Bryan Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 She just adds one more idiot screaming at Harper. She was rude and interrupted at every opportunity and made no sense during the last debates. She should absolutely be punted from the debates. If she is invited, so should the Rhino party, Marxist party and every other FRINGE party. Christian Heritage, Animal Alliance Environment Voters, Pirate Party, Marijuana..... Could you imagine? Maybe CPAC would agree to do one round table type segment with the leaders of all of the as-yet-unelected national parties that are actually running a slate of candidates. That might even prove interesting, and Ms. May could be involved in that. Quote
Jack Weber Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 Christian Heritage, Animal Alliance Environment Voters, Pirate Party, Marijuana..... Could you imagine? Maybe CPAC would agree to do one round table type segment with the leaders of all of the as-yet-unelected national parties that are actually running a slate of candidates. That might even prove interesting, and Ms. May could be involved in that. You know... I think it was the 2000 election... CPAC did have an debate between the fringe party's... It was pretty interesting....A little wierd,but interesting.. Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Wild Bill Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 This issue is a perfect example of the advantages of our traditional "First Past the Post" system. It sets a bar to screen out the fringe parties! May should never have been allowed at the debates the last time! Where was it written that the Green percentage of the popular vote passed any level necessary to be included? What made their case have more merit than the Rhinos? To me, it should be quite simple. If you have at least ONE MP, then you should be included! If you don't, then piss off! The right to participate should be EARNED! A party would earn their place by working hard enough to get a member ELECTED! Afterwards it doesn't matter if they have one Seat or a hundred. They would be a real party. Before that, they are just a club of "wannabes". 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."
ZenOps Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 (edited) Major misstep. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election_2008 Green had 937,613 of the popular vote in 2008. The only party to have a 27% jump, all other parties lost general votes. If the Green can do similarily this time - they will without doubt have a candidate. If they can do it twice, they are well on their way to being an official opposition. Edited March 30, 2011 by ZenOps Quote
M.Dancer Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 Major misstep. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election_2008 Green had 937,613 of the popular vote in 2008. The only party to have a 27% jump, all other parties lost general votes. If the Green can do similarily this time - they will without have a candidate. If they can do it twice, they are well on their way to being an official opposition. In the last election, the English language debate took place Oct. 2. By my count, there were 36 public polls that were in the field prior to Oct. 2. In those polls, the Greens averaged 9.88 per cent support. There were then 18 polls done after the debates. In those polls, the Greens averaged 9.58 per cent. Statistically, the debate had absolutely zero affect on the Greens’ standing. Not surprisingly, the polls as a whole overstated Green support on election day when they got 6.8 per cent. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/silver-powers/elizabeth-mays-non-game-changer/article1963119/ Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 Major misstep. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election_2008 Green had 937,613 of the popular vote in 2008. The only party to have a 27% jump, all other parties lost general votes. If the Green can do similarily this time - they will without have a candidate. If they can do it twice, they are well on their way to being an official opposition. In the last election, the English language debate took place Oct. 2. By my count, there were 36 public polls that were in the field prior to Oct. 2. In those polls, the Greens averaged 9.88 per cent support. There were then 18 polls done after the debates. In those polls, the Greens averaged 9.58 per cent. Statistically, the debate had absolutely zero affect on the Greens’ standing. Not surprisingly, the polls as a whole overstated Green support on election day when they got 6.8 per cent. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/silver-powers/elizabeth-mays-non-game-changer/article1963119/ Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Keepitsimple Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 May is a blabbermouth. Quote Back to Basics
ZenOps Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 (edited) 6.78% is still a considerable number of people, nearly a million. The Bloq supporters are only 1.38 million, and they have 49 seats. Especially considering support is waning for all other parties, and you have a US administration that is seriously talking about moving to solar power. It does not matter what your personal opinion of her is, a million votes definitely deserves a voice. Edited March 30, 2011 by ZenOps Quote
William Ashley Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 (edited) --- Edited March 30, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
Scotty Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 (edited) Why are so many people opposed to the Greens being at the debate? They got 7% of the popular vote, even if they didn't get a seat. If nearly 1 out of every 10 people filling out ballots checks off a Green candidate, they ought to be able to see their party's leader at the debates. The fact that the other parties largely ignored her in the last debate only goes to show that there is a "club" in Ottawa and new perspective is muchly needed. Based on her last performance, she added nothing to the debate She was rude, and shrill and annoying. And frankly, she diluted the debate. I don't think Gilles Duceppe should be allowed in the English debate either. He has nothing to contribute and no one is going to vote for him anyway. I don't want to waste my time with either of them. I also don't like the idea that you can have four or five people all pounding away at the PM, frankly. I think that's a bit one sided. I think any time anyone says anything about the Tories Harper should get a chance to reply to them. Likewise, if Harper says something about a given party or candidate, that candidate should be able to reply. Harper is not just one candidate among four - or five. When the others are all making accusations about him he ought to have more time to respond. Edited March 30, 2011 by Scotty 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
Scotty Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 If they ran a candidate in every riding, then yes. I don't care what their ideology is. Then you could potentially have a dozen candidates in the debate. I don't want a dozen nobodies who have no hope whatsoever of even getting a seat getting in the way of a real discussion and debate between the real political leaders. 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
ZenOps Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 (edited) Rude shrill and annoying - IS politics, haha. All the more reason. Bring US a Margaret Thatcher, and have her chew her way through the opposition! The one that is quiet, is the one that should not be a politican, they should be a mute Tibetan monk. Or Rob Anders, who only opens his mouth every two years - to verbally threaten people. Edited March 30, 2011 by ZenOps Quote
Scotty Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 6.78% is still a considerable number of people, nearly a million. You'd probably get a higher percentage of people who think Elvis is alive. 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
William Ashley Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 Frankly every registered federal party should be let in the debates. Also DOES THIS COUNT AGAINST THE PARTIES ADVERTISING EXPENSES??? HOW MUCH IS PRIME TIME WORTH??? 30 seconds is about $80000 so one hour of advertising would be lets see 1 minute $160000 x 60 = $9.6 million of advertising. So any party that takes part in this or any other TV advertising( or other talk shows or radio should be hit for the time) also any advertising that is 3rd party in advertising those shows. Geuss who is over budget? Elections Canada requires both direct and non monetary advertising to be added to the campaigns. Quote I was here.
