton wanting a coalition with the Liberals; the media has blown this out of proportion...he said he was willing to work the parties to get things done...not a coalition. And if I were the NDP, I wouldn't touch the Liberals with a ten foot pole. The Liberals are the most arrogant (yes, even more so then the Conservatives) bunch of individuals I ever seen. And i can't see how anyone can support them after the hiding "under the blankets" routine they pulled in the last sitting of the HOC (because they were scared to force an election.) They were more concerned about their own political lives then the Canadian people they represented.

In some ways they may have been right to be scared to force an election when they weren't prepared enough to win it. Knowing that they weren't ready and that Harper could take advantage of the situation to get a majority in an election, they may have been smart to try and protect Canadians from that possibility. They are probably aware of the damage that Harper will do to the social fabric of our country if he becomes more powerful.

[Bryan]

Hahahaha you are kidding right? The conservatives are so far right that no Liberal could dare call themselves liberal if they vote for Harper. The man is an authoritarian who aims to take us back in time to the 50's. Liberals are progressive not regressive. The main difference between the Libs and new democrats is that the NDP have a strong leader, and no corruption scandals. All true liberals should support Layton.

If Harper were running in the US, he'd be considered extreme left wing. The CPC is a centrist party that while right leaning, is still significantly left of the Democrats. Canadian centre support always ebbs back and forth between the Liberal and the Conservative parties of the day, it never strays towards the NDP. Depending on the issue, Liberal and Conservative support is almost interchangeable.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Depending on the issue, Liberal and Conservative support is almost interchangeable.

Exactly my point - same sh!t, different name with Liberals and Conservatives.

If you want to make a change - vote Green

Especially taking into account that the only "Green Shift" we may will be the shift in votes toward the Greens, as all of us will see what a majority "Blue Shaft" really does for our country...

[Wild Bill]

The Liberals aren't the only party that parachutes in candidates all the parties do that. Even in this election I read a list of "celebrity candidates" and all parties had about the same number. Unless the article just stopped counting at some point which is possible.

It's true that with local candidates the local party members have a say in who becomes the candidate. The thing is you've still got to be a party member. So when you say that with PR the politicians would make the choice not voters I can't help but thinking that voters don't make any choice right now either. It's party members.

There's a difference where local party members would choose local candidates and the higher up party members would choose the generic list of candidates but I'm still not sure that's a big deal. If you support the party then don't you trust the higher ups in your own party? They're the ones who set the priorities once they're in power anyway so if you don't trust those higher up party members there's a problem isn't there?

In either system it's not voters choosing anything. It's all party members.

True, other parties have run "parachutes". I'm just saying that it's been my observation that the Liberals are far more enthusiastic about doing it than the other parties, historically.

And no, I don't consider party members to be politicians. Politicians are elected. Party members just gave them $10 and they're in! Politicians dictate policy. Party members do NOT!

Of course I don't trust the higher ups in any party I voted for! They're politicians too, after all! You make it sound like choosing a party is like choosing a church, where you give your heart and your soul. In reality, parties are merely teams of managers with (hopefully) a common philosophy of running a government. Within that team will be people of more or of less competence, or even honesty. Besides, their first loyalty is to their party. Members come second and citizens a distant third.

I suspect you've never belonged to a party, much less worked at even the riding level. If you have, I hope you had a pleasant experience. If not, it would be very good for your political education to try it out for a while. Right now they're desperate for warm bodies to knock on doors and put up signs. Stick around after the election and see how much they care about how their "grunts" feel about politics.

As a populist I believe that blindly following politicians is an abdication of a citizen's responsibility. They are supposed to work for US, not WE for THEM! Allow politicians to make their own PRR alternate list and you may as well just let them vote themselves in and to hell with the rest of us!

Besides, PRR is for losers that can't win seats any other way. It's SUPPOSED to be hard to win a seat! That's proof that you have enough public support! What's more, that support is SUPPOSED to be concentrated enough in a given riding to win the seat! Not spread out as a thin "mist" over the entire country.

