Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 432
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Yes it's fair. Most votes wins. No seats means people don't care about that parties issues and thinks they're not worth investing the one precious vote into.

Greens are a one issue party. Running a country or province is multi faceted and complex. It's not enough to simply care about the environment and forgo everything else.

You clearly have no clue what the Green Party is about. I recommend that you learn more before you vote.

Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists.

- Noam Chomsky

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

- Upton Sinclair

Posted

Since when do smaller parties just automatically have a right to be in any legislative assembly?

You're looking at the issue backwards. Parties don't have a right to be in a legislative assembly - citizens have a right to have representation in the legislative assembly where numbers warrant. And as the PR link I posted earlier shows, most countries find the sweet spot for threshold is somewhere between 3% and 5%.

Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists.

- Noam Chomsky

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

- Upton Sinclair

Posted

This is an irrelevant aside. The point is that the Green Party is a fringe party with little national support. I'm highlighting that by saying some PR systems wouldn't even afford them a seat with their support from last election. They are simply not a player. They haven't even held balance of power yet.

And look, I'm saying all of this despite really liking the Green Party and Elizabeth May. Some of you just refuse to acknowledge the reality here though.

It would take a carefully (and poorly) designed PR system to deny the Green Party representation.

Whether they are "a player" or "hold the balance of power" are undemocratic notions. The system should focus on representation, not power. They have enough presence to merit representation and the system should provide for that.

Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists.

- Noam Chomsky

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

- Upton Sinclair

Posted

In the last election, the Christian Heritage Party, a fringe social conservative group, would have grabbed 3 seats with no cut off.

That's an interesting piece of information. It's irrelevant, because I haven't heard anyone suggest that we have a system with no cut off. Also, it's wrong because the Christian Heritage Party received fewer than 19,000 votes (tell me how that translates to 3 seats). But it's interesting.

Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists.

- Noam Chomsky

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

- Upton Sinclair

Posted

I haven't heard anyone suggest that we have a system with no cut off.

Isn't that implied by your previous note about 'representation' ? If there's a cut-off then you have some unrepresented people, ie. failure of democracy, according to the pure PR definition.

There always has to be a trade-off of representation vs. efficiency unless you have tribal and direct democracy. It's about where you draw the line.

Posted

It would take a carefully (and poorly) designed PR system to deny the Green Party representation.

Whether they are "a player" or "hold the balance of power" are undemocratic notions. The system should focus on representation, not power. They have enough presence to merit representation and the system should provide for that.

Again with the platitudes. The system should focus on representation. That's not what's up for discussion here. It's about Elizabeth May being in a debate. Event organizers kept her out because she is nothing. She has very little support in this country. That's why she's not there.

Posted

Of course it's about eliminating smaller parties. Do you know what kind of fringe extremists can grab the balance of power with no cutoff?

A party with a few seats can't "grab" the balance of power, it has to be given the power by larger parties. If a party with, say, 5 seats can convince a party with 150 seats to do something fundamentally wrong or against their principles, then there is something wrong with the system and something wrong with the larger parties.

Representative democracy means that the views of the people are represented; and not just the people that whose views you happen to like. Democracy is messy and it means having to confront the views of people who see things differently.

Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists.

- Noam Chomsky

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

- Upton Sinclair

Posted

That's an interesting piece of information. It's irrelevant, because I haven't heard anyone suggest that we have a system with no cut off. Also, it's wrong because the Christian Heritage Party received fewer than 19,000 votes (tell me how that translates to 3 seats). But it's interesting.

You're still missing the point. The point is that the Green Party has absolutely no influence. They are a fringe party, whether you want to admit that to yourself or not.

Posted

Reefer, you keep speaking in platitudes without recognizing how things actually function. I agree--our institutions should be more representative. That's completely irrelevant here.

Posted

Isn't that implied by your previous note about 'representation' ? If there's a cut-off then you have some unrepresented people, ie. failure of democracy, according to the pure PR definition.

There always has to be a trade-off of representation vs. efficiency unless you have tribal and direct democracy. It's about where you draw the line.

It's not implied in my previous note. I've never heard of anyone argue for "pure PR" - I don't even know what that is.

I've posted a link that shows most PR systems around the world represent parties that hit a threshold of 3-5% of the popular vote. Most of the time, those systems work quite well.

Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists.

- Noam Chomsky

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

- Upton Sinclair

Posted

You're still missing the point. The point is that the Green Party has absolutely no influence. They are a fringe party, whether you want to admit that to yourself or not.

