WWWTT Posted March 26, 2011 Report Posted March 26, 2011 So how long has it bein since the Greens have bein trying to win a seat in the lower house? Even just one to just give them the credibility of putting a campaign together that has produced some kind of positive results. And Elizabeth May,the leader of the party has a knak at picking real easy shoe in ridings where she has a chance to win. If there is no seat will there be a green party May 3rd? Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
ToadBrother Posted March 26, 2011 Report Posted March 26, 2011 (edited) So how long has it bein since the Greens have bein trying to win a seat in the lower house? Even just one to just give them the credibility of putting a campaign together that has produced some kind of positive results. And Elizabeth May,the leader of the party has a knak at picking real easy shoe in ridings where she has a chance to win. If there is no seat will there be a green party May 3rd? I wasn't even aware it was their first... The way they play political game they might as well be running for seats on the Moon. Edited March 26, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote
RNG Posted March 26, 2011 Report Posted March 26, 2011 Actually she finally picked a riding where she has a chance, an outside chance mabybe but a chance. Last time, running against Peter MacKay was just idiocy. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
cybercoma Posted March 26, 2011 Report Posted March 26, 2011 The Green Party needs re-branding. Although they're not, they seem like a one-trick pony only concerned about a single issue. The reality is that they actually have a full platform with valid positions that ought to be considered by voters. I think the biggest problem they face is being a party that people think is strictly about the environment and nothing else. They should keep the colour green, but change the rest of their branding. Quote
RNG Posted March 26, 2011 Report Posted March 26, 2011 The Green Party needs re-branding. Although they're not, they seem like a one-trick pony only concerned about a single issue. The reality is that they actually have a full platform with valid positions that ought to be considered by voters. I think the biggest problem they face is being a party that people think is strictly about the environment and nothing else. They should keep the colour green, but change the rest of their branding. Perhaps more than a rebranding, just a better job of getting their message out. Their platform is a bit too much tax and spend for me, but in degree, not to the extent of some other parties out there. Hopefully with a better vote count each election they will get a bit more money and thus be able to communicate better. They've been in the high 9% support range the past few polls. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
WWWTT Posted March 26, 2011 Author Report Posted March 26, 2011 The problem I see with the greens is the lack of any attempt to successfully sieze one single seat in parliament. Last election they screamed and yelled for a spot on the televised debate and the networks reluclantly given in.Will Elizabeth May attempt this antic again?Or is she too embarassed too even squeek about this subject of the media not taking them serious?Or anybody else for that matter? I myself do not take them serious.After all if they can't at least win one seat for so long how will they perform if they were to suddenly win 35? WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
cybercoma Posted March 26, 2011 Report Posted March 26, 2011 Forget the winning of seats. Our electoral system is broken with a capital F'ed. The Greens have nearly 7% of the popular vote (2008 election). If nearly a milion people voted for them, how could they not be represented? The Greens and NDP combined had some 22% of the popular vote in the 2008 election with only 29 seats out of 308 in the House. 22% of the vote and less than 10% of the seats... how does that even remotely make sense? The system is broken. So, I don't pay much attention to the fact that they get no seats. She ought to be in the debates and the electoral system ought to be fixed to actually represent the beliefs of the Canadian electorate. Quote
TimG Posted March 26, 2011 Report Posted March 26, 2011 (edited) 22% of the vote and less than 10% of the seats... how does that even remotely make sense?It makes perfect sense in a system that is designed to pick local representatives for government. If the Greens do not represent the majority in a single riding then they have no place in a parliment made up of local representatives. You can argue that we should not have system based on electing local representatives but that is a choice that comes with trade offs. That does not mean the current system is "broken". Edited March 26, 2011 by TimG Quote
RNG Posted March 26, 2011 Report Posted March 26, 2011 (edited) Forget the winning of seats. Our electoral system is broken with a capital F'ed. The Greens have nearly 7% of the popular vote (2008 election). If nearly a milion people voted for them, how could they not be represented? The Greens and NDP combined had some 22% of the popular vote in the 2008 election with only 29 seats out of 308 in the House. 22% of the vote and less than 10% of the seats... how does that even remotely make sense? The system is broken. So, I don't pay much attention to the fact that they get no seats. She ought to be in the debates and the electoral system ought to be fixed to actually represent the beliefs of the Canadian electorate. Whereas I have a theoretical sympathy for the concept of proportional representatation, I still have not seen a system of achieving it that would make me feel confortable. Would you be happy to see Harper, Iggy and Layton just appoint however many buttkissing yes-men (and women) to parliament? The concept scares me worse than the mess we have now. Edited March 26, 2011 by RNG Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
