Canada's televised leader's debates

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leira
Apparently it's more than a "small number" of people, as I heard on the CBC this morning that due to public outcry, the Green party will be included in the debates after all.

---

I don't think it was public outcry at all. In the CBC article, it said that Layton and Harper reconsidered and will no longer protest May's involvement. Harper probably knows that he'll massacre May in the debate anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leira
Given your own stats, the Greens are different than those other minor parties. 4% is alot more than .19%. I don't see it as the slippery slope you seem to be suggesting it is.

---

I don't think it's a slippery slope. I don't think it will lead to the other parties being included in the debate. But I do wonder why special consideration is being given to the Greens. Heck, I don't even think the Bloc should be in the debates, and they have over twice the popular support as the Greens, despite fielding candidates in only one province. It just boils down to the fact that the Green party is totally irrelevant in national politics. They can't even muster the indirect influence on policy that the Bloc and NDP can. If they had any elected seats in the House, or even any real following, then I might feel differently.

But if a political party is never given the opportunity to have their platform widely heard then how will people who might actually agree with the platform know this and know to vote for them?
It's not like the average citizen gets to participate very meaningfully in democracy. They get to vote once every 3 or 4 years for one of two indistinguishable platforms. If they oppose a war, or oppose healthcare cuts, or oppose the feds giving tax payer money to religious schools, well that's just too bad, cuz both parties agree on these issues.
It might be messy, it might be unwieldy, but for fucks sake, why would you ever oppose anything that gives a greater voice to the vast majority of the citizens of your country, who are otherwise essentially mute.

That just seems plain undemocratic to me.

rant/ Oh, and being the political junkie I am, completely addicted to the US election and the Australian election (but not the Canadian election), wtf is it with filling up the bloody newspapers and blogs and tv screens with ABSOLUTELY irrelevant crap. How does irrelevant crap inform me? Why is it important that a whole freaking day in a 60 day election run be dedicated to the meaning of 'lipstick on a pig' and whether the word lipstick is, for the next 60 days, a word to avoid because of the Palin traction. I mean sure, I love this stuff, but it's like watching porn, I'm ashamed of myself for reading it. There really and truly are more important issues, and maybe it'd be good if the media actually helped informed me, and other folks, about what those issues are and where the candidates positions fall and what their solutions are. /rant

Dear Green Party Supporter,

I am writing to thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for supporting my campaign to be included in the televised leaders' debates.

Because of you and countless thousands like you who donated money and deluged the airwaves, the Internet, newspaper letters columns and politicians' inboxes with a national outpouring of outrage, the broadcasters have now reversed their decision to exclude the Green Party.

I am both humbled and inspired by what I have witnessed in the past few days – the exhilarating spectacle of Canadians rising up to protest a blatant injustice.

Your victory isn't just a victory for the Green Party, it's a victory for democracy and for the fundamental Canadian values of equality and fairness.

Thank you again for standing up for democracy.


Elizabeth May, O.C.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
I don't think it was public outcry at all. In the CBC article, it said that Layton and Harper reconsidered and will no longer protest May's involvement. Harper probably knows that he'll massacre May in the debate anyways.

---

Why did Layton an Harper change their minds though? Out of the goodness of their hearts?

Ultimately what this was about to me was refusing to allow the political parties to pick and choose who would be their competition. That should NOT be allowed to happen, no matter what you think of the Green Party.

If the Green Party gets massacred in the debates I really don't care. I probably wouldn't be voting for them anyways. The fact is there's a fair amount of people that have voted for them in the past, and it sounds like there'll be more voting for them this time. Whether Elizabeth May comes off looking good or looking bad, voters will be more informed about the party and that is the purpose of the leadership debates.

The parties I listed above are those which have seats in the Commons. If you've got a seat in the Commons, you should be allowed to continue to be there using the same media (plural of medium, not newspapers, etc) as the others.

This is the thing...the Green party hasn't been included before. They've not taken part in the leadership debates because of the perfectly reasonable restriction that only parties who actually win seats in the election ought to be represented in the debates, and they never have.

