The Upcoming Election- Who wants to Run for the.......

[M.Dancer]

This could be the ultimate reality show.

This close to an upcoming election, very few ridings have a candidate nominated for the Green Party (yet they feel a party without a seat in the house deserves to be included ina debate with mainstream parties).

So sometime between now and when the writ drops, they got to find nearly 300 non-screwy candidates......

While I agree they need CTV's help for the reality show, to find the perfect candidate.....I think incuding May would set a precedent that would be wrong.

http://www.greenparty.ca/en/find_your_riding

Go ahead, find your riding and see if you want to appear on the next big reality show

WHO WANTS TO BE A FRINGE CANDIDATE!!!!!!

Edited September 26, 2007 by M.Dancer

[kengs333]

This could be the ultimate reality show.

This close to an upcoming election, very few ridings have a candidate nominated for the Green Party (yet they feel a party without a seat in the house deserves to be included ina debate with mainstream parties).

So sometime between now and when the writ drops, they got to find nearly 300 non-screwy candidates......

While I agree they need CTV's help for the reality show, to find the perfect candidate.....I think incuding May would set a precedent that would be wrong.

http://www.greenparty.ca/en/find_your_riding

Go ahead, find your riding and see if you want to appear on the next big reality show

WHO WANTS TO BE A FRINGE CANDIDATE!!!!!!

Ummm... it's not yet all that certain that there will be an election this fall, but whatever the case when I look at my riding I see that there is supposedly no Green candidate, but I know who the candidate is and will be. That's the case with many other ridings as well. Needless to say that the Greens have had candidates in all ridings in the last few elections and have had some very respectable results. The fact that they can field candidates in all ridings while the Bloc does not would seem to me to be grounds for including them in the leadership debate. One would like to think that in a democracy, all parties that receive official status should be able to present their platform to the electorate; the last thing we need is a two party-system like in the United States, and I'm guessing that even two parties is too many for you.

Well, given the way that you are, I suppose I just wasted some of my time trying to present a reasoned argument. I await your juvenile response with much anticipation.

[M.Dancer]

The fact that they can field candidates in all ridings while the Bloc does not would seem to me to be grounds for including them in the leadership debate. One would like to think that in a democracy, all parties that receive official status should be able to present their platform to the electorate; the last thing we need is a two party-system like in the United States, and I'm guessing that even two parties is too many for you.

Nothing is stopping them from presenting their platform, we are talking about a tax payer funded televised debate between established parties with representitives in Parliament.

Well, the difference between the bloc and fringe parties in general and the Greens in particular is; the bloc can actually influence parliament and has significant representation in Ottawa while the greens have neither. If we let the greens in the debate without a single elected representative, why not then Canadian Action Party, Christian Heritage Party, Communist Party of Canada (both of them!), First people party, Freedom Party, Libertarian Party, Marijuana Party, etc etc etc............

........the last thing we need is a two party-system like in the United States, and I'm guessing that even two parties is too many for you.

Well, given the way that you are, I suppose I just wasted some of my time trying to present a reasoned argument. I await your juvenile response with much anticipation.

Well I see your confusion. You think if we don't allow a fringe party to a televised debate we will have a 2 party system as opposed to the 4 parties in Parliament now.

[maldon_road]

One would like to think that in a democracy, all parties that receive official status should be able to present their platform to the electorate; the last thing we need is a two party-system like in the United States, and I'm guessing that even two parties is too many for you.

No problem with that of course. But we can't have all registered parties involved in a debate. There are far too many of them. I think it's fair that only those that have been able to elect MPs should be involved.

Even though global warming is the hottest issue around May seemed to have disappeared from sight. Don't see the Greens doing anything in an election.

