How many Green votes?

[madmax]

I don't think I have ever been in a thread, where I disagree with a person on 100% of the comments made. For me this is about unheard of considering the people in this forum. I mean, there is Argus, and White Doors, and Guyser and Army Guy, and Jdobbin and a whole slew of opininated, hard headed a biased individuals. Infact some poster here don't even have a soul . Still we have had some people booted off who are simply childish or have poor behaviour, so I don't include the riffraff in the following comments. But I don't believe I have ever followed a thread this long, and continue to see so much misinformation or completely unfactual data being thrown around as basis for a position.

I read a post, and read something totally incorrect, and I immediately start to dig up the data. Oh yes, google, how art thou, and yet, basic facts and information are completely ignored. Then I see, people with whom I often disagree, make valid points from their perspective and these too are tossed into the wastebasket of lost discussions.

I understand a party having talking points. I have a recommendation.

Listening Points.

I know there are some politically savy people here who understand how ridings turn over time. When someone quickly discounts that Money cannot buy a riding they are missing out on some very valid reasons.

If you have a base of 7% you can drop $93,000 in a riding and you are not going to win. You will have spent alot of money. You can buy all the adds you want, but if the people aren't buying what you are saying it is money wasted. Political Hacks know this. You do want to spend money in a riding where you can push your candidate over the top. Spending money is like diminishing returns or spending those extra dollars to get that .05 horsepower to win. The first 400HP were easy. It gets harder the closer you get to a victory.

Don't discount these truisms. Someone knowledgeable was offering a reasonable start to a discussion.

The next thing a number of people have said here, and is factually correct. Is that the US has a better environmental record then we do. Well ITS TRUE on a many fronts. Not only California being the leader, but even in a GWB environment of 8 years, they out-performed the "Kyoto Friendly Liberals", and the "environmentally unfriendly" Conservatives, while doing their own thing. (Just forget about destroying a nation for now:)

I won't even bother with the misinformation regarding socialist europe.

And then there is Riverwind. Pretty much referencing Suzukis comments accurately. I have checked the comment many times, just to make certain they are not out of context.

Kengs333 THis might surprise you. But some of these guys are here to help and to have a good discussion.

Continue to blow them off if you like. But you may start to find yourself alone and isolated. That's no fun.

Later madmax

[Alta4ever]

This whole thread is pointless.

All this crying for a party that doesn't even have 1 seat and less than a million votes.

Who cares, honestly?

Here Here

[kengs333]

This whole thread is pointless.

All this crying for a party that doesn't even have 1 seat and less than a million votes.

Who cares, honestly?

LOL... so now it's "less than a million votes"...?

Well, the Conservatives have less than 150 seats, so they're pretty much useless themselves...

[kengs333]

So the person with the most votes wins isn't democratic?

Correct.

[kengs333]

It is not going to change because the majority of canadians vote for mainstream parties and do not think the system is that broken. It has nothing to do with apathy.

Suzuki's argument is the green party gives the other parties an excuse to ignore the environmental issues because they know they will never be able to win votes from green party supporters with environmental policies. i.e. everyone knows they can't out-green the greens so they don't even bother trying.

You see, you're still not answering my question. Do you agree with David Suzuki? Yes or no.

You see, you're making no sense. If the other parties can't "out-green the greens" then why do they all try to propose environmental initiatives? And like I've said, the Green Party has forced the other parties to take the environment serious. It's clear that you don't want to admit the truth and discuss the issue based on facts; you're just arguing for arguments sake.

[Riverwind]

Correct.

You have obviously missed the point of democracy since one person one vote is best described as a guideline rather than a rule. For example, every large democracy fiddles with the seat distributions to avoid giving heavily populated cities too much clout. In many places the concept of regional representation is formalized in the constitution.

To make matters worse (sic), every PR advocate agrees that ignoring the votes of people who support minor parties is perfectly justified if the total vote is less than some threshold.

IOW, there is nothing wrong with a system which "ignores" the votes of a minority if the majority are generally happy with the system.

[Riverwind]

You see, you're making no sense. If the other parties can't "out-green the greens" then why do they all try to propose environmental initiatives?

Take it up with Suzuki. I am just the messenger. If I was a green party supporter I would take Suzuki's opinion seriously.

[M.Dancer]

And like I've said, the Green Party has forced the other parties to take the environment serious.

Facts to the contrary, all you have managed to do is convince yourself, which is akin to teaching a retarded monkey with a learning disabilty to dance to an out of tune organ grinder.

[capricorn]

If the other parties can't "out-green the greens" then why do they all try to propose environmental initiatives? And like I've said, the Green Party has forced the other parties to take the environment serious.

