Talk:Marijuana Party (Canada)

Untitled

Here is an edited version of the Marijuana Party's "Complete platform, Adopted in April 2002":

• DEMONSTRATE the social advantages to ending cannabis prohibition
• DEVELOP AND INTEGRATE legislation to legalize cannabis
• AMEND the Canada Elections Act in order to offer solutions to the parliamentary representation deficit.
• DEFEND the victims of cannabis prohibition
• PROMOTE international policy -- ending cannabis prohibition in Canada and subsequently pressure the international community into acting responsibly by adopting similar policies.
• OFFER immediate access to medical cannabis
• Prove Marijuana isn't as harmfull as drinking —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.209.185.55 (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

These are the only six points listed in the party's "Complete platform". This is not sufficient to label the party social democratic. After all, there are lots of social democratic parties that have not decriminalized marijuana when they have formed governments, e.g., the Labour Party in the UK, the Socialist Party in France, the SPD in Germany, etc. Since five of the six points of the plaform relate to marijuana, "Pro-cannabis" seems to be the best label. Where is support for trade unions? Where is nationalization of key industries? Where is subsidized child care and public transit? And before someone says, "they support all these things" without providiong any evidence that they do, I will point out that the above is a summary of their Complete Platform from their website. In fact, I think I'll add this to the article if it is not already there. Kevintoronto 15:22, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is difficult to call "pro-cannabis" as a political ideology and it is ambiguous. Perhaps "Anti-cannabis prohibition" would be better? - Jord 04:01, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I just went to their site myself and they have a far more developed platform then above [1], I'll read it and try to figure out an ideology. - Jord 08:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, after reading it further I see it is just the platform you have listed laced with words like "sovereignty" and "health care" as arguments for legalization. Sorry again. - Jord 08:44, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Legalize a revolution"?

What does that mean?

Does the MPC somehow advocate overthrowing the government (as in regime) of Canada, rather than merely ousting the other parties from power?

If this slogan is going to be mentioned in the article, its meaning ought to be explained, as it is not readily apparent. LeoO3 23:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article...

...is really bad. Lots of problems with POV and tone. Case in point:

This political party is in a similar position to marijuana in our civilization. Since 2006, about one third of all its Candidates and Agents have been going through the revolving doors of prison. It is common, and reasonable, for many people to be afraid of associating with this party.

Ultra Megatron (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

this phrase is a much a mess as this party (and the status of democracy in canada)

"Also in 2004, a vote for the bigger parties became worth money to the bigger parties, but a vote was worth nothing to the smaller parties. Bigger parties, that are able to get more than 2% of the national vote make money from elections" 66.49.135.252 (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

I made some changes to the article, which I hope are positive, in order to removed the blatant bias. There are some sources required and I think the wording needs improving but I see much less bias. Anybody have any thoughts? MatttK (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect vote counts in Wikipedia

Like many other articles relating to Canadian elections, the vote counts given in this article are incorrect. For example, in the 2000 election, the Marijuana Party received 66,258 votes but the article gives the figure 66,310. Most of the other years are wrong as well. In my view it's ridiculous to list these precise figures; the number should be rounded to 66,300 or even 66,000. But if we do list precise figures, they should be the correct ones, which can be found at the website of Elections Canada ([2]). Mathew5000 (talk) 06:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This seems fine to change to me providing Elections Canada or another reliable source is cited for the figures. I think this would fall under WP:BEBOLD. I think it would be better to use the exact figures to comply with WP:SYNTH and giving the exact figures seems to be done on other Canadian political party pages in the votes section, such as on the Liberal Party of Canada's page. Helper201 (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Helper201: Some of those figures in the table on the Liberal Party page are also incorrect ([3]). As I mentioned before, this is a systemic problem in WIkipedia articles relating to Canadian elections. Since Wikipedia is frequently wrong about the vote totals, it would be better to round them off, to indicate that they are not exact. And besides, it's just trivia that the Marijuana Party received 2,298 votes in 2008. There's no good reason to display the exact figure (which this article does not do, by the way; it says 2,319). Displaying incorrect but apparently precise totals, which persist in the article for years, for both minor parties and major ones, is worse than useless. It would be so much better if they were rounded off. Mathew5000 (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Mathew5000, I disagree with rounding vote totals as this would be WP:SYNTH. It also disregards the significance of each individual vote and the individual person that made it. At the same time, it could cause issues in cases where two parties may have tied on the exact same number of votes that weren't a whole number, or in cases where one party beat another before either reached the next round number, e.g., if one party received 5,396 votes and another got 5,398 votes your suggestion would tie them at 5,400 when they did not tie and one beat the other.

Regardless, this is not the place to have this discussion if you think the issue if you think the issue is systemic. I'd recommend taking the matter to Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums, Wikipedia:WikiProject Governments of Canada and Wikipedia:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada and someone there should be able to point you in the right direction about where to place your thoughts in a place where more editors can see it and input their views and discuss it relative to Wikipedia as a whole rather than just this page. Helper201 (talk) 07:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not synthesis to round a figure in a Wikipedia article! For example, it's okay to write "A majority of people in New Brunswick are anglophones" even if the cited source gives the percentage as 68.12286% without using the word "majority". Surely it's better to publish rounded vote counts on Wikipedia than to publish incorrect numbers that appear to be exact. I've already noted the issue of incorrect vote counts a few times on WT:CANADA but it is still a systemic problem. For example, the infobox of 2011 Canadian federal election has had incorrect numbers for more than ten years. Mathew5000 (talk) 03:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I very much think it is synthesis. The case you mention would not be synthesis because a majority is over 50%, so 68.12286% clearly that surpasses that threshold unless I've misunderstood your point. I don't think either is right, rounding numbers nor exact wrong numbers, both are incorrect in their own way. Regardless the discussion should involve many more editors that just you and I, so I'd highly recommend taking your case to one of the links I provided above or asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics or Wikipedia:Community portal where the best place to have this discussion would be so both as many editors as possible can be involved in the discussion and as many as possible are aware of the problem you are raising. Helper201 (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)