G Huxley Posted September 22, 2015 Report Posted September 22, 2015 You are sidelining them in trying to justify their exclusion from a fair election process. "can understand that some debate organizers won't give her a platform because she hasn't earned that place yet."Again people would still be saying that if she won a Nobel prize. Her exclusion is political, it's an anti-democratic position. Quote
G Huxley Posted September 22, 2015 Report Posted September 22, 2015 It's an illustration of how how little support the Green Party has. And the fact that there is so little support is exactly why they are not in the debates. No it isn't at all. It's simply a way of excluding other parties from the process. Again the PC party an antecessor to the current conservative party had the same number of MPs as the Greens in 1993 and they were allowed in the debates in fact Chretien referred to their leader as 'official leader of the opposition.' Quote
cybercoma Posted September 22, 2015 Author Report Posted September 22, 2015 Keep your head buried firmly in the sand. It's all good. I'm done trying to talk some sense into you. You're just looking for a soapbox to complain about perceived injustices. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted September 22, 2015 Report Posted September 22, 2015 Trolling much? It's not my fault you don't understand that elections are based on counting. It's not trolling at all. The history of proportional representation is one of mainstream parties putting up roadblocks to prevent smaller parties like the Greens from being able to properly represent their constituents. The major parties, their supporters and institutional players (like the MSM) have behaved towards smaller parties in much the same ways as they've behaved to other types of minorities. The concerns are mocked and minimalized while the need for discrimination is rationalized. Majorities have a duty to accommodate minorities and the number of successful examples of PR systems shows that it is perfectly reasonable to do so. The NDP is a case in point. Where PR is favorable (federally and provincially in Ontario), the NDP is a big proponent of PR. Where FPTP works in the NDP's favor, they might claim to be supportive but somehow it never gets done. Quote 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
G Huxley Posted September 22, 2015 Report Posted September 22, 2015 (edited) Exactly, the current set-up is simply a means of undemocratically coralling the political process to benefit the most established (or far right parties) notice the Reform Party were allowed in the debates with no MPs and the PC party were allowed in with the same number of MPs as the Greens. Both of those parties who were 'fringe' under the same criteria were treated as major parties, were allowed in the debates and now form the current government. Edited September 22, 2015 by G Huxley Quote
cybercoma Posted September 22, 2015 Author Report Posted September 22, 2015 You're shoulding all over yourselves instead of looking at what is. I don't care about your philosophical fantasies. You want to talk PR, go talk about it in the PR thread. You want to talk about abstract concepts like democracy, start a thread in the philosophy forum to debate it. This thread is about May's exclusion from the debates and the Green's legal challenge on the grounds of a charity acting in a partisan manner. Neither of you have made any arguments whatsoever to that end. You're waxing poetic about democracy and PR and the voice of the people. This is all meaningless platitudes. The reality is that an argument needs to be made to show that this organization denied her participation on partisan grounds. The inclusion of parties from across the spectrum undermines this argument. A safe argument in the charity's defence is that the Green Party is a minor party that has never had official status and garnered less than 4% of the popular vote in the last election. There's absolutely no reason to bog down the debate with her presence when she quite simply is not a contender for forming government. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted September 22, 2015 Report Posted September 22, 2015 You're shoulding all over yourselves instead of looking at what is. I don't care about your philosophical fantasies. You want to talk PR, go talk about it in the PR thread. You want to talk about abstract concepts like democracy, start a thread in the philosophy forum to debate it. This thread is about May's exclusion from the debates and the Green's legal challenge on the grounds of a charity acting in a partisan manner. The rationale for excluding the Greens is that they don't have enough seats. They don't have more seats because of our undemocratic voting system. So the fundamental issue in play is whether society is doing enough to accommodate a discriminated minority. The legal challenge that the charity is acting in a partisan manner is an interesting ploy - but not really the main issue. Neither of you have made any arguments whatsoever to that end. You're waxing poetic about democracy and PR and the voice of the people. This is all meaningless platitudes. The reality is that an argument needs to be made to show that this organization denied her participation on partisan grounds. The inclusion of parties from across the spectrum undermines this argument. A safe argument in the charity's defence is that the Green Party is a minor party that has never