You never heard Reform bleating about PRR and look how well and how quickly they won seats! What fringe parties don't want to admit even to themselves is that they appeal to only a very small demographic. Even if they are given a few seats under a PRR system that doesn't mean they ever have a chance at government without convincing a LOT more voters anyway! All they can accomplish is to be power brokers in minority "pizza parliaments" like in Italy or Israel, where they can make the large parties sit up and beg for their few seats as support. The parties with the least popular support as votes will end up calling the shots!

Is that democracy? Not in my books!

[M.Dancer]

And no, I don't consider party members to be politicians. Politicians are elected. Party members just gave them $10 and they're in! Politicians dictate policy. Party members do NOT!

Actually they do. That is what happens at conventions. Motions are tabled and they get voted on.

Besides, PRR is for losers that can't win seats any other way. It's SUPPOSED to be hard to win a seat! That's proof that you have enough public support! What's more, that support is SUPPOSED to be concentrated enough in a given riding to win the seat! Not spread out as a thin "mist" over the entire country.

You never heard Reform bleating about PRR and look how well and how quickly they won seats! What fringe parties don't want to admit even to themselves is that they appeal to only a very small demographic. Even if they are given a few seats under a PRR system that doesn't mean they ever have a chance at government without convincing a LOT more voters anyway! All they can accomplish is to be power brokers in minority "pizza parliaments" like in Italy or Israel, where they can make the large parties sit up and beg for their few seats as support. The parties with the least popular support as votes will end up calling the shots!

Is that democracy? Not in my books!

This is of course true.

[Wild Bill]

Actually they do. That is what happens at conventions. Motions are tabled and they get voted on.

This is of course true.

Well, that's the official line! That was the old PC way, to keep the members busy with conventions and policy discussions and then votes. Of course, the catch was that the votes were all NON-BINDING on the party leadership!

How does that equate with lowly members having real power into party policy? Busy work and distraction, nothing more.

Another Manning dream that the new Tories have buried deep, deep beneath the ground...

Edited September 24, 2008 by Wild Bill

[PoliticalCitizen]

As a populist I believe that blindly following politicians is an abdication of a citizen's responsibility. They are supposed to work for US, not WE for THEM! Allow politicians to make their own PRR alternate list and you may as well just let them vote themselves in and to hell with the rest of us!

I agree with you here. Ideally I would like people leading my country (and eventually the globe) to be educated, trained and tested for the job. I'd like the Minister of Finance to have financial education and experience; I'd like the Minister of Health to be a Medical Doctor etc.

Besides, PRR is for losers that can't win seats any other way. It's SUPPOSED to be hard to win a seat! That's proof that you have enough public support! What's more, that support is SUPPOSED to be concentrated enough in a given riding to win the seat! Not spread out as a thin "mist" over the entire country.

You never heard Reform bleating about PRR and look how well and how quickly they won seats! What fringe parties don't want to admit even to themselves is that they appeal to only a very small demographic. Even if they are given a few seats under a PRR system that doesn't mean they ever have a chance at government without convincing a LOT more voters anyway! All they can accomplish is to be power brokers in minority "pizza parliaments" like in Italy or Israel, where they can make the large parties sit up and beg for their few seats as support. The parties with the least popular support as votes will end up calling the shots!

Is that democracy? Not in my books!

So you're saying we're SUPPOSED to ignore the will of minorities?

Over 3 Million people in Canada appear to support the Greens but their opinion is irrelevant because they're a "thin mist" and not 50 ridings?

I think ignoring the rights of minorities is the exact opposite of "Democracy".

But then again, our electoral system today appears to be written by "your books"...

[M.Dancer]

Over 3 Million people in Canada appear to support the Greens but their opinion is irrelevant because they're a "thin mist" and not 50 ridings?

The greens have never ever come close to receiving 3 million vote.

They have never come close to getting 2 million votes

They have never come close to getting 1 million votes....

[Wild Bill]

I agree with you here. Ideally I would like people leading my country (and eventually the globe) to be educated, trained and tested for the job. I'd like the Minister of Finance to have financial education and experience; I'd like the Minister of Health to be a Medical Doctor etc.

So you're saying we're SUPPOSED to ignore the will of minorities?

Over 3 Million people in Canada appear to support the Greens but their opinion is irrelevant because they're a "thin mist" and not 50 ridings?

