How many Green votes?

[Mr.Canada]

Actually they were because they never would have been able to form government to do it. They were whining in hopes some other party would do it for them. They were never going to form government and they new it. There were those in the reform party that want exactly what you do, and they are wrong for it.

Sort of like the NDP. They'll never form a government so they can say all sorts of outlandish things because they will never have to prove themselves. No one will ever call them to task.

[William Ashley]

William Ashley, Why do you post these epic tales? Very few people will take the time to read it. You should keep your points short if you want a true response.

Imho, of course you are free to post as you like. I'm just trying to help.

It takes that much space I can't just go.

What a a-- h--- it is against the forum rule to be overly vulgar, so I need to explain in long sentences rather than just stating he is a lying pompous inhumane s.o.b. etc.. and things like that. However sometimes you need to use full sentences to be coherent. Sometimes more than one. You never know either you'll learn something by reading them, or continue being ignorant and wrong.

Without the mental faculty the net becomes much less productive as we dont install giant beat me to a pulp robot arms next to our computer

Edited October 23, 2008 by William Ashley

[Mr.Canada]

It takes that much space I can't just go.

What a a-- h--- it is against the forum rule to be overly vulgar, so I need to explain in long setences rather than just stating he is a lying pompous inhumane s.o.b. etc.. and things like that. However sometimes you need to use full sentences to be coherent. Sometimes more than one. You never know either you'll learn something by reading them, or continue being ignorant and wrong.

Without the mental faculty the net becomes much less productive as we dont instale giant beat me to a pulp robot arms next to our computer

Lol. It is not without its entertainment value, I'll give you that.

[William Ashley]

Hopefully you don't loose yourself to much as to miss the point.

Also if you are ever curious why I need to edit my posts a lot is because my internet explorer program is hijacked by someone, and my posts need to be edited.

It is a really faulty version of ie.

Edited October 23, 2008 by William Ashley

[Mr.Canada]

Hopefully you don't loose yourself to much as to miss the point.

Also if you are ever curious why I need to edit my posts a lot is because my internet explorer program is hijacked by someone, and my posts need to be edited.

It is a really faulty version of ie.

You should try Firefox. It is much more secure and is more customizable.

Grab the addon called NoScript! It won't load any scripts from web pages unless you allow it.

Edited October 23, 2008 by Mr.Canada

[kengs333]

Actually they were because they never would have been able to form government to do it. They were whining in hopes some other party would do it for them. They were never going to form government and they new it. There were those in the reform party that want exactly what you do, and they are wrong for it.

What do you mean? The Reform Party is currently in power.

[Alta4ever]

1. What is this suppose to mean, you do realize equitable is a synonym of fair? You are nutty talking.

Are there only two groups kindergarteners and stupid people? This is a tough call, you present some tough choices.

Life is very much fair you just need to take it as it comes after all is there another option? Acceptance is a good part of life, the other part is striving to bring the best values into it in any circumstance.

2.Part of the problem with this statement is that I'm not whining, that is an allusion, and once again a very weak peice of rhetoric, that right there is a lie, because you are speaking of my state, rather than expressing yourself in a way that can be factual, you are simply a rude person from what I can see of you, who is deluded and painting me. You really need to explain yourself better because you are saying a dead point. What I would do---? What? Give more people voice? Increase the size of those who can deliberate in one situation and give it a rubber stamp and the power to give more ideas on how to best implement public concern or input. That is what my drastic ideas to bring a "close to free democracy" to Canada would do. Is this your enemy? If so your values are poor.

3.You are clearly in support of totalitarianism and oppressing the voice of the public, someone who supports oligarcractic function over free democracy, or should i say a closer to free democracy. If you take nothing from the old way and give more people voice and input in a public and open forum, how is this subverting democracy. I definately don't pick the liar.