had official status and garnered less than 4% of the popular vote in the last election. There's absolutely no reason to bog down the debate with her presence when she quite simply is not a contender for forming government. A meaningless platitude is dismissing the Greens as a "fringe party". Either you believe in democracy or you don't. If you do, then you have a duty to make meaningful accommodation for minority viewpoints. We have 3 parties crowding the centre, one from the right and 2 from the left. All three of them are essentially running on the same platform - endless economic growth while supporting the "middle class" (though nobody really knows wtf that even is). Democracy should encourage alternate viewpoints, not stifle them. The Globe debate was a joke. The only really intelligent commentary came from May's tweets. Quote 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
Canada_First Posted September 22, 2015 Report Posted September 22, 2015 The rationale for excluding the Greens is that they don't have enough seats. They don't have more seats because of our undemocratic voting system. So the fundamental issue in play is whether society is doing enough to accommodate a discriminated minority. The legal challenge that the charity is acting in a partisan manner is an interesting ploy - but not really the main issue. A meaningless platitude is dismissing the Greens as a "fringe party". Either you believe in democracy or you don't. If you do, then you have a duty to make meaningful accommodation for minority viewpoints. We have 3 parties crowding the centre, one from the right and 2 from the left. All three of them are essentially running on the same platform - endless economic growth while supporting the "middle class" (though nobody really knows wtf that even is). Democracy should encourage alternate viewpoints, not stifle them. The Globe debate was a joke. The only really intelligent commentary came from May's tweets. They are a fringe party though. You cannot deny that. Less than 4 percent of the vote is fringe territory. They do not have official party status. Results like that election after election solidifies that.I think most people know what the middle class is. Not poor. Not rich. But in the middle.Poor is under 20k per year. Middle is over 40k but less than 100k. Rich is over 100k per year to over 250k per year. Sunshine list. No one is stifling May. She is open to put forth any opinion she wishes. No one is stopping her party. This isn't Francos Spain. The Green party is a centrist party as well. Some aspects are even conservative. Quote
G Huxley Posted September 23, 2015 Report Posted September 23, 2015 We have 3 parties crowding the centre, one from the right and 2 from the left. All three of them are essentially running on the same platform - endless economic growth while supporting the "middle class" (though nobody really knows wtf that even is). Democracy should encourage alternate viewpoints, not stifle them. Well said. Quote
G Huxley Posted September 23, 2015 Report Posted September 23, 2015 They are a fringe party though. You cannot deny that. No they aren't a fringe party if they have MPs, as MPs represent ridings. You can't just label a riding 'fringe' because they are an entire riding full of people. Quote
Canada_First Posted September 23, 2015 Report Posted September 23, 2015 No they aren't a fringe party if they have MPs, as MPs represent ridings. You can't just label a riding 'fringe' because they are an entire riding full of people. The Green party is a fringe party because they don't have mainstream support hence fringe support. I'm happy the Greens have seats but they don't have the seats right now to be called a mainstream party. They don't belong in the maim debates as they will not be forming government right now. Quote
eyeball Posted September 23, 2015 Report Posted September 23, 2015 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. Oh we get it, the thing is we loath it. The discontent with our political system is real, it is not going away and like a festering abscess is just dragging down the well being of the whole country. Subscribers to the status quo who mock, scoff at and write this discontent off as mere ignorant whining by losers and plebes who don't get it are probably even more damaging to the social capital of the nation. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
G Huxley Posted September 23, 2015 Report Posted September 23, 2015 (edited) The Green party is a fringe party because they don't have mainstream support hence fringe support. I'm happy the Greens have seats but they don't have the seats right now to be called a mainstream party. They don't belong in the maim debates as they will not be forming government right now. They do have mainstream support. May has been shown to be the most respected party leader in Canada. The reason the greens pull in less votes is because of the current first past the post electoral system. About 80% of Canadians polled said that May should be included in the debates, which if it was a Democracy would then be a reality. That exposes just how anti-democratic the move is to exclude her. Harper has the support of less than a third of the country so under your criteria then his party is fringe. Edited September 23, 2015 by G Huxley Quote
