How many Green votes?

M.Dancer · October 18, 2008

There are probably former supporters of every major party in the Green Party.

I didn't say supporters, I mean party members.

madmax · October 18, 2008

As in strong they have always come third strong?

If you are speaking of Central Nova. The NDP came as close to defeating MacKay as has been possible. Thus 2nd is still the 1st loser. The Libs and Greens after that.

However, with the Libs surrending over 10,000 votes by not running a Candidate and NDP voters swallowing the GP Leaders propoganda that she could defeat MacKay, everyone found out after the election how brutal the election results where.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....amp;qpid=352628

May pays for mistakes
On the Hustings by Andrew Cohen

October 16, 2008 11:01

Listening to the jaunty Elizabeth May make her concession speech election night you might think that she had won her riding and the Green Party had advanced the cause of a greener Canada. She didn’t and it didn’t.

Instead, Ms. May’s vainglorious crusade has actually hurt her party and the environmental movement in Canada. In two of her most critical decisions, she badly miscalculated.

The first was to contest the riding of Central Nova, which is held by the popular Peter MacKay. It wasn’t even close. Mr. MacKay won 18,249 votes, or 46.6 per cent. Ms. May won 12,620 of the votes, or 32.2 per cent.

To say that running against MacKay was foolish is not a matter of hindsight. It was always a matter of foresight — as foolish then as it is now.

Of course the article continues with a very harsh assessment.

madmax · October 18, 2008

Yeah The liberals copied the greens...

How did that work for them?

You must be so young you think the Green Party invented environmental issues.....

The GP invented the wildlife sanctuary park on Cape Breton Island.... oh wait, no, that was done in....

History and formation of the Cape Breton Highlands National Park
It wasn't until 1936 that the Cape Breton Highlands National Park was created, 950 sq. km (366 sq. mi.). Conserving and protecting the majestic highlands and coastal wilderness stretching across the northern tip of Cape Breton Island between the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Atlantic Ocean. It was the first national park in the Atlantic Provinces. By 1940 the Cabot Trail was reconstructed along the French Mountain.1948 saw a new road between Ingonish and Neil's Harbour. In 1951/52 construction on the North Mountain to Pleasant Bay included guard rails.

Well I think May lived.....

The family moved to Margaree Harbour, Nova Scotia in 1972 following a summer vacation spent on Cape Breton Island. They purchased a restaurant and gift shop that was situated in a land-locked schooner, the Marion Elizabeth, located along the Cabot Trail.

Well, thats nice isn't it? I like Cape Breton and I like Gift shops and I like the Cabot Trail

madmax · October 18, 2008

I didn't say supporters, I mean party members.

Exactly there are "supporters" from every party in every party, as often people change their political values or their voting intention based upon the current circumstances.

Soon Green Voters will be flocking back to the Liberals... or NDP or Conservatives...

I think the GPs hit a high watermark, but not enough to impress the media.

capricorn · October 18, 2008

So if 7% of the population is concerned about the environment, then those 7% should be represented by that proportion of the members of the respective forum.

The Green Party of Canada was formed in 1983. They did not run candidates in all ridings until 2004. It was thanks to Ralph Nader that the US Green Party gained attention in 1996. There was a spillover here in Canada. Canada's Greens basically copied the policies of US Greens and Greens from other countries.

Green party advocates in Canada were too lazy to work within an established national party to raise the profile of their environmental concerns and policies. They could have picked the Liberals or the NDP who would have been welcoming of a group of individuals dedicated to putting forward good environmental policies. But no. They had to go and form their own little Canadian version of the Green Party concentrated on one single issue. They totally ignored the fact that there is strength in numbers which they have had working within an established party. If the Greens are so convinced that their environment cause is meritorious and they have the answers to Canada's environment problems, there were other conduits already available to them to really make a difference.

The Green Party is destined to remain a fringe/protest party in Canada.

madmax · October 20, 2008

The Green Party of Canada was formed in 1983. They did not run candidates in all ridings until 2004.
Green party advocates in Canada were too lazy to work within an established national party to raise the profile of their environmental concerns and policies.....

The Green Party is destined to remain a fringe/protest party in Canada.

Actually the GP were to lazy to work or run candidates for 20 years. The environment wasn't important enough to run a full slate. Not until they saw the opportunity for Government Money, $1.75/vote did it occur to them to run paper candidates. Roll in the dough on the Tax payers tab.... was the only purpose of the GP.