1. Fair vs equitable this is somehting that transfered over from my days of life insurance. The phrase above was used all the time. the best way I hav eof explaining this is an anaolgy back to where we used it. Say you are setting up your will. You could be fair and leave 50% 'of you business to both children, even though one doesn't hasn't contributed to the company and followed their own career path. This would be fair, in the optics to someone who read the will. When you dig a little father though, you child who runs the business now either has to come up with capital to buy out the other or pay dividends to the sibling even though the sibling doesn't have to contribute anything to the business. Equitable would be setting up an insurance policy for the second child at a slightly lower amount then the value of the business because they won't have to work to gain income off that sum of money, where the first child would have to work very hard to keep the business viable.

get it fair vs equitable, very similar but different.

2. You are compaining because you feel since no one was elected from a party you supported that the national number should carry more weight then it does. So you come on a forum and exposue this poor me sentiment that you don't have anyone who speaks for me beacuse a party that you voted for has no members in the commons. When the reality is you have people who will do this for you in your constituency, but you don't recognize the, because you think your voice is more important than the majority of those others in your constituency.

How is speaking about what I perceive your state to be a lie? Politics isn't about truth, it is about what your perception not about truth, because the truth can be subjective. What say is what I see when I read your posts. (Much like you see me as rude).

This raises one big point about PR if you are asigned an MP who has been parachuted in by the party and gets the seat through the PR system, but knows nothing about the constituency how are they suppose to be a voice for the problems and concerns of the people if they know nothing about the region the people or the constituency?

There are very big flaws with PR and it subverts true democracy.

3. What you are purposing is the party got x number of votes nationally, now we need to give you some seats even though you didn't win in any riding. So that means the rights of the majority are going to be taken away. That is Totalitarianism.

[Alta4ever]

What do you mean? The Reform Party is currently in power.

Wrong the reform party isn't in power. Much of the reform element is gone, comparing policy back to the reform party much of that is gone as well.

[jbg]

Your full of it

1. Life isn't about what is fair it is about what is equitable. To think otherwise puts you in the same mindset as most kindergarteners. I Guess you still haven't learned that one major life lesson life isn't fair get over it.

2. How can a minority impose their will on the majority, please how does this work, this sounds like a totalitarian society were democracy doesn't work. Its sounds like a bunch of ruling elite nonsense. Churchill said it best, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." The fundamental lesson of democracy is everybody has a say but those with the majority win. As for your example, it doesn't matter that they were close it matters that one person had more support. Out of all the candidates one got the most support, and its not like its an appointment for life, loof at Rahim Jaffer. He got replaced and it can happen during any election.

You were too kind to him. The fact is that when people don't vote they forfeit their seat at the table. When people vote for marginal parties (I include the NDP, Greens and Bloc in that role) they similarly forfeit their place.

The Jews are disproportionately influential because they speak out, and vote. No one is shutting the person you were responding to up. If his message is as incoherent as it sounds. no one listens. That's democracy, and life.

Minority rule is a failure of democracy, if you don't believe me see any country that has had a monarchy, dictator, or totalitarian system. See Iraq, Iran, USSR, China, Revolutionary France and Napoleon, Italy, ect. We could go on and on for days.

Dictatorships ensue when someone can sing the populist siren song of forced redistribution. Since it's contrary to human nature and psychology it takes brute force to impose it. Socieities that are ruled by brute force have no rule of law, ensuring both totalitarianism and misery. They go together, along with going with war and violence.

If you want your ideas that are held by the minority to become those of the mainstreams, I suggest you start selling to the masses, and stop whining, but I think most people know what your proposing is and what it would do to any democracy. Not to mention those of us who see this for what it is and will do everything possible to stop the subversion of democracy in this country.

The person you were responding to reminds me of "beer and popcorn".

[PoliticalCitizen]

7% in any riding will not win you a seat.

WTF is a riding again?

Who's riding where? To collect ballots?

Who introduced ridings and WHY? How is it democratic?

And just because this ancient "riding" system exists, we're supposed to take it as God-given and pray that our candidate makes it?

B-effin-S! The votes of almost a million people cannot be discarded just because the system isn't prepared to handle them.

Slavery is history, so will the riding system be...

[Alta4ever]

WTF is a riding again?

Who's riding where? To collect ballots?

Who introduced ridings and WHY? How is it democratic?

And just because this ancient "riding" system exists, we're supposed to take it as God-given and pray that our candidate makes it?