Wild Bill Posted March 26, 2011 Report Posted March 26, 2011 Forget the winning of seats. Our electoral system is broken with a capital F'ed. The Greens have nearly 7% of the popular vote (2008 election). If nearly a milion people voted for them, how could they not be represented? The Greens and NDP combined had some 22% of the popular vote in the 2008 election with only 29 seats out of 308 in the House. 22% of the vote and less than 10% of the seats... how does that even remotely make sense? The system is broken. So, I don't pay much attention to the fact that they get no seats. She ought to be in the debates and the electoral system ought to be fixed to actually represent the beliefs of the Canadian electorate. TimG is quite correct. Your premise totally ignores even any diference between percentage of the national popular vote and popularity of someone running to be the representative of a specific local riding. You are entitled to that POV but the fact remains that most Canadians care very much about choosing a specific person to represent them, not just trusting that a party answering first and foremost to its own party brass will give a damn about a specific riding. All parties pay lip service to that idea but in practice they cheerfully will sacrifice the odd riding if it brings them overall gains in the party's fortunes. Also, our First Past the Post system has another advantage. It establishes a minimum level of support necessary for a party to become a contender. All this talk about representing ALL Canadians ignores the point that there is always a small percentage of voters who are uninformed, poorly educated and/or just flakes! Trying to develop a system that will represent every single citizen's views, no matter how silly or possibly even racist, is just futile! Under our existing system, a party must attract enough followers in a riding to win a seat. If that party has even a reasonably popular platform there is always some riding SOMEWHERE in Canada where they would have a chance! They may not be attractive in a Metro Toronto riding but perhaps in Red Deer, Alberta. Certainly there would be something in British Columbia, the home of all the "oddball" views. A system that relies entirely on a percentage of the entire nation's electorate to acquire even one seat is frankly just a vehicle for all the tiny minority extremist views to achieve more power than they really deserve! It's all just an attempt to change the game if you are a perpetual loser. By yourself, you wouldn't likely be able to get enough people to come to a stadium to see you play but if you can somehow rig the system you can force yourself to be included in the league, where all the other teams provide the draw that finances everything. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
WWWTT Posted March 26, 2011 Author Report Posted March 26, 2011 Forget the winning of seats. Our electoral system is broken with a capital F'ed. The Greens have nearly 7% of the popular vote (2008 election). If nearly a milion people voted for them, how could they not be represented? The Greens and NDP combined had some 22% of the popular vote in the 2008 election with only 29 seats out of 308 in the House. 22% of the vote and less than 10% of the seats... how does that even remotely make sense? The system is broken. So, I don't pay much attention to the fact that they get no seats. She ought to be in the debates and the electoral system ought to be fixed to actually represent the beliefs of the Canadian electorate. Are you saying that our political system should change because there is one party that can't get a seat in parliament because they stubbornly thinned out their recources across every single region in Canada? I have heard this before but I have not researched any possible solutions.I would think that the burden lies soley on the greens. WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
cybercoma Posted March 27, 2011 Report Posted March 27, 2011 Whereas I have a theoretical sympathy for the concept of proportional representatation, I still have not seen a system of achieving it that would make me feel confortable. Would you be happy to see Harper, Iggy and Layton just appoint however many buttkissing yes-men (and women) to parliament? The concept scares me worse than the mess we have now. I don't want to completely de-rail this thread, but I honestly don't see how appointing "buttkissing yes-(wo)men" is any different from what happens now. It's not like these "local representatives" actually represent their constituents. They're whipped into following the party, so it doesn't matter what the constituents want anyway. Nonetheless, there are ways to make it representative still. Like I said though, I don't want to derail this thread with that. Quote
Scotty Posted March 27, 2011 Report Posted March 27, 2011 The Green Party needs re-branding. Although they're not, they seem like a one-trick pony only concerned about a single issue. The reality is that they actually have a full platform with valid positions that ought to be considered by voters. I think the biggest problem they face is being a party that people think is strictly about the environment and nothing else. They should keep the colour green, but change the rest of their branding. In what way would a left thinking progressive think voting Green would be better than voting NDP? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
RNG Posted March 27, 2011 Report Posted March 27, 2011 In what way would a left thinking progressive think voting Green would be better than voting NDP? You would avoid 80 years of union corruption? Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
RNG Posted March 27, 2011 Report Posted March 27, 2011 I don't want to completely de-rail this thread, but I honestly don't see how appointing "buttkissing yes-(wo)men" is any different from what happens now. It's not like these "local representatives" actually represent their constituents. They're whipped into following the party, so it doesn't matter what the constituents want anyway. Nonetheless, there are ways to make it representative still. Like I said though, I don't want to derail this thread with that. There is some element of truth to your post, but I guess I feel it is a matter of degrees. At least there is some limit to the free hand the leaders would have, and some MP's actually do some good before being kicked out of caucus. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
cybercoma Posted March 27, 2011 Report Posted March 27, 2011 In what way would a left thinking progressive think voting Green would be better than voting NDP? the cbc political compass makes them seem different enough. Quote
RNG Posted March 27, 2011 Report Posted March 27, 2011 the cbc political compass makes them seem different enough. I haven't really studied their platform from the last election in detail, but they appear to me to be much more fiscally conservative than the NDP. (Note the small c in conservative and keep in mind that all things are relative.) Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
scouterjim Posted March 27, 2011 Report Posted March 27, 2011 So how long has it bein since the Greens have bein trying to win a seat in the lower house? Even just one to just give them the credibility of putting a campaign together that has produced some kind of positive results. And Elizabeth May,the leader of the party has a knak at picking real easy shoe in ridings where she has a chance to win. If there is no seat will there be a green party May 3rd? In the last federal election, the Green Party ran a candidate for our riding that lived in Vancouver, and had nevr been to northern BC in her life. She was totally clueless about what was happening here, and had no idea of concerns in the area. She garnered very, very, very few votes. Quote I have captured the rare duct taped platypus.