[shavluk]

Why should Ms May be in the debate?

besides the fact that all federal parties who get federal tax payer money should,,,and you can tell me i am sure how many do and who qualifies and why ,,right?

yeah i didn't think so,,,,

anyhooo ,,,

here you go ,,, fetch ,,hahhahhhaha

come on we are here bringing you guys some excitement don't take anything toooooooo seriously as far as the jabs as you guys have been dishing them out left ,right , right , right and center.

here goes,

In the 1988 federal election the Bloc Quebecois did not exist. Gilles Duceppe was elected in a by-election two years later as an independent, not as a Bloc candidate. Despite having no seats in Parliament, no official recognition from the Speaker and only 75 candidates out of 295 ridings, the Bloc Quebecois was included in both the French and English debates. The Bloc has never fielded a candidate outside Quebec but continues to participate in debates in both official languages.

In the 1988 general election, the Reform Party ran 72 candidates, received 276,000 votes and won no seats. By the time of the 1993 election, the Reform Party’s only sitting member was Deborah Grey following her win in a 1989 by-election. Reform did not have Official Party status and did not win a seat in the 1988 election but Preston Manning participated in the 1993 leaders’ debate, based on the 11,154 votes Deborah Grey received in a 1989 by-election with a 47 per cent turnout. In 1993, the party ran only 207 candidates.

In 2004 and 2006, the Green Party ran a full slate of 308 candidates and won 583,000 and 664,000 votes respectively, over double the Reform Party’s performance in 1988.

In 1979, the Social Credit Party was excluded from the debate despite the fact that it had 11 seats in Parliament at the time of dissolution. And in 1997, both the NDP and Progressive Conservatives were included in the debate despite not having Official Party status.

In 1993, 1997 and 2000 five leaders participated in the televised debates. This was reduced to four following the merger of the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives in 2003. Fair play, democratic equity and precedent demands that a fifth spot now be opened for a new national leader to join the debate. Five parties received over 2 per cent of the vote in 2004 and 2006 and all five should appear in the next leaders’ debate.

so um ,,,,,,,, you were saying ???

oh and thanks for the comments and the complementary thread / advertisement ,,,why you are a GREEN aren't you???

you really are growing on me,,,,, hahhahhhaha again thanks for the plug ,,,plug

[kengs333]

Nothing is stopping them from presenting their platform, we are talking about a tax payer funded televised debate between established parties with representitives in Parliament.

Well, the difference between the bloc and fringe parties in general and the Greens in particular is; the bloc can actually influence parliament and has significant representation in Ottawa while the greens have neither. If we let the greens in the debate without a single elected representative, why not then Canadian Action Party, Christian Heritage Party, Communist Party of Canada (both of them!), First people party, Freedom Party, Libertarian Party, Marijuana Party, etc etc etc............

Well I see your confusion. You think if we don't allow a fringe party to a televised debate we will have a 2 party system as opposed to the 4 parties in Parliament now.

I think shavluk's post just about sums it up.

Personally, I think the Communists and Marxist-Leninists should be banned.

[geoffrey]

This was reduced to four following the merger of the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives in 2003. Fair play, democratic equity and precedent demands that a fifth spot now be opened for a new national leader to join the debate. Five parties received over 2 per cent of the vote in 2004 and 2006 and all five should appear in the next leaders’ debate.

Why 2% of the vote? Just because that's where the Green's finished. Why not set it to 10? 1.5? 1.42155? What other arbitrary number do you want?

And why the hell does the fact that there were 5 parties in the debate in 2000 have to do with May, someone unable to get enough support to crack 10% in a riding, getting a spot now? She had to beg Dion to not run a candidate in her riding for her to just MAYBE finish in the top 3. This is not a crediable political party.

[kengs333]

Why 2% of the vote? Just because that's where the Green's finished. Why not set it to 10? 1.5? 1.42155? What other arbitrary number do you want?

And why the hell does the fact that there were 5 parties in the debate in 2000 have to do with May, someone unable to get enough support to crack 10% in a riding, getting a spot now? She had to beg Dion to not run a candidate in her riding for her to just MAYBE finish in the top 3. This is not a crediable political party.

