How many Green votes?

[madmax]

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.

And a number of independents.

[William Ashley]

Thanks for the story, hopefully you understand that using neologisms or phrases that apply to your place of work doesn't help me to understand you. If I started writting in mandarin, would this help you to understand me?

I'm sorry Alta4ever but you really havn't the slightest clue as to my preferences. Since I don't support partisan politics, and I really deal with what it is. Of course you give the kid the business, that way they don't loose anything, and they can sell it if they so choose, either that or give someone a cut to manage it.

1. Fair vs equitable this is somehting that transfered over from my days of life insurance.

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.

What? No, my political theories stretch back over 10 years ago, and have been developmental for over a decade, they have very little to do with the current political climate. As for who I vote or do not vote for. I worked for election canada in 2006 and didn't vote. I was going to run in this election but was refused allowance because no eligible auditor would audit my campaign for the $250 elections canada subsidy.

I've been in contact with my local MP for years, and the day after election day contacted the new MP, you clearly are painting me, and spreading what is otherwise lies. Why don't you stick to talking about what you actually know rather than fabricating stupidity.

3. What you are purposing is the party

I'll cut you off right there... I havn't proposed anything for a party.

got x number of votes nationally, now we need to give you some seats

I'm doubting you read anything I wrote. What I proposed is that 2 new houses are opened in parliament. A federal council called the presidents council or house of lords or house of presidents ect.. that receive a vote federally, much like a referendum question appearing seperate on the ballot, but with a number inserted for their listing, rather than in a region, this allows people who have federal support rather than local support to be involved in the process. Eg. May who is head of Green Party may reaceive 10,000 votes in Halifax and not get a seat while someone else only 8000 and get it. While that person who got 8000 votes locally may not receive much more than that federally, while Mr. Fortier for example may not win his seat but still be elected to the council with party votes. Mr. Suzuki or some other fellow my be able to muster votes Federally that would substantiate a seat and provide individuals with a purpose or general trust to have voice in parliament without requiring them to represent a specific riding. While parties would undoubtedly be able to feild a large number of persons to the council it would insure representation of major interests, and remove the restrictions of local support for national concerns.

The other house is a house of representatives. Where people receive a vote whether a member of a party or not. Everyone who runs in the election including independents and small parties would have access to the house on a basis of pooled vote for speaking or seating time, eg. x # of slots for the day, while people can pool their votes, these slots are picked based upon #of votes pooled that day. So that those with the votes can decide what issues they would like to hear. It also insures the major parties be kept to a minimum of speaking time example 320 seats x 3 = about 1000 possible major party slots each slot being 1 minute = about 21 hours set aside for major parties with 3 hours for the minor parties. Each day would have reverse speaking order, with smallest number of votes first vs largest number of votes first. And all put on public record.

You make almost no sense.

Are you a strawman by chance?

Edited October 23, 2008 by William Ashley

[Mr.Canada]

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...

So in your mind everyone's candidate should get a seat in the legislature just so everyone can feel happy?

People are far too sensitive these days. It seems everyone needs to feel good, no one is allowed to lose or feel sad, get a grip.

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.

I guess he's got the Canadian public fooled then. He must be really smart to be able to fool the majority of Canadian voters eh?

Maybe the people knew exactly who they were voting for and like the way he does things and his policies. Canada wants him to have a majority.

You make almost no sense.

Are you a strawman by chance?

If I only had a brain...

Edited October 23, 2008 by Mr.Canada

[M.Dancer]

Good, then I shall tomorrow ask my Conservative MP to champion my wish for a Carbon Tax once Parlaiment resumes...

And they will tell you that the majority of canadians vited against a carbon tax.

For some, democracy is getting their wishes taken care of in the face of overwhelming opposition. My 4 year old does this as well. We tell him Bed Time..he says I want to play longer...we say no, play tomorrow ...he screams IT"S NOT FAIR....