I think ignoring the rights of minorities is the exact opposite of "Democracy".

But then again, our electoral system today appears to be written by "your books"...

I see no need for politicians to be vetted by outside experts. I would much rather have the PEOPLE pay attention to how well they do their jobs! We all have known doctors with great credentials who in practice were old quacks!

Who will be the judges and to whom will they answer?

As for 3 million people, so what? As a percentage of the total electorate it's not enough! You have to draw the line somewhere. Obviously with a pool of 5 million voters you would have to consider 3 million enough. With 30 million that 3 million is only a tenth. With a 5 million voter pool that 3 million would be enough anyway. You wouldn't need PRR.

Besides, those PRR seats wouldn't be regionally based. I refuse to believe that my community's interests in Ontario would be well served by an appointed MPP from Nunavuk or Canmore. Let me see the man and decide if I want to vote for him! Or her. Or it, for that matter. I really don't care as long as it's the PEOPLE"S direct choice!

So yes, I'm saying that BELOW A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE we SHOULD ignore minorities! The more you subdivide a group the more smaller groups you can define. Cut it too fine and we find ourselves running around catering to the "flakes" and leaving the larger groups of people unserviced!

You can never be all things to all people. It's foolish to even try. It's the job of a fringe party to garner enough support that they DO begin to win seats! If they can't do that then maybe the problem isn't with the "system" but rather with themselves.

[WIP]

The local rag has a story in it about how the Green Party is challenging the NDP as the preferred 2nd choice of voters. If the NDP ever dies out, my riding (Hamilton Center) will probably be the last NDP constituency in Parliament! The north end of this city is a guaranteed NDP seat in the worst of times.....it's worth mentioning that Dave Christopherson was one of the very few NDP cabinet ministers in Bob Rae's disastrous provincial government that was able to hang on to his seat. Most of the other NDP MPP's didn't even bother running for re-election in 95, and tried to go back to their old jobs on city councils, school boards etc.

But Christopherson follows the pattern of traditional NDP stalwarts that had a reputation for being good constituency reps. Even people outside of his riding, or dealing with other levels of government seem to call his office first to get action on whatever problems or complaints they have. This riding is such a safe NDP seat, that both the Liberals and the Conservatives nominated throwaway candidates, not even bothering to mount any sort of a challenge in this NDP bastion.

So, how does everyone feel about our first-past-the-post parliamentary system again? Not that Christopherson doesn't deserve his huge lead, but everyone who does not get a stiffy from putting up NDP campaign signs has no reason to bother showing up at the polling station and casting a vote here! But, I'll be going anyway, to check the box for one more wasted vote for the Green Party......better than wasting a vote on the Liberals or the Conservatives!

[segnosaur]

Over 3 Million people in Canada appear to support the Greens but their opinion is irrelevant because they're a "thin mist" and not 50 ridings?

I think ignoring the rights of minorities is the exact opposite of "Democracy".

First of all, you do realize that if you go by the more 'literal' meaning of the word Democracy, minorities wouldn't have any rights? After all, if we truly followed the idea of majority rule, the majority could easily vote to do virtually anything to any group they wanted. (Like I said, that's kind of the 'literal' meaning of democracy. Pretty much all western 'democracies' have various constitutional protections in there to help protect basic rights, which actually run counter to the overall concept of 'democracy' but are generally viewed as being beneficial.)

Secondly, you may be right in that the rights of certain voters get ignored in our 'first past the post system'. The alternative may result in them getting power that far exceeds their vote proportion. Neither option is optimal. However, given a choice, it may be better to have the minority vote count for less and have an actual functional parliment, than have the majority vote count for less and have a disfunctional parliment.

[OddSox]

It should also be considered that a proportional system would end up with a political landscape that looks nothing like the current one. Not only would there be Greens looking for their piece of the pie, but Reds and Blues and all sorts of colours. Instead of 2 (ok maybe 3) major parties we would have 10 or more - the bickering in parliament would mean that nothing at all would get done (which might not be a bad thing).