I disagree. They may not have power but they do have influence. "Fringe party" is simply an epithet that bigger parties use when they'd like the little ones to go away. For the Green Party, much of the criticism comes from the NDP which has moved to the middle and left gaps in terms of social and environmental policies.

Reefer, you keep speaking in platitudes without recognizing how things actually function. I agree--our institutions should be more representative. That's completely irrelevant here.

You don't think there is any linkage between the Greens under-representation in the HoC and them being missing from the debates? I think there is.

Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists.

- Noam Chomsky

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

- Upton Sinclair

Posted

Again with the platitudes. The system should focus on representation. That's not what's up for discussion here. It's about Elizabeth May being in a debate. Event organizers kept her out because she is nothing. She has very little support in this country. That's why she's not there.

She has lots of support in this country and if the number of Green seats was proportional to the level of support (even in the last election when it dipped), people wouldn't be able to keep her out of the debates.

Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists.

- Noam Chomsky

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

- Upton Sinclair

Posted

She has lots of support in this country and if the number of Green seats was proportional to the level of support (even in the last election when it dipped), people wouldn't be able to keep her out of the debates.

If we had a 5% cutoff she would have had exactly...0 seats.

Posted

If we had a 5% cutoff she would have had exactly...0 seats.

Here we go again...

That's speculative. It assumes that there weren't any people who would have voted Green but decided not to for strategic reasons. Or because they decided the Greens had no chance in their ridings.

It also assumes a straight party list system. The calculations are more complicated under MMP (which has many variants) and STV.

Also, "she" will get either 0 or 1 seat. The party can have many seats. The difference may seem academic for other parties but May and the Greens are on record saying they won't whip votes.

Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists.

- Noam Chomsky

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

- Upton Sinclair

Posted

Here we go again...

That's speculative.

Not as much as what follows.

It assumes that there weren't any people who would have voted Green but decided not to for strategic reasons. Or because they decided the Greens had no chance in their ridings.

We can't guess how people might have voted if x, y, or z. THAT, is speculative.

It also assumes a straight party list system. The calculations are more complicated under MMP (which has many variants) and STV.

Which is why I'm not in favour of MMP. I can't even wrap my head around it, especially in the Canadian context.

Also, "she" will get either 0 or 1 seat. The party can have many seats. The difference may seem academic for other parties but May and the Greens are on record saying they won't whip votes.

Hard to whip yourself. You almost always have to get someone to do it for you.

Posted (edited)

"Fringe party" is simply an epithet that bigger parties use when they'd like the little ones to go away.

It's an "epithet" that accurately describes the Green Party's position in Canadian federal politics. They are a minor party with little to no influence...hence, the fringe, if you will. Feel free to look up what "fringe party" means.

For the Green Party, much of the criticism comes from the NDP which has moved to the middle and left gaps in terms of social and environmental policies.

What criticism? Calling them a fringe party isn't criticism. They ARE a fringe party.

You don't think there is any linkage between the Greens under-representation in the HoC and them being missing from the debates? I think there is.

The NDP is under-represented in the House too, but PR isn't how our system works. More importantly, with PR they would likely have to redefine "party recognition" in the House anyway. Recognized parties would probably need to secure at least 10% of the vote if we went to a PR system. And according the results in the last election they're a very long way from that.

Bitch and complain about how the system is setup all you want. It doesn't matter. The fact is the Green Party has very little support from the public and that's why they're not in the debates.

Edited by cybercoma
Posted

"You're still missing the point. The point is that the Green Party has absolutely no influence."

Their leader is the most respected parliamentarian in Canada and was voted as such.

If May won the Nobel Prize you'd still be calling her fringe. It is simply a tactic to sideline democracy.

Posted

Your number is just an exclusionary tactic. Guaranteed she's going to get more than 4% this time.

She might even get 5%. At that rate, with FPTP, she can form government in....140 years, give or take a year.

Posted

Yes it's fair. Most votes wins. No seats means people don't care about that parties issues and thinks they're not worth investing the one precious vote into.

Greens are a one issue party. Running a country or province is multi faceted and complex. It's not enough to simply care about the environment and forgo everything else.

The Greens have seats and they are not a one issue party, but you'd have to actually have read their platform to realize that.

Posted

If May won the Nobel Prize you'd still be calling her fringe.

If she had no support (i.e., she doesn't appeal to mainstream Canadians) then it would still be true.

Posted (edited)

She might even get 5%. At that rate, with FPTP, she can form government in....140 years, give or take a year.

So throw the baby (Democracy) out of the bath water why don't you. Whatever gives you an excuse that's all you're looking for.

Edited by G Huxley

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,929
    • Most Online
      1,878

    Newest Member
    BTDT
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...