Wheels Falling Off Green Party Wagon

Gee, Augustus, who *is* going to win SGI?  (wait, wait, let me guess who you think it'll be ...)

Why do you keep winking at people who find you annoying?

This thread is still GOING? Jeez, how many wheels does that Green Party wagon HAVE, anyway?

Ralph Benmergui, Strategic Communications Advisor. That's the nail in the coffin right there.

Stockholm wrote:

If you look at the results in SGI in 2006 when the NDP actually had a candidate and when you look at the fact that of the two provincial ridings that make up SGI - one went NDP narrowly and one went BC Liberal narrowly - I would actually say that were it not for EMay, the NDP would have a very good shot at winning that seat - esp. with current polls showing the NDP essentially tied with the Tories across BC. All that May will accomplish is splitting the anti-Tory vote three-ways instead of four and ensuring the Gary Lunn wins with about 30% of the vote.

Boy, doesn't show a very good grasp of BC politics. If you discard this hypothesis, and look at the facts of the last election, the dipper WITHDREW, from the race. Brionny Penn, former GPC candidate stood for the Liberals. The local Greens were pretty well split, many ofthem moving over to the Libs with Brionny. Even within the GPC camp there were Greens speaking out in favour of a strategic vote for the Liberals. And with all this going on, Lunn shellacked the Liberals and won handily. This is half baked statistics gazing.

Now if you are tired of vote splitting, try this on for size. The NDP has withdrawn from the class struggle, and now they are just another somewhat left of centre party. Aside from the presence of the public sector unions, the NDP is indistinguishable from the Liberal Party. ANd yet they persist in contesting elections, splitting the vote, and have virtually guaranteed ongoing Harper minority governments when it is actually in their power to ensure a Liberal majority. So why don't you all stop pretending it's all the Green Party's fault, and take a long hard look in the mirror? You have all proven that you know a little arithmatic. I know you mostly do, because you have correctly noted that the GPC vote represented the margin of victory or greater in some 30 odd ridings. Apply the same skills to the NDP vote, and you will find that the NDP spoiled the election in over 100 ridings!!!

If you find this truth unpalatable, then perhaps you will start to realise why Greens just shrug off your' delusional arithmetic endeavours.

Pronouncing the federal NDP  indistinguishable from the Liberals is such a nonsensical statement that one assumes you live on magic mushroom mountain yourself.

First off, you go wrong by comparing the Green Party to the NDP.

Get back to us when the Green Party has some seats and perhaps someone will be willing to address your less than brilliant fallacies.

Though your sexist "nut scratching" is indicates perhaps even then no one would bother.

Not much interested in cutting anybody any slack actually, especially not Green Party appeasers who have played the duck to EMay's keeping CON seats safe for them.

IMV, they rank right up there with people who out babblers, as I saw that in another thread too tonight, as well as passive bragging about longevity of being a babbler, even though said bragging person tried to destroy babble at one point and was  gone almost for longer than they were a member for.

Coalition.

I see that the only attempt to rise to the challenge was remind above. Apparently the NDP is NOT like the Green Party, it has seats. Oh, and it is absolutely true that many babblers don't have nuts to scratch, so that must make me a sexist. And everybody knows that raving neocon libertarian Buck Rogers loving, Babbler outing, public trough gorging, sexist, Conservative, congenitally lying greens should not have their direct questions answered, because ???

I am waiting to hear a cogent argument as to why what is sauce for the goose isn't sauce for the gander. Sorry, that isn't gender neutral, so I'll restate it. What's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the other goose. Oh dear, is goose a generic term for the species, or is it sexist? I mean, if Humans have a gender neutral appellation, why don't geese? We'll have to get to work on that one.

I also appreciate the name calling, it's really quite remarkable invective. I mean you all put together such a lovely string of insults, in only 17 lines of commentary!  Do you keep a thesaurus handy, open on the entry for simili's for Reactionary Asshole?

I am sorry I came here and asked why you are being hypocrites. You are permitted to be whatever you want, after all, it's your playground. But perhaps, just maybe, some of you will pause a second, and realise that the Green Party isn't interested in going away. They don't care if they split your vote, because they disagree with many of your policies, and want something different to vote for. In fact, in those ridings where the NDP vote is useful, they (gasp!) actually go out and Campaign to win your' supporters away!! I mean how dare they? Don't they know that these are historically NDP property? The NDP is ENTITLED to those votes, because they KNOW what's best for those silly voters. Your arguments about strategic vote splits are far more meaningful when applied to the NDP than ever they were when applied to the Greens.

Be Good

Apparently you fail to realize that cogent position has to be taken, or prersented, before one asks for a cogent response to it.

remind wrote:

Apparently you fail to realize that cogent position has to be taken, or prersented, before one asks for a cogent response to it.

 

What's the difficulty? I have read on these pages literally hundreds of times that the Green Party has to dissolve itself so that the NDP can have their votes. My response is to ask why the NDP doesn't dissolve itself so that the Liberal Party can have their votes. Is that not cogent enough for you?

I have been called lots of funny things, and we have all had a good chuckle, but nobody has explained how it is not hypocritical to call for the GPC to dissolve itself to serve the electoral intests of the NDP, while not considering the argument that the NDP should dissolve itself in order to elect the Liberal Party. If there is truly a policy difference between the NDP and the Liberals, then that would explain it, but none of you seem to think thats an argument, or you would have made it. Of course policy differences exist between the NDP and the Greens as well. Either that, or you have all been wasting your time thinking up all those 'nasty' things to say to me about being a libertarian, Conservative, trough gobbling, etc. Actually, if all your 'insults' are meaningful, then you should be praying for enhanced electoral strength for the GPC. If we are truly servants of the dark side, then our growth will be at the expense of the Conservatives, and our dissolution will result in a CPC majority Government. Maybe a few more NDP wins can squeak by in BC, or Ontario.