Riverwind · October 20, 2008

So if 7% of the population is concerned about the environment, then those 7% should be represented by that proportion of the members of the respective forum.

You are dreaming if you believe that 7% of the people voted for the Greens because they have a huge concern about the environment. Many people simply parked their votes with the Greens because they could not stomach voting for any of the other parties. Hell, I even know one person who voted Green who thinks AGW is scam because the Greens had the 'best candidate' in the riding. Edited October 20, 2008 by Riverwind

White Doors · October 20, 2008

Those subsidies surely helped the Reform fringe party.

No, because there was no such policy when reform was active. Did they not tell you this on your citizenship test comrade?

PoliticalCitizen · October 21, 2008

The Green Party is destined to remain a fringe/protest party in Canada.

I diagree.

They have a centrist platform and the potential of growing as people become more environmentally conscious.

NDP, on the other hand, is quite unlikely to grow.

PoliticalCitizen · October 21, 2008

Actually the GP were to lazy to work or run candidates for 20 years. The environment wasn't important enough to run a full slate. Not until they saw the opportunity for Government Money, $1.75/vote did it occur to them to run paper candidates. Roll in the dough on the Tax payers tab.... was the only purpose of the GP.

Yeah, right... what a thorough analysis

Same argument can be made about ANY party.

At least the Greens appear to care about something other than the money - the environment.

PoliticalCitizen · October 21, 2008

No, because there was no such policy when reform was active. Did they not tell you this on your citizenship test comrade?

Nope :blink:

capricorn · October 21, 2008

At least the Greens appear to care about something other than the money - the environment.

Let them prove it. They should turn down the $2M or so they'll receive in federal subsidies and declare the money be reserved for environmental initiatives. How's that for commitment.

capricorn · October 21, 2008

I diagree.

I didn't think you would.

PoliticalCitizen · October 21, 2008

Let them prove it. They should turn down the $2M or so they'll receive in federal subsidies and declare the money be reserved for environmental initiatives. How's that for commitment.

You don't expect returns from an enterprise that wasn't established yet.

As a fiscally responsible Conservative you should know that

madmax · October 21, 2008

Yeah, right... what a thorough analysis
Same argument can be made about ANY party.

At least the Greens appear to care about something other than the money - the environment.

Yes it is a thorough analysis. The GP is an old party that never had an interest in running a full field of Candidates until there was government funds provided.

The argument cannot be made about ANY party.

These Parties came 5 to 10 years after the Green Party established its existance.

The Reform Party ran a full slate of Candidates when there wasn't federal funding.

The Alliance Party ran a full slate of Candidates when there wasn't federal funding.

The National Party tried to run a full slate of Candidates but is the Party responsible for the platform to provide federal funding to parties.

The Social Credit ran full slates of Candidates, got seats, and higher percentage of voter turnout then the GPs have ever had. The Social Credit were not allowed into the 1979 TV Leaders Debate although they are the ones attributed to bringing down the Conservative Government.

The Green Party cares more about money and about political pandering then the environment. The Green Party is a political party with the word GREEN in its name. It uses the environment as a marketing tool.

If the Green Party cared about the environment? Why run a Pro Nuclear Candidates? Why Run Pro Coal Candidates? Why doesn't the environment come first and not political opportunism?

Paper Candidates do not care about the environment. Infact often they sit at home during the campaign. Many GP candidates don't make it to debates, and they still get votes. Some never bother to engage the public.

When environmental issues come to the front, I have seen , Liberal, Conservative and NDP reps take action. Sometimes officially, while in office, sometimes in fighting poor choice developments.

While I have no doubt that you think the GPs care about the environment more then money, I do not believe that to be the case. Infact the marketing tool of the GP is to give people their own money as a bribe. To give large corporations like Bell, Telus, CIBC, Rogers, Shaw, Shell, etc HUGE tax breaks, larger then what CPC might offer in order create a system of REVENUE off a Carbon Addiction.

Often the GP are as good as any political party with regards to misleading statements.

I recall one GP candidate comparing their Green Shift to SWEDEN (a socialist country). Suggesting that Sweden implemented a Carbon Tax based on the Green Shift. (yes I know the LPC stole this unpopular Plank)

However, Swedens Corporate Tax rate is 60% not 21.12 like Canadas and Swedens gas tax was implemented in the same manner as Canadas Excise Tax.

