Comments on: Who gets to debate in the next federal election?

By: CfSR

CfSR — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 11:40:05 +0000

Yup.

1988.

My fingers can, apparently, time travel without ever leaving the keyboard.

By: Daz

Daz — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 06:56:46 +0000

I thought about this when I heard Elizabeth May on the radio just after her winning the leadership. Seems to me that if we’re paying to help support the party, we should have a chance to hear what they have to say.

More here.

By: Pilot

Pilot — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 05:54:24 +0000

Isn’t it wonderful to know we can vote for whoever we want, but someone else gets to choose how you’re exposed to the candidates. I know alot of people that I talk with would be more inclined to vote for the Green Party were they treated like every other party. They very obviously are not, and this limits their potential.

By: Saskboy

Saskboy — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 05:08:02 +0000

CfSR, I think you meant 1988? The Greens have run full slates the last two elections, which is better than the Reform Party’s run at leading Canada back in the 80’s, and 90’s.

Stephen, “I’m especially upset with the CBC, as a government-operated crown it should really not have any say in who takes part in the debate.”

And when people like Ron Crocker of Maritimes CBC decides who gets in to debates, Canadians are going to lose their democracy.

By: Stephen Glauser

Stephen Glauser — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 03:46:34 +0000

Although not a Green supporter (I am strictly non-partisan), I do firmly believe that they should have equal rights when it comes to the debate … well, debate. There is absolutely no excuse for excluding a party that runs candidates in every riding from the electoral debates. It is hypocritical of the national media to believe they are giving the people fair coverage when excluding such a large party altogether. I’m especially upset with the CBC, as a government-operated crown it should really not have any say in who takes part in the debate. Maybe it should be decided by an independent panel — the public!

However, by including the Greens in the debate, it opens up even more questions about other, smaller, parties that would like to take part but are unable to.

By: CfSR

CfSR — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 02:00:04 +0000

The Reform Party did run candidates acros much of the West in 1998.

In that election, Manning ran in Yellowhead against Joe Clark.

But you’re right. There is a precedent that can be applied to Green Party particpation in the debate.

So proceduralist might note that Deb Grey and Stan Waters were already in Parliament to argue the exclusion of the Greens from the debate.

That may explain May’s desire to find a Green Senator.

The party has a significant core of support.

They’ve passed the threshold for public funding which might in itself be an apprpriate criteria for inclusion.

Tax paying voters can see if their money has been well spent.

The party’s found a full slate of candidate for a couple of elections.

Yes, they should be at the debates.

At least those in which the leader actually speaks the language.

By: dylan

dylan — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 01:58:03 +0000

Amen, Miles!

By: Miles Lunn

Miles Lunn — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 01:32:49 +0000

I think they should let them participate. What happened with the Reform Party is not the only time this has happened. Here in BC, in 1991, the NDP and the Social Credit were originally the only parties suppose to participate in the debates, but after several Liberal members picketed the studios, they agreed to allow Gordon Wilson to also participate who was only in single digits in the polls in that time and had no seat in the legislature. After the debate he went on to form the official opposition, 33% of the popular vote and 17 seats and ended up essentially ending the era of the Social Credit.

However, regardless of how big an impact they can have, I believe the Greens should be allowed in the debate.