Alberta Green Party deregistered

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Mark

This is very true. I am not encouraging splitting up the country, but the shear size of the country hinders everyone and their voice. Such a large area is bound to have so many different sympathies and needs. Is the solution more power to the provinces?

To me it absolutely is more power to the provinces. The only issue then is that regional self interest takes priorities over national interests and you become a lose conferation of states.

I do think that the federal government has to much power and to many responsibilies that really shouldn't need federal help.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Mark

CaptainCrunch, if everyone just looked at only numbers then how could change ever occur? Your vote should be based on who most closely resembles your own opinions. Federally, your vote for a party gives that party something like $275. On a side note, Harper tried to remove that and that is one of the items that caused the whole kerfuffle in November/December before he took his ball home and cried undemocratic.

Realistically our form of democracy has pretty terrible representation. There are many other forms being practiced that better reflect the popular vote (which I believe to be truer democracy). The one that BC has voted on in the past 2 elections was not really better, but first past the post has to go. For example in our last provincial election, the PC's received 86% of the seats with 53% of the popular vote...

I am very anti-PR. Sure it's more democratic in the sense that a wider variety of voices and choices are available for voters. However, I shudder at the thought that in a multi-party coalition sharing power situation that fringe issues/policies would get bargained over and actually implemented whole in exchange for support for other initiatives. The green party is a perfect example of a fringe party whose views taken whole are completely unsuitable for actual implementation and it's better off that there wasn't green MLA's or MP's that needed to be appeased in order to pass legislation federally or provincially.


Politics are like the Rolling Stones song: "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you get what you need."

[Zarathustra]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Green, WRA, Liberal, NDP, Communist, Saparation Party, etc. None have a chance until they find a leader who will inspire trust.

LOL. Ed Stelmach inspires trust!?

[jammies]

I don't really see the Greens as a provincial party, but federally 6.8% of the vote is not insignificant. If they gained 2% in 2 years, it's not inconceivable that in a decade or so they could be at 20% support; of course it's also possible they go down to 0.1%.

Either way, I'll never understand the idea that you should only vote for or support a party that has a reasonable chance of being in power, and that all other parties should just give up and disband. That's how you end up with a completely broken 2 party system like the USA. The possibility of change from below always exists when you have strong alternatives to the current order; these should be encouraged and not dismissed as irrelevant.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by jammies

I don't really see the Greens as a provincial party, but federally 6.8% of the vote is not insignificant. If they gained 2% in 2 years, it's not inconceivable that in a decade or so they could be at 20% support; of course it's also possible they go down to 0.1%.

Either way, I'll never understand the idea that you should only vote for or support a party that has a reasonable chance of being in power, and that all other parties should just give up and disband. That's how you end up with a completely broken 2 party system like the USA. The possibility of change from below always exists when you have strong alternatives to the current order; these should be encouraged and not dismissed as irrelevant.

The beauty of a multi-party first-past the post system is that these one-issue parties are pretty much capped in how large they can get. Well before the greens get to 20% a major party's platform would start encompassing enough of their ideas on their one issue to take all but the most staunch supporters. The last thing anyone needs is someone like Elizabeth May getting a vote on issues regarding our military, Health Care, Education,. etc.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Not to mention that when the Conservatives pull out a dud as a leader (Getty), they are able to find a charismatic successor who can both reinvigorate the party, and inspire the populace (Klein).

The Liberals? God, their list of leaders is a whos-who of dull, uninspiring, unwanted people. Swann, Taft, Nicol, MacBeth, Mitchell, etc. Truth is, the Liberals probably haven't had anyone worth electing as premier since Sifton - a century ago.

Alberta's politics are in such as state that you could argue anyone is blind depending on your own political leanings. Given the utter lack of a reason to vote for the Liberals or NDP, I could just as easily state that their supporters are only blindly voting against the Conservatives.