So BS baffles brains.

You can believe in GP fantasy. That is your right and you get to vote to support your position and party.

However, I must admit, you will not find to many takers on the GP platform.

One has to wonder how the GP with its base in BC never managed a 2nd place finish?

How the GPs only managed 5 2nd place finishes in all of Canada.

How the EMAY deal proved to be such a failure for two parties. And on top of that with the LPC not running a Candidate the GP Leader failed to get as many votes as the Previous NDP candidate who nearly toppled Peter Mackay. Clearly those 10,000 LPC votes will not be gifted to Elizabeth May next time around.

The free media ride is over from all accounts.

And from all the Winners and Losers columns regarding the Federal Election.

The only party that gets put in both categories is the CPC.

The LPC and GP are viewed as the Losers.

The NDP and BQ as winners, in varying degrees of success.

If the GP doesn't care about money, then Elizabeth May owes Dion a cheque for $1.95 for every vote he allowed her by not running a Liberal, short of the 600 normally get

The GP does care about money. Immediately after the ELection Elizabeth May was asking for more handouts.

Maybe you missed this...

SHOW US THE MONEY ..

Elizabeth May's new take on 'green'
Canwest News ServicePublished: Thursday, October 16, 2008

The day after she and her party failed to win a seat in the House of Commons, Green leader Elizabeth May issued a blatant plea for money to help prepare the party for the next election.

"I'm opportunistically asking Canadians to just get out there and give us the money," she said Wednesday. "Go to our website and make a donation ... please help me out here, folks."

The Greens by aiding the Liberals down the path to oblivion have managed to do more damage to the environment (politcally) then the Exxon Valdez did to the west coast.

madmax · October 21, 2008

Let them prove it. They should turn down the $2M or so they'll receive in federal subsidies and declare the money be reserved for environmental initiatives. How's that for commitment.

Wow, now theres a hard hitting point. $2million for environmental initiatives. You are onto something.

BTW, I could have used the $300 million spent on this election for a new garage door opener. You know, if you see any xtra cash laying around.

M.Dancer · October 21, 2008

Wow, now theres a hard hitting point. $2million for environmental initiatives. You are onto something.
BTW, I could have used the $300 million spent on this election for a new garage door opener. You know, if you see any xtra cash laying around.

I could have used $2500 for a carbon frame bicycle..before they are subject to a carbon tax..

madmax · October 22, 2008

I could have used $2500 for a carbon frame bicycle..before they are subject to a carbon tax..

ROTFLMAO

PoliticalCitizen · October 22, 2008

Yes it is a thorough analysis. The GP is an old party that never had an interest in running a full field of Candidates until there was government funds provided.
The argument cannot be made about ANY party.

These Parties came 5 to 10 years after the Green Party established its existance.

The Reform Party ran a full slate of Candidates when there wasn't federal funding.

The Alliance Party ran a full slate of Candidates when there wasn't federal funding.

The National Party tried to run a full slate of Candidates but is the Party responsible for the platform to provide federal funding to parties.

The Social Credit ran full slates of Candidates, got seats, and higher percentage of voter turnout then the GPs have ever had. The Social Credit were not allowed into the 1979 TV Leaders Debate although they are the ones attributed to bringing down the Conservative Government.

The Green Party cares more about money and about political pandering then the environment. The Green Party is a political party with the word GREEN in its name. It uses the environment as a marketing tool.

If the Green Party cared about the environment? Why run a Pro Nuclear Candidates? Why Run Pro Coal Candidates? Why doesn't the environment come first and not political opportunism?

Paper Candidates do not care about the environment. Infact often they sit at home during the campaign. Many GP candidates don't make it to debates, and they still get votes. Some never bother to engage the public.

When environmental issues come to the front, I have seen , Liberal, Conservative and NDP reps take action. Sometimes officially, while in office, sometimes in fighting poor choice developments.

While I have no doubt that you think the GPs care about the environment more then money, I do not believe that to be the case. Infact the marketing tool of the GP is to give people their own money as a bribe. To give large corporations like Bell, Telus, CIBC, Rogers, Shaw, Shell, etc HUGE tax breaks, larger then what CPC might offer in order create a system of REVENUE off a Carbon Addiction.