cybercoma Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 This issue is a perfect example of the advantages of our traditional "First Past the Post" system. It sets a bar to screen out the fringe parties!It does no such thing. The Bloc Québecois prove this. Any fringe party could get in as long as they can garner localized support. The inherent weaknesses vastly outweight the strengths of the system. I really wish there would be more discussion about electoral reform. Quote
cybercoma Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 (edited) Then you could potentially have a dozen candidates in the debate.The last 4 times I went to the polls there were no more than 4 candidates on my ballots. I don't know where you're getting this idea of a dozen candidates. Edited March 30, 2011 by cybercoma Quote
William Ashley Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 (edited) IF all registered federal parties were included they could have a ringer. That let the first person who rang in answer first. Then from time others. Anyone who answered the question prior would not be allowed to ring in until everyone who hadn't yet answered had answered a given question. So everyone doesn't answer every question, and something liek 30 seconds given for each question TOPS. Edited March 30, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
Wild Bill Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 It does no such thing. The Bloc Québecois prove this. Any fringe party could get in as long as they can garner localized support. The inherent weaknesses vastly outweight the strengths of the system. I really wish there would be more discussion about electoral reform. At least the Bloc wins individual ridings! That's what it's all about! Our system is based on giving people in small geographical areas a representative to the larger government caucus. People in Vancouver don't relate to a representative from Cornerbrook, Nfld and vice versa. The Greens get a million votes and can't even win one seat. That is proof that they don't yet know what they are doing! With that kind of popular support they must be typical newbie idiots to not yet have even one seat! When they start to act more professional then and only then should they be allowed to play in the big sand box. 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 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 That would be fine, Bill, if the representative was actually able to represent their riding. Instead, they're required to follow party lines, vote with the party and otherwise do whatever the hell the party tells them to do. Their ability to represent their riding is marginal. Quote
Wild Bill Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 That would be fine, Bill, if the representative was actually able to represent their riding. Instead, they're required to follow party lines, vote with the party and otherwise do whatever the hell the party tells them to do. Their ability to represent their riding is marginal. You are absolutely right and I totally agree! So what? Politics is all about perception and the typical mainstream voter doesn't think about that! He wants to pick his own representative and expects him to look after his own riding first! Reform was the first and only party to blow the whistle on how things REALLY work and look what happened to them! Everything they ever said and stood for has been chucked down the memory hole. When's the last time you even heard someone in the CPC even mention Preston Manning's name? So it may be a myth that your local MP looks after you but that's what Joe Public wants and that's what he thinks he gets! And if he thinks he's not getting it he won't vote for that representative, period and end of story. 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."
jbg Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 Especially considering support is waning for all other parties, and you have a US administration that is seriously talking about moving to solar power.In the case of the U.S. administration, quite likely a one-termer. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Scotty Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 The last 4 times I went to the polls there were no more than 4 candidates on my ballots. I don't know where you're getting this idea of a dozen candidates. Not all of us live in the boonies. 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
cybercoma Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 Not all of us live in the boonies. What's your point? Weren't we talking about one of the conditions being that the party has to run a candidate in every riding? If there are ridings where there's only 4 candidates, then you can't have any more than 4 leaders at the debates. For the record, I live in a city. Quote
ZenOps Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 (edited) Personally I think Harper should not be televised because hes in Contempt of Parliament. He shouldn't even be allowed to be leader of a party for that. If a party cannot have a representative of at least 33% of Canada (100 representatives running for office) then I feel that that party has expressed no interest at a federal level of what is best for the entire of Canada. Therefore, May is valid, Duceppe should be the one kicked out. And Harper, technically he should be spending six months in the pokey for doing something that 54 commonwealth nations have never managed to disgrace themselves with. Edited March 30, 2011 by ZenOps Quote
M.Dancer Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 The last 4 times I went to the polls there were no more than 4 candidates on my ballots. I don't know where you're getting this idea of a dozen candidates. Toronto centre David Gentili[1] 9,410 Bob Rae 27,582 El-Farouk Khaki 7,744 Ellen Michelson 6,086 Liz White (Animal All.) 187 Gerald Derome (IND) 155 Philip Fernandez (MXL) 92 7 candidates Toronto Danforth...8 candidates and 12 parties vied for seats in TO Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
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.