Who do you plan to vote for in the next election ?

[guy_out_east]

Hi , I'm new to this forum , I'm 16 , and I currently live in gander, Newfoundland.

Anyways , who would you vote for in this election ?

[guy_out_east]

Hi , I'm new to this forum , I'm 16 , and I currently live in gander, Newfoundland.

Anyways , who would you vote for in this election ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is no voters party , it should be the animal alliance environmental party, if you want to choose that party just click the empty white dot to the right of Animal environmental alliance.

[Chronic]

As I hope you all know a Federal Election is coming up on Jan 23.

There is one more Leaders Debate scheduled on Monday.

There is a petition collecting signatures to stop the TV executives from being the ones who decide who is allowed in the debates. Right now for a party to be recognized as an official federal party, they must get at least 2% of the popular vote. Once this happens they recieve funding from taxes and are regarded as an offical party.

At this point in time they should be being included in all Federal Political Events. That isnt the way it works though when it comes to the televised debates. Regardless of the criteria already set out for federal parties, the television executives arbritarily decide who can be invloved. Which means that they are subverting the federal election process if they follow any guidelines except the established governmental regulations.

For a brief refresher (or maybe new knowledge) there are 308 ridings across canada. In the last election only four parties ran a candidate in every riding. To me this is important, because if you wish to be a federal party that represents the whole country, shouldn't you have represenatives across the whole country? The four parties were; the Liberals, Conservatives, N.D.P. and The Green Party.

The following link is to a petetion at the Green Parties website. This has nothing to do with any poll or survey, and it is not about supporting the Green Party. It is about allowing the democratic principles that our country is about to work as they were meant to.

Nowhere does it say that televion executives should have the power to decide who has access to the leaders debates.

By monday's scheduled debate, we need to collect another 10,000 canadian signatures.

Just ask yourself this, wouldnt you at least like to see the leader of the Green Party have a chance to say his peace, especially considering a couple of million tax dollars went to them since the last election?

Here's the link

http://www.info-greenparty.ca/petition/

Let's let the democratic process work without hinderance from the television executives.

Tom Adshead

[Leafless]

Chronic

You wrote- " Wouldn't you at least like to see the leader of the Green Party have a chance to say his peace"

NO!

This is a leaders debate concerning federal political party leaders who have a realistic chance of forming the next government.

Including parties from long shot leaders like the NDP, Bloc, Geen Parties is a waste of time and could include rabble-rousing rhetoric that removes the importance of a debate and turns it into a plain electioneering event.

And who the hell wants that.

[Chronic]

Chronic

You wrote- " Wouldn't you at least like to see the leader of the Green Party have a chance to say his peace"

NO!

This is a leaders debate concerning federal political party leaders who have a realistic chance of forming the next government.

Including parties from long shot leaders like the NDP, Bloc, Geen Parties is a waste of time and could include rabble-rousing rhetoric that removes the importance of a debate and turns it into a plain electioneering event.

And who the hell wants that.

I do, and so does any other person who belives that our current governmental system is corrupt and that we need a new alternative. The old ways just arent good enough anymore. What criteria would you like to see used to decide who can be in the televisde debates? THose haveing a realistic chance of forming the next government is a very vague comment. After all if everyone who didnt vote in the last election voted for the same party, that party would win. Therefore, any registered party has that ability.

Personally, I think gaining the necessary 2% of the popular vote and becoming a recognized party is a really good start. how about we add in, they have to run a candidate in at least 95% of the ridings in the country?

Many voters who havent given up on the whole process yet, make their decision of who to vote for from the debates. A case of, if you arent there, you dont count. So the current system of a private body (the tv execs) making a decision that is arbrtary and has no standards beyond their own, is just plain wrong and undemocratic.

At least in my opinion...

Tom

[BubberMiley]

So the 1997 and 2000 debates should have just been a Chretien monologue?

