Green Party Party of Canada Adds Toughness, Grit: Georges Laraque Named Deputy Leader

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by SebC

I prefer single transferrable vote to proportional representation as it preserves local representation without giving up much fidelity to voter intent, but I'd still go with pure proportional representation over first past the post.

I really like STV.... I always thought ranking would be the best way to go. That way I could vote Green #1 without fear of throwing away my vote.

Though I think many members of this board would have an aneurysm trying to figure who to rank #2.

[Cactus Jack]

How long until the Greens buy-out big Georges?

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I wrote a paper presentation on proportional representation for a low level Poli Sci. I see a lot of benefits, with few drawbacks. Its a pity that it does not seem to get as serious recognition as it should as an issue. About the only benefit that poli sci class had was to make me more convinced of the systemic issues in our supposed democracy.

The downside is political paralysis when the electorate delivers a fractured parliament of a dozen different parties with disparate agendas. The Netherlands and Belgium had their national elections about 2 months ago and are both still without a government. Both of these countries are coming out of a couple years of fragile governing coalitions and both need some pretty serious work to address their local economic situations. Neither seem to be any closer to solving their problems.

The Netherlands are talking about forming a *minority* coalition among centre-right parties - no better than what we have in Canada. In Belgium, the second place French Socialists are being encouraged to come up with some agreement with the seat-leading centre-right Flemish nationalists. These two parties couldn't be more different in their goals (austerity measures and a loose federation on one side and socialist redistribution of wealth from the rich Flemish part of the country to the poor French part on the other side). It's no surprise that they can't reach an agreement.

The Belgium example is pretty similar to what I would imagine we would end up with here in Canada:
Centre-Right party formed from the remains of the Conservative party
Centre-Left party formed from the Liberals minus their soft NDP supporters
Socialists
French Separatists
English Regionalists (Perhaps Western separatists as a separate group)
Green Party
Fringe parties on all sides including religious and racial parties

After the election, you would either get a coalition cobbled together around the centre-right or the centre-left (i.e. the same as what we've had in Canada since confederation), using none of the parties' platforms as a governing platform. Negotiations would happen behind closed doors and the government would be chosen by the party leaders.

See:
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/n...on-allies.html
http://www.europeanvoice.com/article...ome/68628.aspx
http://www.forexyard.com/en/news/Key...12541Z-FACTBOX

[Devils'Advocate]

Which is where the Australian system seems more likely to work. You still get majority governments AND you nobody's vote is ignored.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

The less parties we have to choose from, the further we stray from any sort of true democracy. A 2 party system is no democracy.

That really doesn't have any basis in theory or reality, does it? One of the oldest parliamentary systems EVER was conceived around the idea of two large brokerage parties.

Fact is, partisanship is important. Compromise and all that can still occur within parties.

[peter12]

The strength of our system is the emphasis placed upon elections. We have some of the best partisan elections in the world. If you can't cut it when the writ is dropped, you don't deserve a seat.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

The less parties we have to choose from, the further we stray from any sort of true democracy. A 2 party system is no democracy.

The only thing that pisses me off more than someone who doesn't vote at all, is someone who throws their vote away on a fringe party that doesn't have the slightest chance of ever accomplishing anything worth voting for.

You show me a guy who votes for the Marijuana party, and I'll show you a guy who doesn't give a rat's ass about what happens to his country.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by peter12

That really doesn't have any basis in theory or reality, does it? One of the oldest parliamentary systems EVER was conceived around the idea of two large brokerage parties.

Fact is, partisanship is important. Compromise and all that can still occur within parties.

I kind of agree with this, and I kind of disagree. If you had proportional representation, either the winning party if there were only two or any logical coalition would have to include the median voter on the left-right spectrum (obviously a simplification, but let's go with it for the sake of argument), so in a sense it's true that it doesn't really matter how many parties you have. The problem is that the system that encourages voters to restrict themselves to two parties also skews the results from what they would be under proportional representation to the point that the median vote is often excluded from the government. That usually means that the government hasn't been elected by the majority of voters, and that's undemocratic.

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

The only thing that pisses me off more than someone who doesn't vote at all, is someone who throws their vote away on a fringe party that doesn't have the slightest chance of ever accomplishing anything worth voting for.

You show me a guy who votes for the Marijuana party, and I'll show you a guy who doesn't give a rat's ass about what happens to his country.

I though this was about the Green Party, not the "green" party...