Green, WRA, Liberal, NDP, Communist, Saparation Party, etc. None have a chance until they find a leader who will inspire trust.

Lawrence Decore was likely going to be the Premier until the abortion issue surfaced in 1993.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Slava

Lawrence Decore was likely going to be the Premier until the abortion issue surfaced in 1993.

He's a guy that as a traditionally conservative supporter I would glady vote for today (or even help with his campaign) if he was still with us.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

The last thing anyone needs is someone like Elizabeth May getting a vote on issues regarding our military, Health Care, Education,. etc.

Why not? Rob Anders has a vote. That is far more troubling.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

The beauty of a multi-party first-past the post system is that these one-issue parties are pretty much capped in how large they can get. Well before the greens get to 20% a major party's platform would start encompassing enough of their ideas on their one issue to take all but the most staunch supporters.

You mean just like how the Reform party never got anywhere because their platform was hijacked? You could characterize them as a "western protest party" if you wanted to, and that didn't prevent them from gaining seats and then eventually becoming more than that. Or looking further back, what about the Social Credit movement?

Discounting the Greens because you think they are a one-issue party and never will be anything else is short-sighted. A charismatic leader and dissatisfaction with the current parties can take small fringe parties to power very quickly; again this isn't the USA where the parties themselves are so entrenched into the process that quick change is almost impossible.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I am very anti-PR. Sure it's more democratic in the sense that a wider variety of voices and choices are available for voters. However, I shudder at the thought that in a multi-party coalition sharing power situation that fringe issues/policies would get bargained over and actually implemented whole in exchange for support for other initiatives. The green party is a perfect example of a fringe party whose views taken whole are completely unsuitable for actual implementation and it's better off that there wasn't green MLA's or MP's that needed to be appeased in order to pass legislation federally or provincially.


Politics are like the Rolling Stones song: "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you get what you need."

So you recognize it would be more democratic, yet still shy away? In other electoral formats there is always a floor to prevent anyone with a really low percentage to have any representation thus eliminating the fringe parties (not that the Green Party is really fringe anymore). As for coalitions, they have succeeded in other parts of the world and while I don't think they are best, they can still function. In fact I can see more accountability in a coalition. Same with a minority government, but people are always power hungry instead of working together.

Why would you cringe at the idea of a democratically elected MLA/MP that needs to be appeased in a coalition or minority government (which in theory would help reflect the countries wide spectrum of views)? I guess a dictatorship would help prevent that fear from ever arising.

As for the Green's, I know they are just happy that some of their ideas are filtering into the mainstream parties.

[octothorp]

There's definitely a niche in Canadian political landscape that is not being served: the socially liberal, fiscally conservative crowd. Maybe there isn't enough of such a demographic to ever form a government, but it would be a hell of a lot more people that the current Green support movement, and furthermore it ties into classic green party politics of sustainability in all things (environment, social programs, economy, etc.). Unfortunately, under May, the Greens have really shifted left fiscally, so that they're just competing with the NDP and to a lesser extent, Liberals. But returning to a sustainability platform would go a long way to taking them beyond simply being a protest vote.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Mark

This is very true. I am not encouraging splitting up the country, but the shear size of the country hinders everyone and their voice. Such a large area is bound to have so many different sympathies and needs. Is the solution more power to the provinces?

The solution has been from the start to push more power to the provinces.

[starseed]

Originally Posted by octothorp

There's definitely a niche in Canadian political landscape that is not being served: the socially liberal, fiscally conservative crowd. Maybe there isn't enough of such a demographic to ever form a government, but it would be a hell of a lot more people that the current Green support movement, and furthermore it ties into classic green party politics of sustainability in all things (environment, social programs, economy, etc.). Unfortunately, under May, the Greens have really shifted left fiscally, so that they're just competing with the NDP and to a lesser extent, Liberals. But returning to a sustainability platform would go a long way to taking them beyond simply being a protest vote.

