Talk:List of political parties in Canada

untitled

This page is pretty awkward. I have an idea, but I don't want to do anything without getting some feedback from others who contribute here. What do you think about splitting this into two pages:

1. Political Parties of Canada, and
2. Political Parties of Canadian Provinces, Territories and Municipalities?

This would take some time and effort to update all of the links on the provincial party pages, but it would be worth it in the long run. Anyone with me on this, or am I just nuts? Kevintoronto 02:45, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kevin: My feeling is that it's more convenient to have all of the parties (federal/provincial/municipal) listed on a single, easily accessible site. The current "Political parties of Canada" page is admittedly large (and growing), but it doesn't strike me as unmanageable. CJCurrie 20:28, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

fixup

The Alberta and BC sections were duplicated and somewhat mixed in with the Canada section. I'm not 100% sure I managed to clean that up. I did also add Saskatchewan, NWT and Yukon sections. Geoff Capp

I added made a List of political parties in Yukon page instead of on this page since it has political parties Bennyj600 (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"Facism" on chart is POV

Does anybody seriously think you can put the word "facism" in a chart, and show who's most "facist", and have a NPOV. Obviously, this chart is wildly POV. Even the term "neo-liberal", is typically used by anti-globalists (which I admit is another POV term). Putting "Communism" on a seperate axis from "authoritarianism" is something anybody branded "neo-liberal" would object to. Looking at where the "Marijuana Party" is, I suspect this chart was made by a member and/or user. Obviously, deleting it, is a big change, so I welcome dissenting opinions. I say let people follow the links, and make their own decision about who's a facist. And I beleive saying it's "open for debate" is cop-out for such blatant bias. --rob 02:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

In Opposition to the Stance of Thivierr

I think that the above person is innacurate when they say that the political chart on this chart is more biased than it could be. For example having Communism seperate from Authoritian because most people of most political orientations left-or-right would agree with this. For example my Dad who is a staunch Neo-Liberal and Conservative (and votes both for the BC Liberals provincially and the federal Liberals federally) has a number of times said that Communism is an economic term and that their is no reason one can not have a Communist Democracy. The most common Social Democratic (eg. my grade 11 Social Studies teacher) have said that Communism is democratic in theory but not in practice. An I as a Marxist, Leninist and Trotskyist would disagree with politics being on a spectrum or compass and would base in on a class-struggle perspective and would based who a country is democratic for on who owns the means of production. The only types of Canadian that would say that Communism implies Dictatorship and Capitalism Democracy are voters of the Conservative Party in Canada, the Christian Heritage Party in Canada, Republican voters in the United States or other types like that. And also most Canadians would have regarded Salvador Ailender of Chile as being Communist and Democratic and many others would say the same about Hugo Chavez, the Communist Party of Kerala and the Communist Party of West Bengal all of which are democratically elected (at least by liberal capitalist standards.) User: Leon Trotsky 7:43 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Salvador Allende was not a communist but a socialist. Is Chavez a communist? Electionworld 14:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Chart is useful and labels are not biased as such

First, let me say I think such a chart is very useful and is an invaluable resource.

The chart's labels are pretty standard. This well-known site has an example of the same kind of chart, with an explation:

"The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)"

Just view the chart for what it is: plotting of parties on two axes: restricted vs. free economic policy, and restricted vs. free social policy. It's possible to make such a chart in an NPOV fashion.

I vote for putting up the chart http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/canada2005.gif if we have permission. It is accurate and useful for anyone who understands it, much more so than vague inaccurate terms like "liberal" and "conservative". Also, I disagree with the simpleminded (or perhaps tongue-in-cheek) branding of the Liberal Party as simply "liberal", as this can be interpreted as libertarian (social left + economic right, so to speak), economically liberal (economic right), or liberal in the American sense (left wing in general, socially + economically left). I think that perhaps a simple "moderate" may be handy. More thoughts to come, perhaps.

Kai 20:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Modern liberalism is the ideology of the LPC, normally referred to as liberal. It is no problem. Electionworld 21:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps link then to your excellent article on liberalism, as in many nations the meaning is ambiguous, Canada among them. I suspect this is due to that American befuddlement whereby the word "liberal" refers to left-wing (the socialist end of the spectrum) economic ideas. Kai 23:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

1) The chart is entirely subjective and POV 2) the "well known site" is a libertarian site and the chart comes from the libertarian movement. Homey 23:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

(to start -- we're both talking about the www.politicalcompass.org chart of Canadian parties, right?) Every person or organization has its own political views; a site belonging to a libertarian is just as valid as one belonging to an innoffensive centrist if and only if they have created a useful resource that is not rendered ineffectual by bias. I plead the case that it is not rendered useless: obviously, any resource of this sort can only chart the relative positions of political parties based on their stances on various issues, and this is exactly what it does with a significant degree of accuracy. The positioning and labelling of the axes is the other element that could be labelled POV. I would argue that (as the position of the origin is entirely arbitrary), it is merely roughly centered in the sample plot -- is that POV? As for labelling, they are the most useful words used to describe the qualities: a caption would be necessary, of course, to explain exactly what the words referred to. If you could, my dearest Homey, in some way defend your assertion that it is POV in light of or in refutation of the points I just made, it would greatly strengthen your case. Kai 01:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

In addition to being POV, it's also a gross oversimplification of its subject matter. I can't see the use of including it. CJCurrie 23:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The one-dimensional left/right spectrum is a gross oversimplification, and utterly inadequate for an encyclopaedic resource. As well, many find terms like 'liberal' and 'conservative' vague and subjective, meaning very little unaccompanied by some reference. Obviously, there is such a diversity of issues that no party or person can be ultimately plotted in a mere two (or three or seventeen) dimensions, but this chart is hugely more useful, easy, and accurate than a left-right chart or no chart at all. And I still don't see what makes it distastefully POV (see above)Kai 01:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that few political parties would embrace a "right-authoritarian" label. CJCurrie 01:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Remember that this is measuring the relative political position of these parties. There is no possible way an objective source can deny that a party advocating MORE restrictions on civil rights and freedoms than another party is MORE authoritarian than the other. As for being "right" economically (or economically liberal), I don't think that anyone who is is offended by the label. Kai 05:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Give us back the political compass chart, it was so great!

a) It's POV. b) it's a polemical device designed by and identified with libertarians - it might belong in an article on libertarianism but that's it. Homey 05:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Homey. Two-dimensional conceptions of a political spectrum don't exist outside of libertarian websites attempting to justify a relatively narrowly-supported political ideology within mainstream conception of political left and right—however flawed or limited we might agree those labels to be. When's the last time you heard a newspaper refer to something like Scott Brison attemting to "unite the top wing" of the Liberal Party against "bottomists" like Roger Galloway? The Tom 06:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Random

Should the Western Canada Concept Party of Saskatchewan not be listed here?

• Quite right. I've added it. Ground Zero | t 19:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Nation Alliance Party

Skookum1 here on remote. The party named above is the new Mainland Chinese-directed one that's been in the news and was registered about a month ago; don't know much more than what's google-able but would seem to be needed on the list, and also an article about it so far, though it's yet to hit the hustings. Scratching my head to remember any ethnic=party precedents in Canada; religious parties yes, and there's been at least one First Nations oriented political party; FWIK it's a creature of the CCNC, the proxy group for the PRC who published false history on their Digital Collections website until it was taken down, but I'll leave the POV discussion for another time, just leaving a notice here that there hsould be a listing/article on it.75.153.69.205 20:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of political parties in Abkhazia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)