There's a difference between not having a realistic chance of forming the government and not having the slightest chance of ever accomplishing anything worth voting for. The Green Party has actually developed a voice. They are continually increasing in support, which means the major parties have to pay more and more attention to what the Greens are saying.

It's silly to dismiss them entirely just because they are small. It's undemocratic to force people to vote only for the biggest parties. Things change. Voter opinion changes. Not allowing small parties to exist prevents change in the status quo, leading to stagnation, which is not a recipe for effective government.

Personally, I think the Green Party has a lot of development to do before they'll win my vote. I especially don't like their leader. I do appreciate having another voice in there to put forward different ideas to consider.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Superfraggle

I though this was about the Green Party, not the "green" party...

There's a difference between not having a realistic chance of forming the government and not having the slightest chance of ever accomplishing anything worth voting for. The Green Party has actually developed a voice. They are continually increasing in support, which means the major parties have to pay more and more attention to what the Greens are saying.

It's silly to dismiss them entirely just because they are small. It's undemocratic to force people to vote only for the biggest parties. Things change. Voter opinion changes. Not allowing small parties to exist prevents change in the status quo, leading to stagnation, which is not a recipe for effective government.

Personally, I think the Green Party has a lot of development to do before they'll win my vote. I especially don't like their leader. I do appreciate having another voice in there to put forward different ideas to consider.

See this to me is reasonable. I have no problem with the Green Party, though I do believe that they need to re balance their party platform.

If a platform is based around a single issue and a bunch of unreasonable statements about the rest of the key issues then I have no interest in voting for them.

I also think that Elizabeth May is a huge flake. If during the last all party debate that the May took part in, Stephen Harper had put his foot on her chair and pushed her off camera, we would have a majority government right now.

The Greens don't need a hockey player as deputy leader, they need an experienced politician who could temper May and be able to succeed her. If May gets pummeled again in the next election, Georges suddenly becomes the interim leader.

[Rathji]

The Green Party has some good ideas, but they are intermixed with some crazy bats#!t stuff that is spewed by an equally bats#!t crazy mouthpiece. We do need a reasonable voice to bring attention to the environmental issues that are important in society, but that voice does not need to come from a 3rd (or 4th) party.

The only way a main stream party adopts these policies is if another party, such as the Green party, shows they get voter support by focusing on them.

[Devils'Advocate]

Okay similar question to both of you:
CC: What are these "unreasonable statements"?
Rathji: Can you tell me what this "crazy bat" stuff is?

The party has as full a platform as the other parties. However, just because of the name, they are easily pigeonholed as a "one issue party".

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Okay similar question to both of you:
CC: What are these "unreasonable statements"?
Rathji: Can you tell me what this "crazy bat" stuff is?

The party has as full a platform as the other parties. However, just because of the name, they are easily pigeonholed as a "one issue party".

I've pretty muched ignored May as best I could during the last election because I think that she is a moron, but in the election before last, they had a different leader and I listened to what he had to say when he was given an interview by Peter Mansbridge on CBC. I came away thinking that the party was a joke. The answer to every question was "the environment". How did the Green party propose to address health care reform? They were going to clean up the environment and then people wouldn't get sick anymore. They made it pretty clear that the whole thing was a one party issue that was dinning on the flavour of the month. That's what I found to be crazy about them and I haven't felt the need to give them a chance since.

[Ark2]

I'm not sure why people here think that proportional representation is more democratic than first past the post. For me, it would raise several issues that are not democratic. Suppose we used proportional representation during the last election. That would me that the Green Party would have won roughly 21 seats (6.8% x 308 seats). Okay, great. Now how do we decide which members of the Green Party get those seats. Is there a vote open to the public? If so, how would that work? Is there a vote within the party? Would they be appointed? Regardless, it seems that the general population would be removed to some degree (and perhaps entirely) from deciding the individual that represents the party.

At any rate, this brings me to the next issue. Now that you've got the 21 seats, where do you put them? The Green party didn't win a single riding, which means that no one area chose them as a majority, yet suddenly, you'll have them representing 21 areas. Think about that for a minute. The Green Party would represent 21 ridings in which they weren't the highest voted party. Doesn't seem democratic at all to me.

[flamesrule_kipper34]

And for anyone that cares, it's official he's retired: http://www.ottawasun.com/sports/hock.../14902521.html

After 12 seasons in the NHL, Georges Laraque hung up his skates and gloves Monday as he prepares to tackle a long list of humanitarian and environmental causes.