Is that not the Liberal party under Ignatieff?

I wish Mackay had not sold out the federal PC party, they would have made a hell of a lot better alternative after adscam.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

LOL. Ed Stelmach inspires trust!?

Care to quote where I said that?

[mykalberta]

How hard is it for politicians to see. Are they so out of touch with private buisness to see that the best way for market domination is through mergers, aquisitions, and consolidation.

Its a great time to rebrand as well.

The PC dominance will continue while there is no mainstream centre in this province. And that centre will never be the Liberals. However with rebranding and marketing they could easily come within striking distance instead of laughing distance.

Any mainstream party should ignore the rural districts and focus on the 5-6 major city regions. You cannot win a vote to the middle in rural Alberta because the vote is to skewed right (in the last election the PC candidate in my parents region got 8X% of the vote). You are also maximizing dollar values by focussing on the cities because the cities will only grow in the number of seats while the rural areas shrink.

Basically do what the Liberals did durring the Cretien era. He was an ass but he knew how to win. Play lip service to places you have no chance and funnell your money where you do.

Also, by middle in Alberta I mean middle-right of the political spectrum. We arent talking about crazy Ontario, BCbud, or Quebec middle.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Mark

So you recognize it would be more democratic, yet still shy away? In other electoral formats there is always a floor to prevent anyone with a really low percentage to have any representation thus eliminating the fringe parties (not that the Green Party is really fringe anymore).

Direct votes by the whole population would be the most democratic. If more democratic in every case is always the better alternative then why have a legislature at all? Let the people decide.

[mykalberta]

Also

The left in this province have to become similar to Republican/Democratic voters in the US. This party isnt perfect but its better than the alternative.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

How hard is it for politicians to see. Are they so out of touch with private buisness to see that the best way for market domination is through mergers, aquisitions, and consolidation.

Its a great time to rebrand as well.

The PC dominance will continue while there is no mainstream centre in this province. And that centre will never be the Liberals. However with rebranding and marketing they could easily come within striking distance instead of laughing distance.

Any mainstream party should ignore the rural districts and focus on the 5-6 major city regions. You cannot win a vote to the middle in rural Alberta because the vote is to skewed right (in the last election the PC candidate in my parents region got 8X% of the vote). You are also maximizing dollar values by focussing on the cities because the cities will only grow in the number of seats while the rural areas shrink.

Basically do what the Liberals did durring the Cretien era. He was an ass but he knew how to win. Play lip service to places you have no chance and funnell your money where you do.

Also, by middle in Alberta I mean middle-right of the political spectrum. We arent talking about crazy Ontario, BCbud, or Quebec middle.

I can tell you without question that this has been discussed in great detail. The problem in Alberta is that the rural seats dominate the vote...its a longer term plan for sure, and to really be effective a party has to virtually sweep the cities to prove their point.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by jammies

You mean just like how the Reform party never got anywhere because their platform was hijacked? You could characterize them as a "western protest party" if you wanted to, and that didn't prevent them from gaining seats and then eventually becoming more than that. Or looking further back, what about the Social Credit movement?

Discounting the Greens because you think they are a one-issue party and never will be anything else is short-sighted. A charismatic leader and dissatisfaction with the current parties can take small fringe parties to power very quickly; again this isn't the USA where the parties themselves are so entrenched into the process that quick change is almost impossible.

In order to get 'more than that' they actually had to become a centrist-mainstream party and merge with the former centrist party which many former reformers consider extremely dilutive to thier original ideas.

We all love quick change don't we: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by starseed

Is that not the Liberal party under Ignatieff?

I wish Mackay had not sold out the federal PC party, they would have made a hell of a lot better alternative after adscam.

Hard to say, I'd still consider them fiscally moderate, socially moderate/liberal, at least on Canada's political continuum. Although I still don't feel like I have a really strong grasp on exactly what Ignatieff's fiscal/economic policies would be.