[DrGreenthumb]

It should also be considered that a proportional system would end up with a political landscape that looks nothing like the current one. Not only would there be Greens looking for their piece of the pie, but Reds and Blues and all sorts of colours. Instead of 2 (ok maybe 3) major parties we would have 10 or more - the bickering in parliament would mean that nothing at all would get done (which might not be a bad thing).

That would be a great thing. Anything that prevents these jackasses from passing any more damn laws. Every single government takes away a bit more of our rights, a conservative majority will speed up this process considerably.

[PoliticalCitizen]

The greens have never ever come close to receiving 3 million vote.

They have never come close to getting 2 million votes

They have never come close to getting 1 million votes....

My bad - I counted 10% of total population instead of registered voters...

I guess the real fugure would be somewhere between 1 and 2 million (as indicated by the current polls).

The total number Green votes in the 2006 election was over 600 thousand - 664,068 (as reported by Wikepedia).

[Moonlight Graham]

I'm disenchanted with the Greens too. I'm so frustrated with all the parties right now that i might just end up voting strategically in my riding to keep the Cons from a majority (my riding is Conservative). Hate doing it, but my head is just spinning with these parties. I agree and disagreee with an equal number of policies with each party.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Besides, those PRR seats wouldn't be regionally based. I refuse to believe that my community's interests in Ontario would be well served by an appointed MPP from Nunavuk or Canmore. Let me see the man and decide if I want to vote for him! Or her. Or it, for that matter. I really don't care as long as it's the PEOPLE"S direct choice!

A big part of voters don't care who the MPP is. They don't care about the particular person in their riding. They vote for their party's platform.

So yes, I'm saying that BELOW A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE we SHOULD ignore minorities! The more you subdivide a group the more smaller groups you can define. Cut it too fine and we find ourselves running around catering to the "flakes" and leaving the larger groups of people unserviced!

And who would determine what this percentage would be? And which minorities should be ingnored?

Should we ingnore the gays and lesbians? Or black people? Or people on welfare? Or the disabled?

That view is more faschist than democratic...

[PoliticalCitizen]

First of all, you do realize that if you go by the more 'literal' meaning of the word Democracy, minorities wouldn't have any rights? After all, if we truly followed the idea of majority rule, the majority could easily vote to do virtually anything to any group they wanted. (Like I said, that's kind of the 'literal' meaning of democracy. Pretty much all western 'democracies' have various constitutional protections in there to help protect basic rights, which actually run counter to the overall concept of 'democracy' but are generally viewed as being beneficial.)

My understanding of Democracy is everyone's (or at least the decided voter's) opinion should matter and once a certain number of people vote for something that something has to materialize in a tangible way.

Ignoring the minorities is Dictature, not Democracy...

Secondly, you may be right in that the rights of certain voters get ignored in our 'first past the post system'. The alternative may result in them getting power that far exceeds their vote proportion. Neither option is optimal. However, given a choice, it may be better to have the minority vote count for less and have an actual functional parliment, than have the majority vote count for less and have a disfunctional parliment.

Let's simplify things a bit...

Let's vote unanimously for one guy for life so that he can do what needs to be done for the country without the hassle of bikering parliamentarians. Let's not vote after that - it's a waste of time and money. Besides, this one guy we elected will most likely appoint someone before he dies...

[PoliticalCitizen]

I'm disenchanted with the Greens too. I'm so frustrated with all the parties right now that i might just end up voting strategically in my riding to keep the Cons from a majority (my riding is Conservative). Hate doing it, but my head is just spinning with these parties. I agree and disagreee with an equal number of policies with each party.

What don't you like about the Greens?

Oh about the "strategic vote" - bullshit, go with your heart

The Conservatives will win anyway. Maybe giving them a majority government will speed their undoing as the world will see their true agenda (more prisons, less freedom, more money to the rich, less money to the poor, etc...)

[OddSox]

The Conservatives will win anyway. Maybe giving them a majority government will speed their undoing as the world will see their true agenda (more prisons, less freedom, more money to the rich, less money to the poor, etc...)

Hmm, I thought it was a hidden agenda? But, "let's take money from the rich and give it to the poor"? I'm not rich by any means, but that still doesn't seem quite right to me...

I may not have much, but I worked for it.

Edited September 25, 2008 by OddSox