The judgment was a major victory for a coalition of seven small political parties that argued that the law -- which took effect in 2004 -- violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by unfairly giving $1.75 for each vote cast only to federal parties with more than 2 per cent of the national popular vote.
"I consider that the existence of the threshold diminishes public confidence in the electoral process and encourages a public perception that the threshold exists only to benefit the major political parties, who alternate, from time to time, in forming the government and are in a position to maintain it," Judge Matlow said yesterday.
He said that having an eligibility threshold "perverts" democracy by forcing small parties to make a tactical decision whether to target certain ridings in order to reach the percentage of the total vote they need to trigger the payments.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061013.PARTIES13/TPStory/?query=electoral-law+edict
Note: http://www.theglobeandm...
Electoral-Law Edict Boosts Small Parties Funding Rules Stunted Growth, Judge Fin
Posted on Friday, October 13 at 16:27 by truepatriotContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1
coalesce and co-operate.
Look at the numbers:
"The coalition's lawyer, Peter Rosenthal, estimated that based on their vote totals in the last federal election, the Marijuana Party would get about $60,000 a year; the Christian Heritage Party $70,000; and the Communist Party $8,000."
"He estimated that under the funding scheme, the Liberal Party receives about $8.7-million annually; the Conservative Party $7-million; the NDP $3.7-million and the Bloc Québécois almost $3-million."
That fact that tax money is used to fund these parties is more of the same nonsense that perverts the democratic process in favor of the establishment. Of course, it's the establishment that makes up the rules, so we cannot ever expect fairness.
Yes it is! As you say, hopefully these people will learn to get along at least to try and work towards a possibility of breaking the hold the establishment has over the democratic process.
What we have now, is NOT a democracy.
---
Everybody got to deviate from the norm
The only prerequisite would be that, if it is federal funding, then the party must have representatives in all ridings.
---
"Son, if you wanna get ahead in this world, never work for another man as long as you live."
<br />
Here is another one made in May 1990 by what you call a "right-wing loon" group. The recommendations still make sense to me.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.ccbf.org/electoral_reform_1990.pdf">http://www.ccbf.org/electoral_reform_1990.pdf</a>