Is this the Greens last federal campaign?

[WWWTT]

The trends show the greens get almost all of their vote from the Liberals.

I couldn't agree more.

Another reason why these anti union corporations are cutting their loses and abandoning the greens.

WWWTT

[Michael Hardner]

the cbc political compass makes them seem different enough.

That compass is ridiculous. It asked me a bunch of questions that asked about right-wing issues that aren't really being discussed by the Cons or anyone else, then asked me which party I trust and would support (I answered NDP in this case) and it told me to vote Liberal.

Duh.

[Keepitsimple]

It's hard to determine where Green votes would eventually end up. The vast majority of Green voters are the product of local candidates who tap into local like-mided groups and organizations to rack up a few votes. They don't vote for a leader or even a platform - just the local candidate's pitch that somehow, they'll end up making a statement if not a difference. Maybe some of the votes are simply "protest" votes - unhappy with the choices but still wanting to cast their vote. Maybe these people wouldn't bother voting at all if they didn't have the Green Party. It's hard to tell.

[Bob]

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.

I don't think this is important to most Canadians, but the Green Party is anti-Israel.

[TimG]

Maybe some of the votes are simply "protest" votes - unhappy with the choices but still wanting to cast their vote.

I think a large part of the green vote is a 'none of the above' vote. i.e. people don't care that much about the green issues but vote for them because they don't want to abstain.

[WWWTT]

Wow I really like the direction this thread is taking.

If after this election the grenn party would disband where will there voters turn to.Will it be a collective jump onto another band wagon or a complete fractured dispersment completely misguided?

Or will another party actually reach out to former green supporters to come on aboard?

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

Admittedly, I don't fully understand their platform, but I would think a merger of the Greens and NDP would make sense.

[ConservativeGrowth]

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.

That looks so pathetic and desperate on her part.

If there is no seat will there be a green party May 3rd?

Hopefully not, the only way they could form a government is if they lived the small "Unrealistic Environmental Laws That Make Us Live Like Cavemen" Land.

[expat voter]

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!

A fundamental cornerstone of democracy is free speech. If one person has something to say, which does not infringe on the rights of others, she should be able to have her say. Would you eliminate the right to run as an independent, unaffiliated with any party?

Wild Bill, small parties are a part of democracy, just look at the list of the ones running. And often they are run not by the ignorant and uninformed, but by people who are better informed about certain issues and not following the masses. Innovative ideas almost by definition first seem flaky but then turn out to be bang on target. But they need the chance to grow. The current core of the Conservative party started off as a new party called Reform. The Canadian political landscape was enriched with the birth of the CCF.

In polls, the Green Party has hit levels of support on par and over that of the BQ, but because BQ support is concentrated and Green support is spread thinly across the whole country, the regionally focused BQ wields hefty national influence by creating a fractured parliament. Meanwhile the Greens, much more of a national party than the BQ, are left mute.

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!

Is Canada one country, or is it a collection of 308 rather arbitrarily drawn districts? Also, one out of a hundred is not a "tiny minority." The Greens are at worst running around 4 in 100 voters, and have performed well in a few ridings, to satisfy your local popularity criterion. Edited April 4, 2011 by expat voter

[Wild Bill]

A fundamental cornerstone of democracy is free speech. If one person has something to say, which does not infringe on the rights of others, she should be able to have her say. Would you eliminate the right to run as an independent, unaffiliated with any party?

Wild Bill, small parties are a part of democracy, just look at the list of the ones running. And often they are run not by the ignorant and uninformed, but by people who are better informed about certain issues and not following the masses. Innovative ideas almost by definition first seem flaky but then turn out to be bang on target. But they need the chance to grow. The current core of the Conservative party started off as a new party called Reform. The Canadian political landscape was enriched with the birth of the CCF.

Well, that's the theoretical view! However, I've lived the reality!

Nowhere have I said that anyone should not have the right to run as an independent or even a fringe party. That has been happening since 1867, when we became a country! Canada has had MANY new parties spring up over the past 144 years.

