Is this the Greens last federal campaign?

[TTM]

Yet again, that totally escapes me.

To tell me to not question the system, to "put up or shut up" (to paraphrase), seemed like a fairly totalitarian comment. Hence the appropriateness of the reply.

[TTM]

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

No doubt. But she still represents 1 in 20 voters.

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.

True, but it also means (in theory, if perhaps not in practice), that partys can attract and elect talent that would not necessarily have the inclination to run in an election, or simply be unfortunate enough to lose to an even better candidate (because the winner is always the best candidate in the riding. By definition.)

[RNG]

Actually, and I am a hard right small c conservative, everytime I've heard her speak I was impressed.

[TTM]

Actually, and I am a hard right small c conservative, everytime I've heard her speak I was impressed.

Yeah, I thought she did well enough in last years debate, and the few other times I've seen her speak. I still don't agree with big chunks of her platform, and running against MacKay was (capital R)etarded, especially when she got a free pass from the Liberals, and the party was near its peak in popularity.

Edited April 5, 2011 by TTM

[Jack Weber]

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

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.

Not only is she a flake,but she has the political instincts of an iguana...

[RNG]

Not only is she a flake,but she has the political instincts of an iguana...

I said a while ago in some long forgotten thread that running against Peter McKay was really, really dumb.

[Bryan]

To tell me to not question the system, to "put up or shut up" (to paraphrase), seemed like a fairly totalitarian comment. Hence the appropriateness of the reply.

I never said or implied any such thing. I only gave my opinion, which just so happened to be counter to yours. Feel free say whatever you like.

[TTM]

I never said or implied any such thing. I only gave my opinion, which just so happened to be counter to yours. Feel free say whatever you like.

Let me parse it for you:

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

"Learn to work within it like everyone else" = "put up"

"Stop fighting the system we've got" = "shut up" (this is a forum, and I can contribute my speech)

Put up or shut up. QED. Or would you prefer in Russian?

[Bryan]

Let me parse it for you:

"Learn to work within it like everyone else" = "put up"

"Stop fighting the system we've got" = "shut up" (this is a forum, and I can contribute my speech)

Put up or shut up. QED. Or would you prefer in Russian?

No.

I was referring to the strategy of the Green Party, not whether YOU can say anything about it.

[TTM]

No.

I was referring to the strategy of the Green Party, not whether YOU can say anything about it.

Directed at me or directed at the Greens, the sentiment is the same. A comment antagonistic to the rights to opinion, speech, and dissent. Cheers comrade

[Oleg Bach]

The contrivance of a political compass or manipulation through the releasing of poll figures is a sad attempt at fashioning a future on false pretence. Forget the Greens - get Iggy to step down - take Jack and send him to the cottage to put on some weight...and would someone explain what the hell BLOC stands for? I mean the letters B L O C ?

[Bryan]

Directed at me or directed at the Greens, the sentiment is the same. A comment antagonistic to the rights to opinion, speech, and dissent. Cheers comrade

My sentiment towards the Green Party itself (or Elizabeth May at the very least), IS as you say "put up or shut up", on that you are correct.

They aren't taking the idea of running a political campaign seriously. They are operating as a lobby group, not a political party, and making demands on the system that was in place long before they came around. Whether any of us thinks it or says it or not, the end result is the same: they won't follow the rules in place that everyone else who stated from nothing had to follow, then have the nerve to complain that they are hard done by.

If they were even remotely serious, they would worry about winning a seat first before they even tried to act on the national stage. That's how everyone else did it: start with a local grassroots movement, and branch out from there.

YOU, on the other hand: Please, explain how your opinion differs, and why you think that the Greens have a right to dictate that Parliamentary Democracy should be changed to suit them.

[Oleg Bach]

Everybody wants to be a big shot. The Greens as I mentioned only get the spite votes..they are not an alternative to the traditional Canadian parties. Nothing worse than a group of people that actually believe they have come up with something new. Watching May do YOGA on television was to much to bear. Little to eastern for me..and a tad trendy also. I can see the head lines now - The Greens win the election they are the new trend in Canada...politics should not be a seasonal fashion show..it has to be consistant...and like all well cut clothes that stand the test of time - conservatively tailored.

