.

[cybercoma]

Ah but we will at least have democracy.

And that's the difference.

You know it's democracy that's keeping her from being prime minister, right? We're talking precisely about the fact that people choose not to vote for Green.

[Smallc]

Correction, over 96%.

?

[cybercoma]

?

Less than 4% voted for them in 2011.

[Smallc]

Less than 4% voted for them in 2011.

I know, you said the same thing as me lol.

[ironstone]

For christ's sake. It's about hearing from all political parties on a debate. It's not scary at all.

So do you want to hear from all the parties on this link in the debates?

[ironstone]

For christ's sake. It's about hearing from all political parties on a debate. It's not scary at all.

So do you want to hear from all the parties on this link in the debates?

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?dir=par&document=index〈=e&section=pol

[ironstone]

So do you want to hear from all the parties on this link in the debates?

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?dir=par&document=index〈=e&section=pol

[cybercoma]

In reality we don't need to hear from all parties anyway. All you need to hear from are your local candidates, since that's the way elections work in Canada. You vote for a local representative. Everything else that happens in our government is a result of that and that alone.

[G Huxley]

"In reality we don't need to hear from all parties anyway. All you need to hear from are your local candidates, since that's the way elections work in Canada."

Well thanks to the conservatives they don't think the public needs to hear from their local candidates either!

[G Huxley]

I haven't read any polls showing the Green party leading or in any way in the running to elect a large number of Mps. They'll be lucky to even elect 2 MPS. In fact it's likely that only Mp May will be the only one to retain a green seat. That is reality. If the green are ever in a position to be electing at least 12 Mos then we can start caring what they say. Right now they don't matter. Aren't even an official party.

Again official party is irrelevent it has nothing to do with the debates. It's simply an internal commons thing. And it is merely a method of the political elite to entrench their positions while marginalizing others. I would say that it is in fact anti-democratic.

[G Huxley]

Correction, over 96%. They got less than 4% of the vote. These people don't want to admit that the Green Party is utterly irrelevant right now. Some day they might not be, maybe. But the Green Party got even less of a share in 2011 than it did in 2008 because it focused its efforts on a single riding to get May elected. T

You are forgetting that no party won a plurality of votes. So we have the minority running the country. That's right that's called an oligarchy.

[Smallc]

Again official party is irrelevent it has nothing to do with the debates.

Apparently, the people organizing most of the debates disagreed with you. If you don't like it, organize your own debate.

[Smallc]

You are forgetting that no party won a plurality of votes.

You don't know what plurality means, do you?

[G Huxley]

Apparently, the people organizing most of the debates disagreed with you. If you don't like it, organize your own debate.

The people organizing the debates are organizing under the false pretenses of a non partisan charity when it has been shown that they fund right wing think tanks.

[G Huxley]

You don't know what plurality means, do you?

I meant majority.

[cybercoma]

You are forgetting that no party won a plurality of votes.

The Conservatives won a plurality of votes. They did not get an absolute majority of votes.

[ToadBrother]

Again official party is irrelevent it has nothing to do with the debates. It's simply an internal commons thing. And it is merely a method of the political elite to entrench their positions while marginalizing others. I would say that it is in fact anti-democratic.

IF a party only has a handful of seats, why should they get the resources that parties with dozens of seats get?

[Canada_First]

In reality we don't need to hear from all parties anyway. All you need to hear from are your local candidates, since that's the way elections work in Canada. You vote for a local representative. Everything else that happens in our government is a result of that and that alone.

Totally this. I would vote for a great local candidate that was active and cared about my community even if it meant I voted for the other guys.

[ToadBrother]

You are forgetting that no party won a plurality of votes. So we have the minority running the country. That's right that's called an oligarchy.

Now that's a non sequitur to end all non sequiturs.

[G Huxley]

Now that's a non sequitur to end all non sequiturs.

No party won a majority of the votes casted. That is correct. As I already said I accidentally used the wrong word.

Edited September 25, 2015 by G Huxley

[G Huxley]

Totally this. I would vote for a great local candidate that was active and cared about my community even if it meant I voted for the other guys.

Well you better not vote conservative as none of their candidates are allowed to go to all candidates' meetings.

Edited September 25, 2015 by G Huxley

[G Huxley]

IF a party only has a handful of seats, why should they get the resources that parties with dozens of seats get?

Why should any of the parties get public resources?

[cybercoma]

No party won a majority of the votes casted. That is correct. As I already said I accidentally used the wrong word.

It's still a non sequitur.

[ToadBrother]

No party won a majority of the votes casted. That is correct. As I already said I accidentally used the wrong word.

The non-sequitur was your claim that an "oligarchy" runs the country because FPTP allows a party to form government without a majority of votes. I reject THAT point completely. It's absurd and hyperbolic.

[G Huxley]

No it isn't. Polls have shown that the majority disapprove of the minority which runs the country so it is an oligarchy.