cybercoma Posted September 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 (edited) Again Democracy can't be based on statistical inference, but the actual results of the voters (demos). Statistical inference shows that fair exposure leads to more votes for parties, so to deny them that is to deny Democracy itself. Platitudes. The results of opinion polls matter. They tell us what people think of the candidates at any given point in time. Elizabeth May and the Green Party has virtually no support. So little in fact that they would not have been given a seat last election in a PR system with a benchmark of 5%. Edited September 21, 2015 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 Platitudes. The results of opinion polls matter. They tell us what people think of the candidates at any given point in time. Elizabeth May and the Green Party has virtually no support. So little in fact that they would not have been given a seat last election in a PR system with a benchmark of 5%. There seems to be this strange theory that if May is just given her "rightful" place in the debates, vast legions of voters will flock to the Greens. It didn't work in 2011, and with the polarization and potential for strategic voting this time around, I honestly doubt they'll even reach popular vote counts that they managed four years ago. They're a fringe party. A better funded and louder fringe party than most, but at the end of the day, just as irrelevant. I suspect that if we get a very close election this time, a lot of Green supporters, and more importantly donors, will likely move over to the NDP. I see nowhere for the Greens to go but down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 There seems to be this strange theory that if May is just given her "rightful" place in the debates, vast legions of voters will flock to the Greens. It didn't work in 2011, and with the polarization and potential for strategic voting this time around, I honestly doubt they'll even reach popular vote counts that they managed four years ago. They're a fringe party. A better funded and louder fringe party than most, but at the end of the day, just as irrelevant. I suspect that if we get a very close election this time, a lot of Green supporters, and more importantly donors, will likely move over to the NDP. I see nowhere for the Greens to go but down. I completely disagree with your assessment of the future of the Green Party, but agree with what you say about their current position. I believe they'll go up in support as more of them get elected and people begin seeing that they're a fully fleshed-out party with the kind of progressive policies that the NDP is abandoning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Huxley Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 (edited) Platitudes. The results of opinion polls matter. They tell us what people think of the candidates at any given point in time. Elizabeth May and the Green Party has virtually no support. So little in fact that they would not have been given a seat last election in a PR system with a benchmark of 5%. Don't lie if they had virtually no support they wouldn't have any seats. Polls show May is the most respected parliamentarian in Ottawa far ahead of the actual prime minister who has the lowest approval rating of any party leader there. Anyway I shouldn't have to argue that May is popular she is. The fact is your position is anti-democratic. Edited September 21, 2015 by G Huxley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Huxley Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 I completely disagree with your assessment of the future of the Green Party, but agree with what you say about their current position. I believe they'll go up in support as more of them get elected and people begin seeing that they're a fully fleshed-out party with the kind of progressive policies that the NDP is abandoning. Exactly parties have to build and Democracy means that have to have a fair chance to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 Don't lie if they had virtually no support they wouldn't have any seats. They got less than 4% of the popular vote in the last election. That's virtually no support and enough to be shutout of some PR systems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 Exactly parties have to build and Democracy means that have to have a fair chance to do so. She has a chance to do that. When her support is enough that she can actually challenge to form government, then she'll be in all of the debates. Right now she's the leader of a fringe party with no hope of getting any more than a few seats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Huxley Posted September 22, 2015 Report Share Posted September 22, 2015 (edited) " They got less than 4% of the popular vote in the last election. That's virtually no support and enough to be shutout of some PR systems."I would be a bit more scientific in dividing. If you have 100 seats 4% = 4 seats. "Right now she's the leader of a fringe party with no hope of getting any more than a few seats."Ok let's talk about cutoffs if you're going to be anti-democratic all three parties are polling at less than a third support. Every single party is fringe to be fair then. Also if fringe people are to be disqualified from from a