Whatever the case, I think the rest of shuvlak's post presents a good argument for why the Greens should be included. As for not being a credible political party, that's more wishful thinking on your part rather than reality. The party is quite well organized on the federal level and has been running candidates in all ridings for the last few elections. It is finally getting attention in the media and is now being included in polls rather than hidden among the "others". Green policies have even been adopted by other parties because they recognize them as being good ideas and view the Greens as a legitimate threat. In particular this applies to the NDP, which went so far as to incorporate green into their campaign signs, etc. Argueably, it has come to the point where the Greens could elect MPs, although they do tend to lose support on election day because of strategic voting. Still, I think if May did the right thing and ran in BC, she and perhaps a few more candidates could get elected. This is a party that received c. 600,000 in the last election and under a PR system should have 12-14 seats in Parlaiment. In my opinion, that's not "not a credible political party".

[ScottSA]

Whatever the case, I think the rest of shuvlak's post presents a good argument for why the Greens should be included. As for not being a credible political party, that's more wishful thinking on your part rather than reality. The party is quite well organized on the federal level and has been running candidates in all ridings for the last few elections. It is finally getting attention in the media and is now being included in polls rather than hidden among the "others". Green policies have even been adopted by other parties because they recognize them as being good ideas and view the Greens as a legitimate threat. In particular this applies to the NDP, which went so far as to incorporate green into their campaign signs, etc. Argueably, it has come to the point where the Greens could elect MPs, although they do tend to lose support on election day because of strategic voting. Still, I think if May did the right thing and ran in BC, she and perhaps a few more candidates could get elected. This is a party that received c. 600,000 in the last election and under a PR system should have 12-14 seats in Parlaiment. In my opinion, that's not "not a credible political party".

I'm all for it being in the debate and running a full slate...hell, a double slate if possible. Somehow I suspect it won't bleed off a lot of support from the Cons. But in real life, the GP is getting the temporary attention of the media because of the already fading "Global Warming" boogieman, and as soon as the left starts sidling away and claiming, as they always do, that they knew it waren't no big deal all the time, the GP will fade into the obscurity it so richly deserves.

[shavluk]

The 2% is set in the governments own election rules

To attain 2% qualifies parties for the $1.75 they get for each vote garnered

This is now the rule for federal tax payer funding which the Greens reached by getting 4.5 % of the vote.

Chretien did change the rules for the better almost as a preparation to proportional representation by limiting funding so corporations can not control parties nor unions

Its great and rewarding to parties that reach the 2% threshold.

Some of you guys really blow me away as there is no need for this ignorance or drama.

Thanks for your comments anyway.

[kengs333]

I'm all for it being in the debate and running a full slate...hell, a double slate if possible. Somehow I suspect it won't bleed off a lot of support from the Cons. But in real life, the GP is getting the temporary attention of the media because of the already fading "Global Warming" boogieman, and as soon as the left starts sidling away and claiming, as they always do, that they knew it waren't no big deal all the time, the GP will fade into the obscurity it so richly deserves.

Actually, Jim Harris used to be a PC, and I think that some others have strayed into the Green camp since Harris moved the party into a more centrist position, but yes, I suppose most support will probably come from traditional Liberal supporters, and to a less extent the NDP. I'm not sure how the Global Warming issue is "fading" I think it is getting ever increasing attention, and the true extent of the problem is starting to sink in with all but the most ardent delusional deniers. While the Green never end up doing as well in elections as they poll, they are now polling higher than ever and I can see them upping their support to between 6.5 and 7%, maybe even electing a candidate or two in BC. The Green also present a less shrill option for people who want to vote progressively, the NDP's platform being rife with contradictions and always having the stigma of Socialism hanging over them. I can see the Greens and NDP trading places within the next 10 to 15 years. I think your belief that the Greens will "fade into... obscurity" is really nothing more than wishful thinking. You're starting to sound a bit like jennie.