I'm just saying that it is neither necessary nor even a good idea to continually strive to make it easier and easier for them! What is the end goal? Three lager louts in a pub decide they want to form a new party and instantly they are to be given scads of tax money and a place at all candidate debates?

There has to be some kind of bar for the entry level. I'm saying that our status quo has worked well for all this time. Parties have exceeded that bar and become established because they truly represented at least a minimally adequate level of popular opinion.

I belonged to the Reform Party, which back in the late 1980's sprang from virtually zero to becoming the Official Opposition in 10 years! They had millions of voters! And they did it mostly by private donations from individual citizens, not Big Business and Big Unions.

If they could do it, so can the Greens! Nowadays, there is a disgusting tendency to make things easier and easier for any contender in any field, rather than encourage contenders to strive for excellence. When every child gets a trophy no trophy actually means anything anymore. All the talk you hear about electoral reform in Canada is really just attempts to make it easier for losers to get into power anyway!

The very idea cheapens and degrades the accomplishments of the Reform Party, the NDP/CCF, the Progressives and many others.

The Greens should win their own damn trophy! If they can't then they deserve to die. If there is truly support among citizens for their views then some other new party will arise, pick up the banner and keep trying!

Edited April 4, 2011 by Wild Bill

[TTM]

There has to be some kind of bar for the entry level. I'm saying that our status quo has worked well for all this time. Parties have exceeded that bar and become established because they truly represented at least a minimally adequate level of popular opinion.

I belonged to the Reform Party, which back in the late 1980's sprang from virtually zero to becoming the Official Opposition in 10 years! They had millions of voters! And they did it mostly by private donations from individual citizens, not Big Business and Big Unions.

The Reform Party started out as a regional party. It elected its first member in a bi-election while poling at around 2% nationally. They were able to use their regional success to gradually transform in to the national Conservative party today (the complete collapse of the PCs also helped, much like the complete collapse of the Liberals or NDP would definitely help the Greens).

The Greens, on the other hand, are already a national movement, consistently polling around 5% (1 in 20 voters) and as high as 10% (1 in 10 voters, and roughly the support of the BQ) with that level being fairly consistent across the country. To insist that, in order to be recognized nationally, they should concentrate their support regionally seem perverse, to say the least.

[Bryan]

To insist that, in order to be recognized nationally, they should concentrate their support regionally seem perverse, to say the least.

You seem to think that they're running in a different country. Local representation is what the national seats are comprised of.

[TTM]

You seem to think that they're running in a different country. Local representation is what the national seats are comprised of.

It may help to know that I view simple first-past-the-post as a piss-poor method for electing a government.

[ToadBrother]

The Greens, on the other hand, are already a national movement, consistently polling around 5% (1 in 20 voters) and as high as 10% (1 in 10 voters, and roughly the support of the BQ) with that level being fairly consistent across the country. To insist that, in order to be recognized nationally, they should concentrate their support regionally seem perverse, to say the least.

And yet that's the system we have at the moment, and the system they want to replace it with, Party List PR, is even more perverse in that it allows MPs to be chosen from party lists who have no constituency and have never stood for public office.

[TTM]

And yet that's the system we have at the moment, and the system they want to replace it with, Party List PR, is even more perverse in that it allows MPs to be chosen from party lists who have no constituency and have never stood for public office.

The only recognition the Greens are asking for is a spot on the debate, and a chance to gain a little exposure. Not much for a party that represents approximately one out of every 20 Canadians.

I prefer a mixed proportional system. It balances the perversities of both extremes. ~2/3 representative MPs, with the remainder from party lists to more adequately reflect the popular vote.

[Bryan]

The only recognition the Greens are asking for is a spot on the debate, and a chance to gain a little exposure. Not much for a party that represents approximately one out of every 20 Canadians.

I prefer a mixed proportional system. It balances the perversities of both extremes. ~2/3 representative MPs, with the remainder from party lists to more adequately reflect the popular vote.

There were given that spot, something no other fledgeling party was ever given, and they still couldn't get even one seat.