Often the GP are as good as any political party with regards to misleading statements.

I recall one GP candidate comparing their Green Shift to SWEDEN (a socialist country). Suggesting that Sweden implemented a Carbon Tax based on the Green Shift. (yes I know the LPC stole this unpopular Plank)

However, Swedens Corporate Tax rate is 60% not 21.12 like Canadas and Swedens gas tax was implemented in the same manner as Canadas Excise Tax.

So BS baffles brains.

You can believe in GP fantasy. That is your right and you get to vote to support your position and party.

However, I must admit, you will not find to many takers on the GP platform.

One has to wonder how the GP with its base in BC never managed a 2nd place finish?

How the GPs only managed 5 2nd place finishes in all of Canada.

How the EMAY deal proved to be such a failure for two parties. And on top of that with the LPC not running a Candidate the GP Leader failed to get as many votes as the Previous NDP candidate who nearly toppled Peter Mackay. Clearly those 10,000 LPC votes will not be gifted to Elizabeth May next time around.

The free media ride is over from all accounts.

And from all the Winners and Losers columns regarding the Federal Election.

The only party that gets put in both categories is the CPC.

The LPC and GP are viewed as the Losers.

The NDP and BQ as winners, in varying degrees of success.

If the GP doesn't care about money, then Elizabeth May owes Dion a cheque for $1.95 for every vote he allowed her by not running a Liberal, short of the 600 normally get

The GP does care about money. Immediately after the ELection Elizabeth May was asking for more handouts.

Maybe you missed this...

SHOW US THE MONEY ..

The Greens by aiding the Liberals down the path to oblivion have managed to do more damage to the environment (politcally) then the Exxon Valdez did to the west coast.

LoL

You really didn't spare the effort to explain your point of view. That's all it is, though.

Of course the Greens will not have corporate sponsors - who needs to pay more for polluting?

But don't worry - they'll get through anyway, with time, whether you like it or not

madmax · October 22, 2008

LoL
You really didn't spare the effort to explain your point of view. That's all it is, though.

Of course the Greens will not have corporate sponsors - who needs to pay more for polluting?

But don't worry - they'll get through anyway, with time, whether you like it or not

THought you would enjoy it. The GP has corporate sponsors as do many parties. They are still restricted in what can be donated/given to the party.

This is a political forum for general political discussion. All views are treated with respect. Even party hacks and diehards are fun to banter with, and these forums are well moderated.

Enjoy your time here.

kengs333 · October 22, 2008

Yes it is a thorough analysis. The GP is an old party that never had an interest in running a full field of Candidates until there was government funds provided.

Wrong. It had to do with the party leadership and the desire of party members not to conform to the system. Jim Harris managed to change this perspective; by making the party more mainstream, it began to grow and has become what it is now. This caused some of the diehards to form a new party that eventually floundered. Whatever the case, it unfortunately takes money for a party to exist in our political system. That's how the Reform Party emerged so quickly, which in a way is kind of ironic...

William Ashley · October 22, 2008

I think this was a poor election for measuring the potential strength of the rising Greens. It is pretty obvious that the Greens are going to draw their support from Liberals.
Once the Liberals have a majority in parliament, then I'd expect to see the Greens take seats away from them.

Until then, the Greens will be squeezed out by strategic voting.

This is a good reason why greens should consider all moving to somewhere and call it green city or something and then bask in having a seat, or atleast 1 place per region or something. Perhaps find some green comapnies and covens and start up a spiral scouts group.

PoliticalCitizen · October 22, 2008

THought you would enjoy it. The GP has corporate sponsors as do many parties. They are still restricted in what can be donated/given to the party.

Can you quote and link some of Green Party's corporate sponsors?

This is a political forum for general political discussion. All views are treated with respect. Even party hacks and diehards are fun to banter with, and these forums are well moderated.
Enjoy your time here.

I didn't threaten or insult you and I'm not new here.

I disagree with your point and I dislike your approach of trying to discredit the Green party and its ideals.

Of course you have as much right to be express your point of view as anybody else.

We are discussing.

PoliticalCitizen · October 22, 2008

This is a good reason why greens should consider all moving to somewhere and call it green city or something and then bask in having a seat, or atleast 1 place per region or something. Perhaps find some green comapnies and covens and start up a spiral scouts group.

Either that or try to change the electoral system.

We choose to do the latter.