[ToadBrother]

No doubt. But she still represents 1 in 20 voters.

Then 1 in 20 voters need to find a smarter bulb to gather behind.

True, but it also means (in theory, if perhaps not in practice), that partys can attract and elect talent that would not necessarily have the inclination to run in an election, or simply be unfortunate enough to lose to an even better candidate (because the winner is always the best candidate in the riding. By definition.)

This again puts the party at the top of the process, as opposed to the candidate. It's a philosophical position of mine that no one should be allowed on the ballot who does not have a direct constituency.

[TTM]

They aren't taking the idea of running a political campaign seriously. They are operating as a lobby group, not a political party, and making demands on the system that was in place long before they came around. Whether any of us thinks it or says it or not, the end result is the same: they won't follow the rules in place that everyone else who stated from nothing had to follow, then have the nerve to complain that they are hard done by.

I'm sure they take campaigning very seriously. They're just not that successful at it. If the rules in place are fundamentally flawed, and I agree they are, then they not only have a right, but a responsibility to speak out.

If they were even remotely serious, they would worry about winning a seat first before they even tried to act on the national stage. That's how everyone else did it: start with a local grassroots movement, and branch out from there.

The situation with the Green party points out the perversity and the underlying flaws in our system. They already have a broad-based low level support across the country. While not enough to elect a member in any individual riding under the FPTP system, in total they represent approximately 1.5 million Canadians. And yet despite all this support, they have absolutely no voice on the national political scene. In order to have a voice nationally they have to somehow concentrate this support regionally. This fact is bizarre. I repeat: in order for a party with a platform that apparently resonates nationally to get a seat in the national government, they must change the focus of the party so that it can be electable by a majority in some small and narrow region of the country. And even if they do somehow achieve this in one or two ridings, there representation in parliament will still lag far below their actual support nationally. The same issue has traditionally hurt the NDP. The reverse is the reason that the BQ have such disproportionate power, even serving as Her Majesty's Official Opposition.

If you're a Liberal, Conservative, or BQ partisan, then I could see why you wouldn't want the system to change. Those who benefit from a systems unfairness rarely desire to improve it. However if you care at all about having a democratic system in which the people and parties in power accurately reflect the will of the electorate, then you have to be at the very least sympathetic to the plight of the Greens.

[M.Dancer]

I While not enough to elect a member in any individual riding under the FPTP system, in total they represent approximately 1.5 million Canadians.

They have never received more than 941K votes...their best showing ever in 2008.

It is safe to assume half of those who voted did so as a protest...

[TTM]

They have never received more than 941K votes...their best showing ever in 2008.

It is safe to assume half of those who voted did so as a protest...

The Conservative Party never received more than 5,374,071 votes (2006 election) and yet they supposedly represent about 10 million Canadians. How many of those votes were in protest against the Liberals? Does that invalidate their government?

[cybercoma]

The Conservative Party never received more than 5,374,071 votes (2006 election) and yet they supposedly represent about 10 million Canadians. How many of those votes were in protest against the Liberals? Does that invalidate their government?

Sad when you think about it. The votes of 5 million people speaks for over 30 million.

[Bryan]

If you're a Liberal, Conservative, or BQ partisan, then I could see why you wouldn't want the system to change. Those who benefit from a systems unfairness rarely desire to improve it.

How is it unfair? Everyone knows how the system works, they all have to abide by the same rules.

In 1993, both Reform and the BQ went from essentially nothing to 52 and 54 seats, the PCs only got two seats even though they got more votes than the BQ. Two brand new entrants became entrenched into the system and permanently replaced an established one!

The lesson is, they learned how the system worked and made it work for them, rather than crying that it's not fair.

[TTM]

How is it unfair? Everyone knows how the system works, they all have to abide by the same rules.