Everyone else (CCF, Reform, Social Credit, Bloc, etc) has needed to show that they can elect representatives, and got the recognition that they deserved when they did so.

Stop fighting the system we've got, and learn to work within it like everyone else.

[TTM]

Stop fighting the system we've got, and learn to work within it like everyone else.

Sure comrade

[RNG]

Sure comrade

That was really helpfull. She is a loser. Build a bridge and get over it.

[ToadBrother]

The only recognition the Greens are asking for is a spot on the debate, and a chance to gain a little exposure. Not much for a party that represents approximately one out of every 20 Canadians.

They have had plenty of time for exposure. Their problem is that they have a moron for a leader who squandered her best chance in 2008 by trying to run against a popular and powerful cabinet minister. There was no clearer sign that the Greens were a bunch of immature naive flakes.

I prefer a mixed proportional system. It balances the perversities of both extremes. ~2/3 representative MPs, with the remainder from party lists to more adequately reflect the popular vote.

I'm a complete opponent of party lists. We have enough of a problem with party domination of MPs. Party lists creates a class of MP that is nothing more than party apparatchik. It is absolutely the worst kind of democratic representative electoral system ever invented. Let's do something like AV or STV, where all MPs have real constituencies and each and every one of them has to face the electorate directly.

The only people that like party list systems are political parties, and I want to see political parties weakened, not made stronger.

Edited April 5, 2011 by ToadBrother

[TTM]

That was really helpfull. She is a loser. Build a bridge and get over it.

The only appropriate reply to a ridiculous comment--Do not question the system; the system must be obeyed; Big Brother is watching!

What's the point of a political forum, if not to debate politics. And the political system we live under. And its flaws. And perhaps suggest alternatives.

Or we could just yell "YOU SUCK!!" back and forth. Yah! that sounds like fun.

PS

Never voted Green, likely never will. But plenty of people do. I respect that.

[RNG]

The only appropriate reply to a ridiculous comment--Do not question the system; the system must be obeyed; Big Brother is watching!

What's the point of a political forum, if not to debate politics. And the political system we live under. And its flaws. And perhaps suggest alternatives.

Or we could just yell "YOU SUCK!!" back and forth. Yah! that sounds like fun.

PS

Never voted Green, likely never will. But plenty of people do. I respect that.

And "yes comrade" was helpfull how?

[TTM]

They have had plenty of time for exposure. Their problem is that they have a moron for a leader who squandered her best chance in 2008 by trying to run against a popular and powerful cabinet minister.

Agreed. But the major parties have had morons for leaders, and we try not to hold it against them (unless its someone else's parties leader, and then we let them have it)

I'm a complete opponent of party lists. We have enough of a problem with party domination of MPs. Party lists creates a class of MP that is nothing more than party apparatchik. It is absolutely the worst kind of democratic representative electoral system ever invented. Let's do something like AV or STV, where all MPs have real constituencies and each and every one of them has to face the electorate directly.

The only people that like party list systems are political parties, and I want to see political parties weakened, not made stronger.

Both options are a better alternative than what we have. Pretty much anything is better than what we have. Counting on the voting system by itself to eliminate the party apparatchiks is likely bound to failure. First-past-the-post in theory should be as about as immune as the two forms you suggested, but witness the current gov't.

[TTM]

And "yes comrade" was helpfull how?

I didn't say it was helpful. I said it was appropriate.

[RNG]

I didn't say it was helpful. I said it was appropriate.

Yet again, that totally escapes me.

[ToadBrother]

Agreed. But the major parties have had morons for leaders, and we try not to hold it against them (unless its someone else's parties leader, and then we let them have it)

I doubt you could find any party leader quite as daft as May among the recent major party leaders.

Both options are a better alternative than what we have. Pretty much anything is better than what we have. Counting on the voting system by itself to eliminate the party apparatchiks is likely bound to failure. First-past-the-post in theory should be as about as immune as the two forms you suggested, but witness the current gov't.

At least in our current system, and in AV and STV, the electorate can directly turf MPs who displease them, as opposed to having a cadre of MPs who are not directly answerable.