[tml12]

So the 1997 and 2000 debates should have just been a Chretien monologue?

I voted Conservative here and I will on Jan. 23.

BTW I saw a Liberal ad on TV tonight. They claimed Harper would have gone to Iraq.

No kidding...so would Martin!!!

The Liberals are just digging their own hole...

[Leafless]

BubberMiley

We already know our current government is corrupt.

Your the guy that believes and relies on polls and any poll will tell you all other parties outside of the Conservatives and Liberals have virtually very little chance or no chance of forming the next government.

A debate is suppose to or should identify differences concerning realistic issues that particular party harbours as an election platform and separate the B.S from achievable goals and expectations of that particular party as compared to the other. It should include a civilized debate concerning failed goals, broken promises, scandals, but most of all in my opinion is also debating the question concerning the increasing lack of democratic political participation concerning major issues available to Canadians and identify if in fact our political system is indeed broken, what steps are necessary to ensure Canadian citizens are democratically represented.

I will not accept the fact that a parliamentry democracy excludes a process to include Canadians.

A debate is not electioneering and if you want to know what a certain party offers go to their website or meet their local candidate.

Parties with little or no chance of forming the next government only bog down the debate which could include exaggerated rhetoric at the expense of legitimate leaders not debating important goverance issue's as there is only so much time available for what should be an important event.

[Chronic]

I will not accept the fact that a parliamentry democracy excludes a process to include Canadians.

and

Parties with little or no chance of forming the next government only bog down the debate which could include exaggerated rhetoric at the expense of legitimate leaders not debating important goverance issue's as there is only so much time available for what should be an important event.

So which is it?

As for the amount of time available for it, that brings us right back to the control that tv execs have over what should be, in your words "an important event" They are the ones who decide how much time is available and they who decide who is included. Surely you must so the inherent problem with this.

There should be a set criteria that intelligently sets the requirements for the leaders debate. Those criteria should include consideration of not only how many candidates as part fields, but where they do. A party that is strictly represenative of a single province would be a good example of one that should not be included in a National debate.

Do you understand the expense and time and effort it requires to run a full campaign across the country? This is not something that is done lightly, so that should definately be a factor in the decision.

And you never did address the issue that your catagorization of " Parties with little or no chance of forming the next government " How do you measure this? As I said, all it would take is for the normal non-voters to get out and vote for a single party and that party would win. Or if you prefer what you would likely term a more realistic possibilty. The Green party recieved 5% of the popular vote last election, dont be surprised if it gets over 10% this year... even if not, it will most likely include one seat in BC, a minority government between between the parties is always a possibilty, which could include them. Stranger things have happened...

[Chronic]

The Green party recieved 5% of the popular vote last election, dont be surprised if it gets over 10% this year... even if not, it will most likely include one seat in BC, a minority government between between the parties is always a possibilty, which could include them. Stranger things have happened...

so much for my prediction skills... lol

[tml12]

The Green party recieved 5% of the popular vote last election, dont be surprised if it gets over 10% this year... even if not, it will most likely include one seat in BC, a minority government between between the parties is always a possibilty, which could include them. Stranger things have happened...

so much for my prediction skills... lol

I think we'll see the Greens in the BC Provincial Parliament first...

[geoffrey]

The Green party recieved 5% of the popular vote last election, dont be surprised if it gets over 10% this year... even if not, it will most likely include one seat in BC, a minority government between between the parties is always a possibilty, which could include them. Stranger things have happened...

so much for my prediction skills... lol

I think we'll see the Greens in the BC Provincial Parliament first...

Not in any of our lifetimes... Green support goes down when elections matter. Says something about whether people actually believe in them or if they are just a nice 'well I voted so oh well" choice.

The Green's are a complete joke. They had a million bucks plus donations to run this campaign. And I didn't see anything about them at all. Hopefully its because they are saving up for a day when the party actually stands for something instead of being a motley crew of hippies and disgruntled businessmen.