I feel the whiners who didn't get their fringe candidate elected and my 4 year old have a lot in common. Funny thing is though, the 4 year old willplay tomorrow while even if one of the fringe got elected, they still wouldn't be able to accomplish much....because majority would still rule. I could certainly go to the Green Fringe MP and ask that Corporate taxes be remove...and they would tell me no..I would still be represented by someone....even if I didn't vote for them.

[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?

Seems that your comments fit right in with the GP leaders. So, here is the medias perspective after the free lunch the GPs had.

National Post Editorial Board: Next time let Greens pay their own way

Posted: October 16, 2008, 8:00 AM by Kelly McParland

Editorial, Full Comment, greens

The morning after Tuesday’s election, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May told CBC News that Prime Minister Stephen Harper should step down as Conservative leader because he will never be able to lead his party to a majority. Meanwhile, Ms. May opined, she is playing a valuable role in federal politics -- because she is raising fresh issues, and because several people approached her during the campaign and said they had never voted before, but intended to do so this time around because of her and her party.

The remark epitomized the delusional lens through which Ms. May views herself. The only leader in the televised debates unable to win her own seat -- who heads a party that has never even come close to electing a single MP -- was suggesting that a man who’s twice been elected prime minister should step aside because he’s a failure. That’s rich.We are all complicit in Ms. May’s narcissistic fantasy: Editors and reporters at many national news outlets have given fawning deference to her every utterance. This election was a reality check: Ms. May is, at best, the leader of a fringe protest party. And it is time she was treated that way.

No free lunch for the GP.

Edited October 23, 2008 by madmax

[kengs333]

Seems that your comments fit right in with the GP leaders. So, here is the medias perspective after the free lunch the GPs had.

No free lunch for the GP.

So what? The National Post is a neoconservative rag. Of course they don't want Canada to be a democracy.

[kengs333]

I guess he's got the Canadian public fooled then. He must be really smart to be able to fool the majority of Canadian voters eh?

Well, let's see him change the name back to the Reform Party, and see how many votes he gets. The point of changing the name to the Conservative Party is to fool/deceive people. I can't tell you how many times I heard the CPC referred to as the PCs while watching election coverage. The CPC is NOT the old PC.

[kengs333]

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.

Excuse me? Spare me the personal attacks...

How did a party that champions the cause of the environment "sell it out" by doing so?????? No other party took the environment seriously until they realized that the Greens posed a serious threat. Europe, where members of Green Parties get elected, has a much better environmental record now because of it.

[kengs333]

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 have to keep in mind that media coverage and money have a lot to do with determining what parties get attention. If the Marxist-Leninist Party was able to raise say $50,000,000 and have front page coverage in all of the newspapers, then the Conservative party would sink to fringe status (as you see it) quite quickly.

[Riverwind]

You have to keep in mind that media coverage and money have a lot to do with determining what parties get attention.

This explains why the Greens got 7%. The deep pockets of the various eviron groups bought them media time.

If the Marxist-Leninist Party was able to raise say $50,000,000 and have front page coverage in all of the newspapers, then the Conservative party would sink to fringe status (as you see it) quite quickly.

Not a chance. People have certain views that are not easily changed by party spending.

[Mr.Canada]

You have to keep in mind that media coverage and money have a lot to do with determining what parties get attention. If the Marxist-Leninist Party was able to raise say $50,000,000 and have front page coverage in all of the newspapers, then the Conservative party would sink to fringe status (as you see it) quite quickly.

They are free to do so. If they could then we could take them seriously but as it stands they are nobodies.

Are you jealous of the Conservative Party? It sure sounds like you are.

Do you expect the LPC to rule forever?

[M.Dancer]

No other party took the environment seriously until they realized that the Greens posed a serious threat.

That is an easy statement to make when you don't have a clue what you're talking about. The Kyoto accord talks started in 1992 and signed in 1997. The Green Aprty impact on Canadian politics at that time was less than zero.

Europe, where members of Green Parties get elected, has a much better environmental record now because of it.