The reason all parties have environment plans is not because they are being strong-armed by the Green Party. It is because the environment is one of the top issues of concern to Canadians. The Green Party is merely reacting to the public's concerns, just like the other parties. The Green Party has much less leverage than you perceive.

[jbg]

The United States has an abismal record when it comes to the environment. Suggesting otherwise shows a certain degree of (willful ?) ignorance on the issue. But the United States actually has two Green parties, and like all the other "minor" parties are shut out of the process. The USA's two-party system is more of a joke than ours...

Oh really?

The air is far cleaner than it was on Earth Day 1970.

[PoliticalCitizen]

The current system is very democratic. Fringe parties stay on the fringe. Those that are willing to do the hard work get seat like the NDP and the reform party did.

You mean - the current system suits you just fine because your party is in a good position.

[Alta4ever]

You mean - the current system suits you just fine because your party is in a good position.

No what I'm saying is that system we have is the best possible and fringe parties that do the hard work organize and focus, on whats winnable build themselves. Those that don't will forever languish on the side lines, because they do not how to get teir message to resonate with the majority.

[PoliticalCitizen]

An electoral district (also known as a constituency or a riding in the Canadian English political jargon) is a geographically-based constituency upon which Canada's representative democracy is based. It is officially known in Canadian French as a circonscription, but frequently called a comté (county).

Thank you. Could you also tell me who decided it's the best for Canada and why?

Doesn't matter which riding if 93% of the people you live next to disagree with your political viewpoint.

Yes, but we don't have to be losers or winners - everyone's vote could have the same (or at least almost same) value.

I believe in a Proportional Rep system. However, we probably would still have Progressive Conservatives federally if that were the case. Kim Campbell would have retained her seat, even though she lost it, and the PCs would have had maybe 70 to 80 MPs instead of 2.

What's wrong with Progressive Conservatives?

[PoliticalCitizen]

No what I'm saying is that system we have is the best possible and fringe parties that do the hard work organize and focus, on whats winnable build themselves. Those that don't will forever languish on the side lines, because they do not how to get teir message to resonate with the majority.

Or bring about a change in the electoral system.

[Alta4ever]

Or bring about a change in the electoral system.

Change to give more power to a minority and condemn governments to the minority coalitions like Germany were fringe element hold the balance of power and push their will on the majority of the nation, no thanks.

I have no desire to live under that tyranny.

You have yet to provide a single good argument for why the system needs to be changed except to favour the cause of you fringe ideas.

Change for the sake of change is never a good reason.

Take the advise laid out throughout this thread pick a couple of ridings you can possibly win and focus all of your effort their, or better yet ignore good advise and stay on the fringe. I would love to see the greens stay there anyway.

[madmax]

You see, you're making no sense. If the other parties can't "out-green the greens" then why do they all try to propose environmental initiatives?

The NDP has stronger environmental policies then the Green Party. And often far ahead of the GP until 2006 when one could split hairs. However, the GP can continue with their Greenshift (A program used nowhere in the world), while the LPC, having taken up the mantle have now rejected bringing such a system forward, because it is stupid and doesn't make anysense.

Therefore, the LPC had the strongest chance of hitting a home run for the environmental movement. Had the LPC taken the Cap and trade view, of California or Obama or McCain, they wouldn't have met any more resistance then the two Presidential candidates.

However, by buying into a turkey, the Dion camp ended up taking most of the Turkey to stornaway after the Thanksgiving weekend, where it smelled so bad it couldn't be redistributed to the poor. It had to be thrown out.

The NDP has always provided a voice for the environment on the Federal Stage. The NDP gained seats this election.

Unfortuneately the LPC lost seats in this election.

Unfortuneately the GP received no seats in this election.

The latter two groups have set back the environment in the minds of public opinion. This will be very difficult to overcome in the next election cycle.

Expect the LPC to move back to the economy (Its the economy stupid line wasn't used, but DION missed the boat)

BTW the GP in your riding, the rural riding, with the largest environmental polluter and the single largest emitter of GHG in North America, didn't vote for the GP to clean it up.

The GP candidate finished 5th with 2041 votes of the 48,394votes cast . That is it. 4% of the vote.

All parties have proposed environmental initiatives long before the existence of the GP.

The Green Party was formed by an anti nuclear group in Europe.

The GP of Canada likes it Pro Nuclear Candidate.

Whoa! Our Candidate is Nuclear!

Submitted by Ard Van Leeuwen on 10 June 2008 - 10:09am.

Some parties seek out candidates that are on fire but 100 Greens in Ontario's Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound riding just nominated one that is radioactive

Hypocritical political parties have existed since the beginning of time.

[Mr.Canada]

Political Citizen, how old are you? I ask because I find it hard to believe that you haven't read anything about Canada if you care about it so much. Why do you want everyone else to do your research? Why don't you try googling some answers for yourself instead of wasting everyone's time. Are you that lazy? No wonder our country is going to hell.

