PoliticalCitizen Posted October 16, 2008 Report Posted October 16, 2008 Perhaps. Conversely, the strength of FPTP is that it keeps fringe parties on the fringe and outside the House of Commons. My preference for Canada is a two party system. If FPTP works in favour of moving to two parties I say all the better. That's why I advocate uniting the left. Look South of the border. Like what you see? It's a joke... like a two-headed snake with the same body. People are different, they have different priorities which need to be represented by different parties. These parties have to have a niche in a democratic country's political system. Quote You are what you do.
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 16, 2008 Report Posted October 16, 2008 Look South of the border. Like what you see? It's a joke... like a two-headed snake with the same body. How ironic for you to post this...after blowing $300 million on an election, it's the same four-headed snake, and more boring than ever. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
PoliticalCitizen Posted October 16, 2008 Report Posted October 16, 2008 How ironic for you to post this...after blowing $300 million on an election, it's the same four-headed snake, and more boring than ever. BC, buddy Aren't the 2 party US elections captivating enough to keep you from reading our boring 5 party election results? Quote You are what you do.
M.Dancer Posted October 16, 2008 Report Posted October 16, 2008 BC, buddy Aren't the 2 party US elections captivating enough to keep you from reading our boring 5 party election results? Why stop at 5? If you want to count fringe parties I think there's about a dozen. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
capricorn Posted October 16, 2008 Author Report Posted October 16, 2008 Why stop at 5? If you want to count fringe parties I think there's about a dozen. Long live First Past the Post! Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
OddSox Posted October 16, 2008 Report Posted October 16, 2008 If proportional, the Greens would end up with 7% of the seats in the House. How are they any farther ahead than before when it is likely that the other 93% will still vote against them? It seems that what advocates of PR are really hoping for is to get the 'balance of power' so they can then dictate their agenda to the rest of the country. What if someone like the Christian Heritage Party of Canada or the Communist Party of Canada ended up with the balance of power? Quote
PoliticalCitizen Posted October 16, 2008 Report Posted October 16, 2008 If proportional, the Greens would end up with 7% of the seats in the House. How are they any farther ahead than before when it is likely that the other 93% will still vote against them? It seems that what advocates of PR are really hoping for is to get the 'balance of power' so they can then dictate their agenda to the rest of the country. What if someone like the Christian Heritage Party of Canada or the Communist Party of Canada ended up with the balance of power? It doens't have to be a pure proportional system. It could be a mixed system such as the one proposed in Ontario. Quote You are what you do.
OddSox Posted October 16, 2008 Report Posted October 16, 2008 It doens't have to be a pure proportional system. It could be a mixed system such as the one proposed in Ontario. I'm not sure I understand how that would change anything? Any party with less than 10% of the House would either have virtually no power at all, or have too much power. Quote
capricorn Posted October 16, 2008 Author Report Posted October 16, 2008 It doens't have to be a pure proportional system. It could be a mixed system such as the one proposed in Ontario. If it didn't fly in Ontario, it won't fly federally. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
PoliticalCitizen Posted October 16, 2008 Report Posted October 16, 2008 I'm not sure I understand how that would change anything? Any party with less than 10% of the House would either have virtually no power at all, or have too much power. In Ontario it was proposed that everyone casts 2 votes: 1 for the FPTP and the other for PR. They could be both for the same party or strategically you could vote for one of the major parties in your FPTP ballot and for one of the lesser parties in your PR ballot. Quote You are what you do.
PoliticalCitizen Posted October 16, 2008 Report Posted October 16, 2008 If it didn't fly in Ontario, it won't fly federally. CPC didn't fly in Canada for a long time, but they sure kept trying. Let's not give up on the next level of democracy. Quote You are what you do.
Moonlight Graham Posted October 16, 2008 Report Posted October 16, 2008 Yes, May did sell-out her party. Though it can be argued she did it for the good of the country, in her opinion. Elizabeth May is an odd duck. Why the heck would she run in Peter MacKay’s riding? Did she WANT to lose? She’s ran in a few different ridings around where she’s from in Nova Scotia, plus a by-election in London North Centre, and in the Toronto Star she said she ran in MacKay’s riding because she didn’t want to run against a sitting Liberal or NDP candidate to prevent a Con majority. What the heck? Can this party be taken seriously at all? Why not just join the NDP, Miss May? I respected the Greens, but much not anymore. Along with her hints of wanting supporters to vote Liberal to prevent a Con majority, its obvious she cares more about keeping the Cons from power than gaining it herself. Maybe i should admire her for that? But as the leader of a national party, she shouldn’t crap on her party & supporters she did. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Mr.Canada Posted October 16, 2008 Report Posted October 16, 2008 Who honestly cares. The Green Party is a non factor and should not have been included in the debate in the first place. In the grand scheme of things what she says carries no weight. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
M.Dancer Posted October 16, 2008 Report Posted October 16, 2008 CPC didn't fly in Canada for a long time, but they sure kept trying. Say again? What is the CPC? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
madmax Posted October 16, 2008 Report Posted October 16, 2008 (edited) Who honestly cares.The Green Party is a non factor and should not have been included in the debate in the first place. In the grand scheme of things what she says carries no weight. Televison made a mistake allowing a fringe party with no track record to be part of the debate. That said, everyone involved including Harper, Layton, Dion, Duceppe, and the Networks all allowed the GP leader a chance on national TV to make their case. She did. They received no seats as a result. Edited October 16, 2008 by madmax Quote
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.