G Huxley Posted September 23, 2015 Report Posted September 23, 2015 (edited) Of a poll 79% of Canadians said May should be invited to the debates: http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/canadians-want-greens-elizabeth-may-at-future-debates-poll 11% said she should not be invited. The real fringe people are the people here saying she shouldn't be invited. Edited September 23, 2015 by G Huxley Quote
Canada_First Posted September 23, 2015 Report Posted September 23, 2015 They do have mainstream support. May has been shown to be the most respected party leader in Canada. The reason the greens pull in less votes is because of the current first past the post electoral system. About 80% of Canadians polled said that May should be included in the debates, which if it was a Democracy would then be a reality. That exposes just how anti-democratic the move is to exclude her. Harper has the support of less than a third of the country so under your criteria then his party is fringe. The other 3 parties have 30%+ support. Greens have less than 4%. That is not equal. Under PR system Greens would have zero seats. Total fringe party. Against using military for any reason. This party has no place in debates. Not until they enjoy mainstream support and increased seat count. Quite simple actually. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted September 23, 2015 Report Posted September 23, 2015 The other 3 parties have 30%+ support. Greens have less than 4%. That is not equal. Under PR system Greens would have zero seats. Total fringe party. Against using military for any reason. This party has no place in debates. Not until they enjoy mainstream support and increased seat count. Quite simple actually. It seems your criteria is based mostly on using the military. Quite bizarre, actually. We don't want to be like the US. Quote
G Huxley Posted September 23, 2015 Report Posted September 23, 2015 (edited) The other 3 parties have 30%+ support. Greens have less than 4%. That is not equal. Under PR system Greens would have zero seats. Total fringe party. Against using military for any reason. This party has no place in debates. Not until they enjoy mainstream support and increased seat count. Quite simple actually. First Past the post encourages strategic voting, whereas proportional representation means people who vote for who they want get get represented by their votes. That's why Greens hold numerous seats in place like Australia, Germany, Sweden etc. Edited September 23, 2015 by G Huxley Quote
WestCoastRunner Posted September 23, 2015 Report Posted September 23, 2015 (edited) I know you really wish the Green Party was a player, but it's not. It's still a fringe party that gets very few votes. The party leader is not invited to the debates because they are quite simply not a factor in the election at all. Not even close. And the fact of the matter is the organizers of these debates have to draw the line somewhere. The vast majority of people (over 90%) are voting for the parties represented by the three leaders who are going to be at the debate. And that's why the line is drawn there. Elizabeth May being there takes time away from the others when frankly the vast majority of Canadians just aren't going to vote Green, regardless of whether they disagree with her exclusion or not. I don't care if the Green Party is a major player . I want to hear from all candidates on the main stage. She deserves nothing less. Please don't take away my options to listen to all candidates. Edited September 23, 2015 by WestCoastRunner Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
Smallc Posted September 23, 2015 Report Posted September 23, 2015 I don't care if the Green Party is a major player . I want to hear from all candidates on the main stage. She deserves nothing less. Please don't take away my options to listen to all candidates. You can't have every party on the main stage or no one will get to say anything. Quote
WestCoastRunner Posted September 23, 2015 Report Posted September 23, 2015 You can't have every party on the main stage or no one will get to say anything. I want to hear from May. Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
WestCoastRunner Posted September 23, 2015 Report Posted September 23, 2015 You can't have every party on the main stage or no one will get to say anything. I want to hear from May on the big stage. Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
Canada_First Posted September 23, 2015 Report Posted September 23, 2015 First Past the post encourages strategic voting, whereas proportional representation means people who vote for who they want get get represented by their votes. That's why Greens hold numerous seats in place like Australia, Germany, Sweden etc.The Greens hold one seat in Australia. One seat in Germany and 25 seats in Sweden. I wouldn't call that numerous. 2 out of the three nations you listed that have PR ended up with less Green seats than what we have on Canada under fptp. Quote
Canada_First Posted September 23, 2015 Report Posted September 23, 2015 I want to hear from May on the big stage.You already have in August. Quote
Smallc Posted September 23, 2015 Report Posted September 23, 2015 I want to hear from May on the big stage. What about the rest of the party leaders? Is this a women's issue to you? Quote
WestCoastRunner Posted September 23, 2015 Report Posted September 23, 2015 You already have in August. I want to hear from her on every big stage the other parties are involved. Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
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.