Wild Bill Posted March 27, 2011 Report Posted March 27, 2011 In the last federal election, the Green Party ran a candidate for our riding that lived in Vancouver, and had nevr been to northern BC in her life. She was totally clueless about what was happening here, and had no idea of concerns in the area. She garnered very, very, very few votes. All the stronger to prove that most Canadians want an effective local representative more than they care for a representative given his or her seat solely because their party garnered 6% of the national popular vote! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
cybercoma Posted March 27, 2011 Report Posted March 27, 2011 (edited) What Canadians want and what they actually get are two different things. Edited March 27, 2011 by cybercoma Quote
Oleg Bach Posted March 27, 2011 Report Posted March 27, 2011 Get rid of the name Green for starters - and ditch that May person...Green is just a little to lefty and EUish for me...reminds me of the Reds hiding behind the environmentalist green fawna. These people are a non starter and a vote spoilage machine in the making. Quote
Jack Weber Posted March 27, 2011 Report Posted March 27, 2011 Get rid of the name Green for starters - and ditch that May person...Green is just a little to lefty and EUish for me...reminds me of the Reds hiding behind the environmentalist green fawna. These people are a non starter and a vote spoilage machine in the making. Oleg.. As...How do I put this politely... Eccelectic as you usually are,that is the reason I have no interest in the Greens... I hope they don't clutter up our already cluttered up debates with Elizabeth May this time... What a flake!!!! Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Oleg Bach Posted March 27, 2011 Report Posted March 27, 2011 Oleg.. As...How do I put this politely... Eccelectic as you usually are,that is the reason I have no interest in the Greens... I hope they don't clutter up our already cluttered up debates with Elizabeth May this time... What a flake!!!! May is about as high quality as Kim Campbell...There is not alot to her - at least Rona Ambrose has good hair and has a boyish charm about her...My older brother voted Green out of sheer spite - and spite really does not take you very far. I just hope that Harper...continues to follow his moderate dictatorial style of governance. Trim the whole system down and create a team of high end managers...all Harper is - is a spokesperson for our elite banking lawyers...and OUR banks are stable..not because of greed..but because our seniour banking lawyers actually care about managing the nation...it's not about money or power..It is about duty.....May of the Greens is a lot like Ignatieff....strickly ego and career driven..we don't need more cut throat careerists...we need people of diligence and duty..not game players or power mongers...People assume Harper is an egotist hooked on power...He is merely an adequate manager of this estate we call home. Quote
WWWTT Posted March 27, 2011 Author Report Posted March 27, 2011 In my opinion the greens are around for only one reason.To keep the NDP out. I believe the green party gets much of its support from anti union corporations across Canada.I can mention a name or two but I will not(southern Ontario would be their geographical location) This also explains why they are never serious about trying to actually win a seat. It also explains why their campaign has really pitered out now since we were hit with a recession. I will be happy to see this redundant brand gone myself so we can actually get something done in parliament. WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
punked Posted March 27, 2011 Report Posted March 27, 2011 In my opinion the greens are around for only one reason.To keep the NDP out. I believe the green party gets much of its support from anti union corporations across Canada.I can mention a name or two but I will not(southern Ontario would be their geographical location) This also explains why they are never serious about trying to actually win a seat. It also explains why their campaign has really pitered out now since we were hit with a recession. I will be happy to see this redundant brand gone myself so we can actually get something done in parliament. WWWTT The trends show the greens get almost all of their vote from the Liberals. 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.