But really, I am just funning with you. I know you are mostly uber partisan, and you have bought into the mistaken idea that voters can be bandied about like this. The fact that people chose to vote for us over you is a side issue. Rather than address the policy failings which lose you those votes, it's way more fun to hurl invective, insults, and pretend that 1+1=7. You compete for power because you want power. The GPC competes for power because they want to influence those who have the power. You wish they would go away, because you mistakenly think it would serve your interests.

Well it wouldn't, but then none of us are being serious. I doubt that any of you believe that you would win more than 1/4 of the Green electorate if the GPC went away. So where would the balance go? 1/4 would stay at home, 30% would go Liberal, and the other 20% would go to the CPC. That is a demonstrable fact based on hard data, not opinion. Very hard to see any advantage for the Dippers there.

Oh yeah, the 'analysis about SGI. It WAS a shellacking. Every star aligned for the Liberal Party last time out. You remember West's pulling out of the race? You remember Brionny Penn was the previous GPC candidate. You are aware that the local Greens were split between campaigning for the Liberals, and staying at home? The only vaguely possible way the Liberals could have eked out a win would have been if the CPC didn't run a very clever, if scummy trick. They ran a strong GOTV for the withdrawn NDP candidate. Damn! That was truly Macchiavellian! They actually ramped up the vote for a withdrawn candidate, who was still on the ballott! That effectively denied maybe 1,000 votes for the Liberals, and maybe 200 votes for the Greens. I think it's gross, but I hear many of you guys, sorry I mean folks, live in the 'anything goes in the quest for power' world, so put it on tap for future use.

Bluegreenblogger, while I disliked some of the things you said in this thread, I actually agree with the main point as I see it.

I do not presume to think the Greens can be, or should be, told to go away and I do not assume that the vote would go to the NDP or to any other party in great numbers anyway. I do not like the level of condescension here about the Greens. I do not consider the Greens to be taking NDP space and I do think that they have a distinct platform. I happen to prefer the NDP for many reasons which is my choice but I do not assume that the Greens are any less legitimate a choice than the Cons or the Liberals and I can respect yours.

Still some of what you say seems more provocative than practical. If you like that kind of invective then you are inviting more but if you are looking for something else then toning done a little might work better. I would have liked to come in to this thread and ask people to be less insulting to the Greens but your posts make that difficult. Unfortunately by engaging in rather than rejecting this type of discussion, you justify rather than reduce it.

I've never said that the Green Party shouldn't run, or that their votes are "ours".  I think they are amateurish and undisciplined, and many are a bit sanctimonious (although I'd explicitly exclude mimeguy there), or brash.  And I do take some satisfaction when folks who quit the NDP in a huff to go over to the GPC, are now leaving with more whimper than bang.

I just don't see them as contributing too much to the policy debate at present, but rather as being obsessed with campaign tactics and techniques and endless, endless internal intrigue.

You haven't read his blog, I guess, Ken Burch.  He's definitely a VERY BLUE (in the green party) blogger.

NDP MP David Christopherson said in the House of Commons this week that he feels the Green Party should be entitled to a seat in Parliament based on the last election's results.

How do other NDP supporters feel about his statement?

Oh, I think that FAIRNESS is all important in deciding to admit to a Parliamentary seat a party that does not give a fiddler's fart for all those people who would be hurt by its predilection for a market solution to everything.   Yes, yes, fair is fair is fair....above all. How Etonian.

Oh, I think that FAIRNESS is all important in deciding to admit to a Parliamentary seat a party that does not give a fiddler's fart for all those people who would be hurt by its predilection for a market solution to everything.   Yes, yes, fair is fair is fair....above all. How Etonian. Play up,

Oh, I think that FAIRNESS is all important in deciding to admit to a Parliamentary seat a party that does not give a fiddler's fart for all those people who would be hurt by its predilection for a market solution to everything.   Yes, yes, fair is fair is fair....above all. How Etonian. Play up, play the game, for chrissake.  What maudlin crap.

As a strong believer in proportional representation as the only fair way to allocate seats in a representative legislature, I completely agree with my MP, David Christopherson. It is a pity that obstacles such as 60% thresholds in referenda are placed in the way of such electoral reform by the parties who benefit from false majorities. Personally, I feel that no referendum should be necessary for this sort of electoral reform. It should simply be part of the election platform of all reasonable parties. When such parties form a government, they should implement it. Period. I hope that all other NDP MPs will be as fair and honest as David.

This is assuming that people would have voted the same way if there were a different electoral system in place. That's an awfully big assumption, and I don't think very supportable.

Now, who knows, the Green vote might have been higher.  So might ours.  But just as easily, things could have been very different too.

Michael Moriarity wrote:

As a strong believer in proportional representation as the only fair way to allocate seats in a representative legislature, I completely agree with my MP, David Christopherson. It is a pity that obstacles such as 60% thresholds in referenda are placed in the way of such electoral reform by the parties who benefit from false majorities. Personally, I feel that no referendum should be necessary for this sort of electoral reform. It should simply be part of the election platform of all reasonable parties. When such parties form a government, they should implement it. Period. I hope that all other NDP MPs will be as fair and honest as David.

 

It is more than just fine to believe in PR, it is an admirable objective. But despite the advantage it would bring, it isn`t the case right now. Since we live in a FPTP system, there would not be anything fair about simply delivering a seat or two, or twenty to the GPC. I can agree with the sentiment, but to actually propose it seriously, in the absence of a proper national debate, and referendum isn`t on. I`m afraid that if we all want PR, then we will have to achieve it the long way by persuading our fellow citizens that it is desirable, and winning their votes in a referendum.