[M.Dancer]

In the 1988 general election, the Reform Party ran 72 candidates, received 276,000 votes and won no seats. By the time of the 1993 election, the Reform Party’s only sitting member was Deborah Grey following her win in a 1989 by-election.

When the Greens have one seat......

In the 1988 federal election the Bloc Quebecois did not exist. Gilles Duceppe was elected in a by-election two years later as an independent, not as a Bloc candidate.

In 1990, Duceppe was elected to the Canadian House of Commons under the banner of the newly-formed Bloc Québécois in a by-election in Montreal's Laurier—Sainte-Marie riding. At the time, Duceppe ran as an independent because the Bloc had not been registered by Elections Canada as a political party.

All of the Bloc's other Members of Parliament had crossed the floor from either the Progressive Conservative Party or the Liberal Party earlier that year. Duceppe's victory in a by-election demonstrated - for the first time - that the party had electoral support in Quebec and could win elections.

Parhaps when the Greens can win an election......

Don't bogart that joint, my friend...pas it over to me

[M.Dancer]

Whatever the case, I think the rest of shuvlak's post presents a good argument for why the Greens should be included.

I'm not sure how comparing parties who managed to have members sitting in the House makes an argument for the Greens....but then again, I ain't blasted......

[kengs333]

I'm not sure how comparing parties who managed to have members sitting in the House makes an argument for the Greens....but then again, I ain't blasted......

"Gilles Duceppe was elected in a by-election two years later as an independent, not as a Bloc candidate. Despite having no seats in Parliament, no official recognition from the Speaker and only 75 candidates out of 295 ridings, the Bloc Quebecois was included in both the French and English debates."

[M.Dancer]

"Gilles Duceppe was elected in a by-election two years later as an independent, not as a Bloc candidate. Despite having no seats in Parliament, no official recognition from the Speaker and only 75 candidates out of 295 ridings, the Bloc Quebecois was included in both the French and English debates."

No, not quite.......

In 1990, Duceppe was elected to the Canadian House of Commons under the banner of the newly-formed Bloc Québécois in a by-election in Montreal's Laurier—Sainte-Marie riding. At the time, Duceppe ran as an independent because the Bloc had not been registered by Elections Canada as a political party.

All of the Bloc's other Members of Parliament had crossed the floor from either the Progressive Conservative Party or the Liberal Party earlier that year. Duceppe's victory in a by-election demonstrated - for the first time - that the party had electoral support in Quebec and could win elections.

Don't let half truths misguide you. There were no televised national debates when Duceppe ran the first time....IT WAS A BY ELECTION!!!!

The next federal election was 1993....And During that election the bloc was included in the debates and was a recognized party and won 54 seats and became the official opposition.

[kengs333]

No, not quite.......

Don't let half truths misguide you. There were no televised national debates when Duceppe ran the first time....IT WAS A BY ELECTION!!!!

The next federal election was 1993....And During that election the bloc was included in the debates and was a recognized party and won 54 seats and became the official opposition.

So if a Green had been elected in the recent by-elections, or Garth Turner had decided to become a Green, you'd suddenly feel that they were worthy of inclusion in the debate, even though as it stands they are an official party, qualify for money for the government, received c. 600,000 votes in the last election, and run candidates in all ridings?

[M.Dancer]

So if a Green had been elected in the recent by-elections, or Garth Turner had decided to become a Green, you'd suddenly feel that they were worthy of inclusion in the debate, even though as it stands they are an official party, qualify for money for the government, received c. 600,000 votes in the last election, and run candidates in all ridings?

There's lots of official parties so that isn't the litmus test. But yes if they have a member in ottawa like Deb Grey and like reform were polling in the double digits in the region they ran then absolutley. Both the Bloc and Reform affected the election outcome. Greens won't.

Lets see Greens get half the percentage of the NDP.....or elect someone somewhere....but until then they are a fringe party with no impact.

[shavluk]

You are a ridiculous child and have said nothing to prove your point.