The Green party started out as an anti nuclear power lobby. They failed in France. The Greens in most of europe are only a little less irrelevant than in Canada. They rarely poll more than 10% and in the recent French Presidential election the scored a breathtaking 1.5%.

In Germany the Greens no longer exist, they have merged with other parties.

[M.Dancer]

You have to keep in mind that media coverage and money have a lot to do with determining what parties get attention. If the Marxist-Leninist Party was able to raise say $50,000,000 and have front page coverage in all of the newspapers, then the Conservative party would sink to fringe status (as you see it) quite quickly.

And the winner of this weeks Tin Foil Hat Award goes to....

[M.Dancer]

This explains why the Greens got 7%. The deep pockets of the various eviron groups bought them media time.

Not a chance. People have certain views that are not easily changed by party spending.

Exactly. The NDP spent far more than ever this campaign. Where did it get them?

[Riverwind]

No other party took the environment seriously until they realized that the Greens posed a serious threat. Europe, where members of Green Parties get elected, has a much better environmental record now because of it.

David Suzuki is arguing that the Greens in Canada actually hurt the environmental cause because people who care about the issue are wasting resources on a party that will never be able to actually do anything.

[kengs333]

David Suzuki is arguing that the Greens in Canada actually hurt the environmental cause because people who care about the issue are wasting resources on a party that will never be able to actually do anything.

So you agree with Suzuki, then?

David Suzuki should know that the system and not the party is at fault. Green parties in other countries do get elected and make a positive impact on politics and society. Go to Europe and you will see that the environment is taken much more seriously. Why? Because of a fairer, more democratic system that allows for peoples political views to be represented.

[kengs333]

They are free to do so. If they could then we could take them seriously but as it stands they are nobodies.

Are you jealous of the Conservative Party? It sure sounds like you are.

Do you expect the LPC to rule forever?

Am I jealous? How childish. I have a different political outlook and I'm frustrated that the system is set up to maintain the status quo rather than true democratic representation.

[kengs333]

This explains why the Greens got 7%. The deep pockets of the various eviron groups bought them media time.

Such as?

Not a chance. People have certain views that are not easily changed by party spending.

Actually, yes they are.

[Riverwind]

David Suzuki should know that the system and not the party is at fault.

Suzuki's argument is the system is not going to change and people who support the greens anyways hurt the environmentalist cause.

Green parties in other countries do get elected and make a positive impact on politics and society.

The US actually has a very good record on most environmental issues and they never have and never will have a pro-environment party.

[kengs333]

Suzuki's argument is the system is not going to change and people who support the greens anyways hurt the environmentalist cause.

The US actually has a very good record on most environmental issues and they never have and never will have a pro-environment party.

You know I did ask you a question: do you agree with David Suzuki?

Of course the system could change, but Canadians have been grromed to be apathetic when it comes to politics.

I still don't see how the "environmentalist cause" has been hurt when the Green Party has forced other parties to take the issue seriously.

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...

[Mr.Canada]

Am I jealous? How childish. I have a different political outlook and I'm frustrated that the system is set up to maintain the status quo rather than true democratic representation.

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

[M.Dancer]

I still don't see how the "environmentalist cause" has been hurt when the Green Party has forced other parties to take the issue seriously.

Do you think by keep repeating this it will somehow make it true? You say you majored in history. I take it you failed.

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...

A better record than canada's.

And the US green party isn't shut out. They are on the ballot where applicable. They even make news....but by and large americans ignore the fringe parties.....here we give them way to much exposure and listen to them yap endlessly. We are suckers that way.

Thanks for coming.

Edited October 23, 2008 by M.Dancer

[Mr.Canada]

--

Edited October 23, 2008 by Mr.Canada

[Mr.Canada]

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?

[Riverwind]

Of course the system could change, but Canadians have been grromed to be apathetic when it comes to politics.

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.

I still don't see how the "environmentalist cause" has been hurt when the Green Party has forced other parties to take the issue seriously.

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.