The only reason they have a leg to stand on right now is that they have 1 seat...which was won previously by an independant who just recently switched into the Green Party.

So now they say "But look! we HAVE a seat! You have to let us take part!" even though that particular MP was never elected while under the aegis of the green party.

The objection that the Harper government had was basically "You have your one major environmental issue, but are otherwise an outright supporter of Dion's liberals. Having a second liberal in the debate is just not fair."

May lost what little respect of mine she had, however, when her first response to being excluded was to play the gender card.

Front page news that she accused the candidates (All men) and the heads of the broadcasting consortium (all men) of excluding her because she was a woman.

Except that two of the heads of the consortium are women, and the objections lodged by the other parties simply referred to their having won no seats in the previous election, and that convincing an independant to switch over doesn't qualify you.

So she tried to make this a much bigger issue than it was by pandering to a stereotype that turned out to not even be correct in an effort to draw more attention to herself.

The green party shoudln't be included any more than the marxist-leninist or the marijuana party. Sure they get a reasonable percentage of the popular vote, but it is spread so thin across the whole country that in no single riding have they -ever- elected one to Parliament.

I don't see how "only the parties who actually contribute to the functioning of the legislative process of Canada ought to have their views on the legislative process of Canada in the future heard in a major national televised debate" is the massive affront to democracy that May and the Green party want it to be.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tharzon
I don't see how "only the parties who actually contribute to the functioning of the legislative process of Canada ought to have their views on the legislative process of Canada in the future heard in a major national televised debate" is the massive affront to democracy that May and the Green party want it to be.

---

The affront to democracy is allowing those who have a vested interest in keeping out new parties(the established parties) decide who should be participating. If the networks had decided on their own accord to keep the Green Party out, I'd have far less of a problem with it. That's not what happened though. What happened was the established parties threw their weight around in order to keep out a potential competitor and I find that unacceptable.

Except that's not how it happened.

The process as I understand it goes like this:

Everyone: Parties with no seats don't get to take part

May: But, we have a person with a seat now, let us in!

Main parties: Hey now, they weren't elected as Green, they don't count, stay out.

TV: Well, they -do- have a seat, maybe we should let them?

Main parties except liberals: That's ridiculous, why should we have to share time with a party that has never actually elected a single MP just because someone switched sides? We don't want to stand for this. Besides, other than one set of issues, she's basically a Liberal already, two liberals is even less fair.

Liberals: Sounds great, let her in.

TV: Well, I guess you're right, sorry Greens, actually get someone elected and we'll talk.

May: Man, this is the biggest affront to democracy in the history of the world, all these men hate me because I'm a woman.

TV: Actually, several of us are women thanks.



I'm sorry, but I'm not actually seeing "The established parties" trying to keep out "A new party" because they feel threatened.

I see the parties that are actually going to form the new government thinking it is a bad idea to waste everyone's time letting someone who has never once even come close to holding a seat in parliament take up a 6th share of the full length of the single biggest public debate associated with the election.

The PQ pull in about the same percentage of the vote that the Greens do, and turn that into a good 40 seats every election. The Green party only has one seat going -into- the election because someone joined up. I wouldn't be surprised if it was later discovered that they were convinced to join up -just so- May could use having a seat as grounds to demand to be in on the debate.

Let me put it more bluntly: The established parties can't be trying to keep out a potential competitor because the Green party is not in any way, shape or form actually competitive, and being allowed into the debate won't change that, and will waste time that could be spent more usefully.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tharzon
The only reason they have a leg to stand on right now is that they have 1 seat...which was won previously by an independant who just recently switched into the Green Party.

---

Not to mention that the MP in question has almost zero chance of being re-elected, and only switched to the Green party less than one month ago (on August 30th). Before being an independent, he was a Liberal, but was kicked out of the party.

As already stated, I don't like the idea of May being in the debate, though from a purely strategical perspective I think it will be good because it will totally sink her party. They only have the meager public support that they have now because people don't know anything about the party specifically, and just think, "Environment good!!". When their party's insane platform is revealed, I believe their popular support will decrease.