You are just shit disturbing and soon i will rub your nose in other stupid things you say as its time someone corrected the crap some play here.

After the next election you will be able to slam people who don't vote fascist like you. Til then give respect to peoples choices,,

as you are no one

oh and thanks for your comments even if they are toxic

[kengs333]

There's lots of official parties so that isn't the litmus test. But yes if they have a member in ottawa like Deb Grey and like reform were polling in the double digits in the region they ran then absolutley. Both the Bloc and Reform affected the election outcome. Greens won't.

Lets see Greens get half the percentage of the NDP.....or elect someone somewhere....but until then they are a fringe party with no impact.

Again, this is more a product of wishful thinking than anything else. The Greens are not a regional party like the Bloc or Reform/CA/CPC were/are, and even if they haven't been elected, they certainly have had an "impact". I'm just not sure how someone can simply dismiss the significance of c. 600,000 votes; that's a lot of people who's opinions/ideas are not being represented, and I don't know how anyone can therefore consider our system to be democratic.

I certainly have little sympathy for the Conservatives--to me they are nothing more than the Reform/Canadian Alliance cloaked in Tory blue--but I think I can keep a level head when discussing their misguided policies, and certainly acknowledge that on occasion they make good decisions. The Greens have raised valid issues and as a significant political force in Canada they should be accorded some respect. As it stands you're not coming across as all that much more with it than jennie & Posit. Please consider doing something about that.

[Michael Bluth]

You are a ridiculous child

....I will rub your nose in other stupid things you say

.....After the next election you will be able to slam people who don't vote fascist like you.

pot - kettle. kettle - pot

[M.Dancer]

I'm just not sure how someone can simply dismiss the significance of c. 600,000 votes; that's a lot of people who's opinions/ideas are not being represented, and I don't know how anyone can therefore consider our system to be democratic.

That's less that 6% of the votes. If it was 1 million and still less the 6% it would stil be a fringe minority because in a democrcy it isn't the number of votes that count, but the greater percentage.

Even the Bloc and reform when the were na regional party polled more nthan 5% so ther ios no comaprison and no hope that anyone will take the Greens whinging as anything more than what it is.

[shavluk]

That's less that 6% of the votes. If it was 1 million and still less the 6% it would stil be a fringe minority because in a democrcy it isn't the number of votes that count, but the greater percentage.

Even the Bloc and reform when the were na regional party polled more nthan 5% so ther ios no comaprison and no hope that anyone will take the Greens whinging as anything more than what it is.

Maybe some one can translate that last one and I will just take it as an apology and an admission that you were wrong.

I still apreciate you starting this thread just to try to help me , thanks.

[maldon_road]

That's less that 6% of the votes. If it was 1 million and still less the 6% it would stil be a fringe minority because in a democrcy it isn't the number of votes that count, but the greater percentage.

Even the Bloc and reform when the were na regional party polled more nthan 5% so ther ios no comaprison and no hope that anyone will take the Greens whinging as anything more than what it is.

Should 6% guarantee you a seat? That's what the Greens are polling in Ontario right now and they will get nada seats.

[kengs333]

That's less that 6% of the votes. If it was 1 million and still less the 6% it would stil be a fringe minority because in a democrcy it isn't the number of votes that count, but the greater percentage.

Even the Bloc and reform when the were na regional party polled more nthan 5% so ther ios no comaprison and no hope that anyone will take the Greens whinging as anything more than what it is.

You're still basically saying the opinions of a large segment of the population is not significant. That shouldn't happen in a democracy. Your definition of fringe is based more on wishful thinking. A party that gets a few thousand votes is fringe, a party that gets 600,000 is at the last a minor party.

[kengs333]

Should 6% guarantee you a seat? That's what the Greens are polling in Ontario right now and they will get nada seats.

The interesting thing is that in my immediate neighbourhood, Green lawn signs are popping up where they haven't before. This could be quite interesting.