B-effin-S! The votes of almost a million people cannot be discarded just because the system isn't prepared to handle them.

Slavery is history, so will the riding system be...

Maybe thats the problem, you pray that your candidate makes it, I go out and volunteer for the candidate I support to work for their victory.

Edited October 23, 2008 by Alta4ever

[PoliticalCitizen]

Fair representation is majority rule.

That may be true for you.

To me fair representation would be a percentage of votes being translated into the same percentage of seats in parliament.

Quit whinning we on the right had to deal with this for a long time.

Whining is usually counter-productive.

I'm more about providing a different angle on an issue so familiar that nobody really considers changing (like monarchy )

Some a advice, pick a couple of ridings where your party could possibly win, start work now not 3 months before the election, get a real organization going and pour money and advertising into it, recuirt a good candidate and that will give you a real start to a party that will maybe start a snowball effect. Whinning will do nothing to furthur your cause.

Should we all move to these 2 ridings?

Are you suggesting segregation? Is that what our current electoral system is all about?

Edited October 23, 2008 by PoliticalCitizen

[kengs333]

Wrong the reform party isn't in power. Much of the reform element is gone, comparing policy back to the reform party much of that is gone as well.

Like who? Stephen Harper? Admit it: the Conservative Party is simply a revamped Reform Party, hence Harper's statement after winning the 2006 election that the West was "finally in". Harper's agenda has always been to have an Alberta-based regional party take control of Ottawa--even if it meant revamping the party to look as though it was a national party. The fact that they could off their conservative rivals and take on their name to complete the deception is just a bonus for him. As I've always said, in order to see the Reform come back out in the party, they have to get a majority.

[PoliticalCitizen]

...my internet explorer program is hijacked by someone...

I'm sorry to be the one that brings it to you but it may be more than just your IE

[jbg]

To me fair representation would be a percentage of votes being translated into the same percentage of seats in parliament.

Whining is usually counter-productive.

If you like unaccountable coalition governments you'd love rep-by-prop. It is an awful system. Ask Israel.

[Alta4ever]

Like who? Stephen Harper? Admit it: the Conservative Party is simply a revamped Reform Party, hence Harper's statement after winning the 2006 election that the West was "finally in". Harper's agenda has always been to have an Alberta-based regional party take control of Ottawa--even if it meant revamping the party to look as though it was a national party. The fact that they could off their conservative rivals and take on their name to complete the deception is just a bonus for him. As I've always said, in order to see the Reform come back out in the party, they have to get a majority.

So why is the party offic ein ottawa, why have most of reform Mps retired? Why is it that the policy book from 2005 was written by grassroots from across the country. The reform movement is gone, if fact if you visit other online forums you will find former reformers pinning for the party again because they are unhappy with the CPC, and what they see as a sell out to the reform roots. The fact is that they have been striving to create a real conservative movement not a western based protest party. Even with a majority mandate you wouldn't see strong social conservative policy. If you read the 2005 policy book you will see for yourself what I have told you.

[PoliticalCitizen]

If you like unaccountable coalition governments you'd love rep-by-prop. It is an awful system. Ask Israel.

I said multiple times that a Mixed-Member Proportional system like the one that was proposed in Ontario would probably make most sense, at least as a transition from FPTP to something more democratic.

[Alta4ever]

I said multiple times that a Mixed-Member Proportional system like the one that was proposed in Ontario would probably make most sense, at least as a transition from FPTP to something more democratic.

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.

[kengs333]

If you like unaccountable coalition governments you'd love rep-by-prop. It is an awful system. Ask Israel.

There's only two countries that use the system that Israel uses: Israel and Italy. The system that was proposed for Ontario is one that is used successfully in countries like Germany. Parties get close to proportional representation, and those that don't reach a minimum of 5% do not elect members to the respective legislature.

[madmax]

An odd claim considering that it was the Green Party that forced the other parties to take the environment seriously.

It is apparent to me, that you disregard all factual information, and continue on with outlandish and unsubstantiated claims, much like Elizabeth May. You are a perfect fit. Just ignore the dialogue and continue on living in a bubble.

the GP is just a political party. One that sold out the environment before securing a seat during its 25 years of existence. That is something.