fair chance then the Conservatives should be disqualified for only have 2 seats in 1993. Edited September 22, 2015 by G Huxley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 22, 2015 Report Share Posted September 22, 2015 I would be a bit more scientific in dividing. If you have 100 seats 4% = 4 seats. What he was saying was this - many countries have a minimum cutoff for their PR system (including those that you oh so admire). In some of those systems, the Green party would have had 0 seats, less than they got with Canada's first past the post system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted September 22, 2015 Report Share Posted September 22, 2015 What he was saying was this - many countries have a minimum cutoff for their PR system (including those that you oh so admire). In some of those systems, the Green party would have had 0 seats, less than they got with Canada's first past the post system. That depends on which PR system you use. I've heard of nobody advocating a pure list system. The Greens are currently polling over 30% on Vancouver Island. Under MMP or STV, the Greens would have more than one seat. Also, you are assuming that the voting percentages will be unaffected if you remove the motivation for strategic voting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted September 22, 2015 Report Share Posted September 22, 2015 That depends on which PR system you use. I've heard of nobody advocating a pure list system. The Greens are currently polling over 30% on Vancouver Island. Under MMP or STV, the Greens would have more than one seat. Also, you are assuming that the voting percentages will be unaffected if you remove the motivation for strategic voting. Ah, I see, so you're in favor of whatever electoral system gets the Greens more than one seat in the House. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted September 22, 2015 Report Share Posted September 22, 2015 Ah, I see, so you're in favor of whatever electoral system gets the Greens more than one seat in the House. I've been a supporter of PR longer than I've been a supporter of the Greens. I was correcting smallc's statement of what is likely to happen under PR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 22, 2015 Report Share Posted September 22, 2015 (edited) I've been a supporter of PR longer than I've been a supporter of the Greens. I was correcting smallc's statement of what is likely to happen under PR. That all depends on which system we pick. I'd like a system where each province is a district, and each CMA another district within those. For that system, the threshold would be pretty high to get a seat in most places (some places, like PEI and Sudbury, which would each get 1 seat, would be defacto FPTP). Edited September 22, 2015 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Huxley Posted September 22, 2015 Report Share Posted September 22, 2015 What he was saying was this - many countries have a minimum cutoff for their PR system (including those that you oh so admire). In some of those systems, the Green party would have had 0 seats, less than they got with Canada's first past the post system. Not necessarily if it was PR the Greens would have a much higher percentage of the vote as there wouldn't be all this 'lesser of evils' b.s. Also as I said I disagree with Sweden's cut off. You weren't under some mistaken impression that I considered their system perfect were you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 22, 2015 Report Share Posted September 22, 2015 Not necessarily if it was PR the Greens would have a much higher percentage of the vote as there wouldn't be all this 'lesser of evils' b.s. You just said we can't guess about the outcome based on polls. Now you're doing it based on nothing. Also as I said I disagree with Sweden's cut off. You weren't under some mistaken impression that I considered their system perfect were you? Their cutoff is a great compromise and the only thing that makes me think it might work here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted September 22, 2015 Report Share Posted September 22, 2015 That all depends on which system we pick. I'd like a system where each province is a district, and each CMA another district within those. For that system, the threshold would be pretty high to get a seat in most places (some places, like PEI and Sudbury, which would each get 1 seat, would be defacto FPTP). Sounds almost like you care more about eliminating smaller parties than you do about proportionality. As I said, the Greens are polling over 30 percent (running second) on the island and there are something over 700,000 residents. You'll have to design your system carefully if you'd like to deny them seats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canada_First Posted September 22, 2015 Report Share Posted September 22, 2015 Sounds almost like you care more about eliminating smaller parties than you do about proportionality. As I said, the Greens are polling over 30 percent (running second) on the island and there are something over 700,000 residents. You'll have to design your system carefully if you'd like to deny them seats. If they get the most votes they will gain the most seats. Our system works great. If I lived on the Island I would vote Green. I have family out there in Nanaimo and Victoria. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 22, 2015 Report Share Posted September 22, 2015 (edited) Sounds almost like you care more about eliminating smaller parties than you do about proportionality. I care about a system that balanced the unique interest of populations - urban and rural, and by province. The system I propose would bring us much closer to proportionality, while still allowing for regional representation necessary in a federation like ours. As I said, the Greens are polling over 30 percent (running second) on the island The island isn't a province or a region with uniform concerns. Under the system I propose, it would be split - Victoria CMA would be 1 region with 3 - 4 proportional seats, and the rural island would go along with the rest of rural BC sharing their 13 - 14 proportional seats. That may mean a seat for the Greens, and it may not. Edited September 22, 2015 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted September 22, 2015 Report Share Posted September 22, 2015 Sounds almost like you care more about eliminating smaller parties than you do about proportionality. As I said, the Greens are polling over 30 percent (running second) on the island and there are something over 700,000 residents. You'll have to design your system carefully if you'd like to deny them seats. Ranked systems might get them some seats, but since most proportional systems do have minimum popular vote requirements, I can't imagine Greens greatly benefiting from 1/3 of support on Vancouver Island. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted September 22, 2015 Report Share Posted September 22, 2015 I care about a system that balanced the unique interest of populations - urban and rural, and by province. The system I propose would bring us much closer to proportionality, while still allowing for regional representation necessary in a federation like ours. Yeah. Cuz it's not enough that the senate appointments are by province and the provinces themselves are so powerful they behave like little countries. We need more emphasis on the provinces. The island isn't a province or a region with uniform concerns. Under the system I propose, it would be split - Victoria CMA would be 1 region with 3 - 4 proportional seats, and the rural island would go along with the rest of rural BC sharing their 13 - 14 proportional seats. That may mean a seat for the Greens, and it may not. You wouldn't be able to deny the Greens at least one seat and possibly 2. But thanks for trying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted September 22, 2015 Report Share Posted September 22, 2015 Ranked systems might get them some seats, but since most proportional systems do have minimum popular vote requirements, I can't imagine Greens greatly benefiting from 1/3 of support on Vancouver Island. Greens would definitely get seats under STV and probably through MMP, depending on how it was designed (see smallc's effort to exclude them). The point is, though, we won't know the Greens real strength until we get PR. Right now, there is too much strategic voting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted September 22, 2015 Report Share Posted September 22, 2015 Yeah. Cuz it's not enough that the senate appointments are by province and the provinces themselves are so powerful they behave like little countries. We need more emphasis on the provinces. It's a confederation of seven former British Crown Colonies and three provinces carved out of Canada's purchase of Rupert's land and some other bits and pieces of British territory north of the 49th. So yeah, the Provinces are kind of important You wouldn't be able to deny the Greens at least one seat and possibly 2. But thanks for trying. I can see them getting a few more seats under an MMR system, but likely not enough to get them Official Party Status. It's funny, because so far as I understand it, the Greens are big fans of the MMR system, when if they really wanted to help their own electoral fortunes, they'd be advocating for STV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 22, 2015 Report Share Posted September 22, 2015 Yeah. Cuz it's not enough that the senate appointments are by province If only they were. They're by the useless artificial region construct. and the provinces themselves are so powerful they behave like little countries It's a federation. That's the point. We need more emphasis on the provinces. :roll eyes: We need to balance regional interests within the people's house. You wouldn't be able to deny the Greens at least one seat and possibly 2. But thanks for trying. I'm not trying to deny them anything. I don't know where you get that from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted September 22, 2015 Report Share Posted September 22, 2015 The Green Party is polling between 5.5 and 6 percent ATM. Any proportional system worth anything would give them seats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 22, 2015 Report Share Posted September 22, 2015 The Green Party is polling between 5.5 and 6 percent ATM. Any proportional system worth anything would give them seats. Because ...you say so? They're going to get a seat under our system, so you must think it's pretty good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.