In 1993, both Reform and the BQ went from essentially nothing to 52 and 54 seats, the PCs only got two seats even though they got more votes than the BQ. Two brand new entrants became entrenched into the system and permanently replaced an established one!

The lesson is, they learned how the system worked and made it work for them, rather than crying that it's not fair.

This isn't some sort of game, even though it's often played like one. It is our government. Unfair for the parties reflects unfair for the voters. All votes should be given equal weight. As the system is currently instituted, some votes are worth more than others, and some votes are entirely wasted. Representation in parliament should reflect the will of the people, not the gaming of the system by political parties.

[M.Dancer]

This isn't some sort of game, even though it's often played like one. It is our government. Unfair for the parties reflects unfair for the voters. All votes should be given equal weight. As the system is currently instituted, some votes are worth more than others, and some votes are entirely wasted. Representation in parliament should reflect the will of the people, not the gaming of the system by political parties.

Nonsense. All votes have the same weight and that weight is one. The candidate with a plurality of votes wins the right to represent his or her riding.

[M.Dancer]

The Conservative Party never received more than 5,374,071 votes (2006 election) and yet they supposedly represent about 10 million Canadians. How many of those votes were in protest against the Liberals? Does that invalidate their government?

They won a plurality.

[Bryan]

All votes should be given equal weight.

Is there some secret riding where they have two-for-one voting?

[ToadBrother]

This isn't some sort of game, even though it's often played like one. It is our government. Unfair for the parties reflects unfair for the voters. All votes should be given equal weight. As the system is currently instituted, some votes are worth more than others, and some votes are entirely wasted. Representation in parliament should reflect the will of the people, not the gaming of the system by political parties.

In practical terms, no voting system gives every single ballot equal mathematical weight. Such a system is impossible, and every voting system is basically a compromise.

I'm no fan of FPTP, in part because it's unfair, and in part because it only really works very well when you have two large parties. It was basically invented, if that's the word, in Britain when you essentially had Tories and Whigs. It works reasonably well in the States because most party-based elections involve Democrats and Republicans, so again, you have the two party system, with little third party support.

What's happening in some Westminster Parliaments, like Canada, the UK, and apparently Australia is going down the same road, is that the old fashioned "minor" or regional parties are gaining sufficient support to get folks elected, or at least split the vote, and this is where FPTP begins to crack at the seams. It simply does not deal well with more than a few major parties.

That being said, we should be very cautious when tampering with the electoral system. As much as PR systems may be more fair in the arithmetical sense of the word, opening the flood gates too much to small fringe parties can end us up like Israel, with such parties playing huge roles in government, simply because the mainstream parties need to cozy up to them to build coalitions capable of maintaining the confidence of Parliament.

This is why I'm not completely in favor of electoral reform. As much as more votes should be counted towards representatives and not basically discarded once a plurality is reached, I think we should appreciate that stability has its benefits as well. That's why I'm more in line for preferential voting systems like Single Transferable Vote and Alternative Vote. These "redistribute" vote weights but don't completely undermine the capacity for large parties to still grab the majority of seats.

[TTM]

Nonsense. All votes have the same weight and that weight is one. The candidate with a plurality of votes wins the right to represent his or her riding.

The last election:

Party____Votes_______Seats

Cons____5,209,069___143

Lib______3,633,185____77

BQ______1,379,991____49

NDP_____2,515,288____37

Green_____937,613_____0

From the parties perspective, to gain 1 seat, they need

Party_____Votes

Cons_____36,427.06

Lib_______47,184.22

BQ_______28,163.08

NDP______67,980.76

Green_____infinite

From the voters perspective, 1,000,0000 votes gains you

Party_____Seats

Cons_____27.45

Lib_______21.19

BQ_______35.51

NDP______14.71

Green_____0

Clearly, in that election, a BQ vote was worth more than a Conservative vote, which was worth more than a Liberal vote, and so on. If all votes were equal, then parliament would have looked like this (ignoring independents, parties with fractional seats):

Party_____Seats

Cons_____117

Lib________82

BQ________31

NDP_______57

Green______21