[jbg]

I said multiple times that a Mixed-Member Proportional system like the one that was proposed in Ontario would probably make most sense, at least as a transition from FPTP to something more democratic.

New Zealand now has a Mixed-Member Proportional system. It's a guarantee of a minority government, and later, as more time goes by, coalition governments.

The problem with Mixed-Member Proportional systems and rep-by-prop is that the same coalitions shuffle in and out, largely able to blame failure to meet campaign promises on "coalition partners" and ask voters, basically, "how many elections do you want" when asked why budgets don't meet promises.

[madmax]

LOL... So the Greens are a "fringe" party because they actually manage to run candidates across the country as opposed to just one province? I guess that makes the Cons a fringe party too, then?

The GP have been unable to crack the nut, and land a seat. One might ask what would happen to the GP if the Federal Funding was removed. The GP is a party that has a very long gestation period. Many Political Parties have secured a seat within a 25 year period.

The CPC is the party in power, with 144 seats. The Prime Minister is Stephen Harper.

The GP is a party not in power, with Zero seats. The Leader of the GP watches from the Gallery, the business of government.

To some, some here perhaps. Looking on from the gallery, is on the fringe. In fact, the Animal Alliance Party and the Christian Heritage Party leaders can join the Leader of the GP at anytime in the gallery. Along with any group of students on a school trip.

[madmax]

Keep in mind that all of you may be on the left but none of you agree, so when you look at it the liberals only got 26.23, NDP who got 18.19, the bloc at 9.98 and then the greens at 6.80.

So lets look at this the way you seem to 73.77% of Canadians did not vote for the liberals, 81.81% of Canadians did not vote for the NDP, 90.02% of Canadians did not vote for the Bloc, and well you should see the trend 93.2% of Canadians did vote for the greens. So what does this say to you? I'll tell you what this says to me a bigger majority of Canadians didn't want a liberal, ndp, or green government then CPC. So our democracy worked, I still would have said it worked had the result been different and another party got in.

Also remember, that in ridings, people didn't want the Liberal Candidate or Leader, and choose either CPC, NDP or GP, (Maybe something else too). People that might not have liked the CPC candidate or leader, may have moved from CPC to NDP, Lib, GP or BQ or other......

I have yet to see what the "left" in Canada is when talking to coworkers. When someone says I don't like Dion but I like Harper and Jack, that is pretty wide open in thought. When someone says, Dions an idiot, but I like May but I am voting for Harper, it really throws the pundits for a ride.

And when telepolls call and some do name parties, often people with no interest in Politics answer GP, just because they can give an answer without worry.

More Irony is someone hating the LPC platform of 2008 and voting GP to let the riding go to the CPC, but won't vote CPC because of the cuts to Art Funding.

It is not black and white, or left and right out there.

And the next irony, being the GP and LPC often call to "unite the left", while the Gp claim they aren't right, left or Centre, and the LPC consider themselve the "Natural Governing Party".

Democracy did work... as is mentioned above.

The CPC almost got a touchdown, and the NDP stopped them on the 10 yard line.

Canadians didn't let Harper and the CPC get that touchdown. They have got to the 10 yard line, and it would seem they have another 3 downs. (If they use 4 downs, Canadians are in trouble )

I think all parties support 3 down football

[madmax]

Please, if you consider wanting all Canadians to be represented in Parlaiment "whining" then there's no discussion.

I ask you one thing, though: was the Reform Party "whining" when they wanted "democratic reform"? Didn't think so...

The CCF, Reform, Social Credit, National Party, NDP have all advocated for Democratic Reform long before the existance of the GP.

Democratic Reform is party of Democracy.

Whinging appears to be part of the GP partisan plea.

Edited October 23, 2008 by madmax

[madmax]

WTF is a riding again?

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).

Who's riding where? To collect ballots?

Who introduced ridings and WHY? How is it democratic?

And just because this ancient "riding" system exists, we're supposed to take it as God-given and pray that our candidate makes it?

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

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.

Regardless, I find your comments troubling.