Thank you. Could you also tell me who decided it's the best for Canada and why?

Our system is based on the British common system. As we were a British Colony still at that point. The National Anthem was the same as in the UK. God Save the Queen. Make sense now?

Yes, but we don't have to be losers or winners - everyone's vote could have the same (or at least almost same) value.

Everyone's vote is worth exactly the same, one. In monetary value it is worth $1.75 to the party you cast it.

You are suggesting that everyone who runs should be rewarded with a seat which unworkable quote frankly.

I know we're in an age now where everyone is overly sensitive and we have to include everyone or they need grief counseling but give me a break.

If the candidates are that sensitive that they get overwhelmed with grief by not winning an electoral riding they need to go in for some more grief counseling sessions on my tax dollar.

The GP of Canada likes it Pro Nuclear Candidate.

Like it or not Nuclear power is by far the cleanest energy to produce. Much cleaner than using fossil fuels like coal. It produces nearly zero emissions into the environment. It produces steam. Is it perfect? No, but it's the best solution we have so far. We don't have any other viable options to produce the amount of power generated from 1 Nuclear power station.

Edited October 24, 2008 by Mr.Canada

[madmax]

Our system is based on the British common system. As we were a British Colony still at that point. The National Anthem was the same as in the UK. God Save the Queen. Make sense now?

Thank you Mr. Canada. There seems to be alot of make it up as she goes, in this thread. The historical facts and basis for our system of government are not that difficult to find.

Everyone's vote is worth exactly the same, one. In monetary value it is worth $1.79 5 to the party you cast it.

That .20 should help

Like it or not Nuclear power is by far the cleanest energy to produce. Much cleaner than using fossil fuels like coal. It produces nearly zero emissions into the environment. It produces steam. Is it perfect? No, but it's the best solution we have so far. We don't have any other viable options to produce the amount of power generated from 1 Nuclear power station.

Not here to dispute your position. I would fully expect to see this position, from the LPC, CPC, and many many many many other parties. I would not expect this argument to be put forth by GP candidates under any circumstances, irony of irony being they started from an anti nuclear protest party.

And no Nuclear is far from perfect. It is costly. The Carbon footprint behind the creation of the power, uranium mining etc. is larger then marketed.

That said, those arguments should be coming from the GP. The Party of the environment. Otherwise, there is nothing that separates the GP candidate from the CP candidate.

Or the CP is more environmentally friendly the GP wants to admit.

Thats someone elses torch and argument to carry not mine

[OddSox]

Yes, but we don't have to be losers or winners - everyone's vote could have the same (or at least almost same) value.

Where did you learn this drivel - state-sponsored nursery school? Of course there has to be winners and losers...

[M.Dancer]

Where did you learn this drivel - state-sponsored nursery school? Of course there has to be winners and losers...

And of course every vote has the same value, the value of 1.

I wonder if the Greens could understand democracy better they might have a better chance of not being laughed at....

[kengs333]

Where did you learn this drivel - state-sponsored nursery school? Of course there has to be winners and losers...

Would you watch a sport if only the top four or five teams ever received coverage, funding, special competative advantages?

[kengs333]

The NDP has stronger environmental policies then the Green Party. And often far ahead of the GP until 2006 when one could split hairs. However, the GP can continue with their Greenshift (A program used nowhere in the world), while the LPC, having taken up the mantle have now rejected bringing such a system forward, because it is stupid and doesn't make anysense.

The NDP has stronger environmental policies? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

The GP of Canada likes it Pro Nuclear Candidate.

Hypocritical political parties have existed since the beginning of time.

I don't think it's a matter of hypocracy, rather has to do with the Greens having a little more latitude when it comes to who they allow to run. That riding is a strong Green riding, though, thanks to the previous federal/provincial candidate who owned a bike shop.

[kengs333]

Oh really?

The air is far cleaner than it was on Earth Day 1970.

Yes, really...

Maybe that's because many of the polluting industries have shut down or moved to Asia for economic reasons... or the air drifts over to southern Ontario...

[kengs333]

To make matters worse (sic), every PR advocate agrees that ignoring the votes of people who support minor parties is perfectly justified if the total vote is less than some threshold.

IOW, there is nothing wrong with a system which "ignores" the votes of a minority if the majority are generally happy with the system.

Still, with a PR system about 97 to 99% of voters cast votes to a party that will be represented. The way our system goes, you can only vote for the party/candidate in your riding. In some cases that means that 60-70% of people who vote receive no representation.

[kengs333]

Take it up with Suzuki. I am just the messenger. If I was a green party supporter I would take Suzuki's opinion seriously.

So I have to conclude then that you agree with David Suzuki.