Greens still excluded

Just a wacky thought, but I wonder if there was any consideration given to starting the process a little earlier.  I don't think that ensuring a case like this can be properly heard is merely a matter of "convenience". 

That said, she'd be crazy to proceed with further action at this point, or in the near future.  Better she wait until the last minute again, get denied again, and enjoy all the free publicity and revel in the hard done by victim role to boot.  I think this has probably worked out better for her than being allowed to make a fool of herself on national television.

All I remember of her from last time was a lot of sqawking off-camera "that's a fraud! that's a fraud!" and a lot of overwrought talk along the lines of "if I don't get elected to Parliament, our planet will DIE"

As widespread as the visceral dislike of E. May the person is (and I readily understand this dislike), the issue is whether or not the leader of a party that garnered 6.8% of the national vote should be part of the leaders' debate. The questions isn't about E. May, it is about the Green Party (and necessarily, its leader).

Since the party has gained support in excess of the common "threshhold" of 5% of the popular vote (the threshhold that would grant them seats in most of the PR systems I am aware of), I think people should step back and pay less attention to the persona and more to the principle of having the party that represents just over 950,000 voters represented.

Personally, I am no fan of E. May -- watching her get away with avoiding what appeared to be a mandated leadership review within her own party was pretty much the last nail in the coffin that holds my opinion of her (and speaks volumes about her respect for the democratic process) -- but it doesn't override the fact that the party she represents was the first choice of a significant number of voters. The number of actual Green Party voters exceeds the number of eligible voters in all 11 Nova Scotia ridings (indeed, if it [the national Green Vote] had been evenly distributed amongst all 25 maritime seats, they would have won every single one of them with an absolute majority). Again speaking personally, I am hoping the E. May will fail in her bid for a seat in Parliament and withdraw from electoral politics entirely and that her replacement as the leader of the Green Party will be capable of working the words "we" and "our" (as in "we Greens", or "our party") into their speeches... it would be a nice change from the the "me, me, me, I" of E. May. But until that time, those of us less than enamoured of E. May are just going to have to learn to grind our teeth and accept that she is the spokesperson for a significant part of the voting public.

Good idea Frnrsidr but I suspect they might consider that detrimental to the more important task of electing E. May.  "Elections are no time to talk about difficult issues you might loss votes," seems to be the prevailing wisdom from political operatives in all parties.  Even on environmental issues the parties are all offering programs for technological fixes for overconsumption problems.  No need to talk about our place in a system that runs on war and murder for profit and is counting on our filthy oil to drive our economy.  Lets talk about a tax break on a solar panel instead.   

You've just answered your own question.

E. May has complained how unfair excluding the GPC/her from the televized national parties leaders debates by the Canadian broadcasters consortium specifically, and that this is "undemocratic" generally (whatever she means by that explicitly),

But she has NOT taken a stance decidedly (or expressly) in favor of Fair Voting or PR.

Absolutely Fair Voting/PR would provide seats and representation for the Greens in Parliament. Fair Voting/PR is good for all the parties and the Canadian electorate.

But show me where (provide a quote) E. May has explicitly stated in this election that Fair Voting/PR is a major plank of the Green Party.

What's the date on those references?

They all look 2010 or older.

As I've said, I've heard no direct statement regarding Fair Voting/PR from E. May during this election thus far.

If she's serious about getting more votes for the Greens sure, spelling out an environmental policy is good.

It's what's expected.

But putting equal if not more emphasis on Fair Voting/PR

and possibly taking an equally strong stance against our war on Libya

will get the Greens "more miles to the gallon" (so to speak) when it comes to winning votes.

After this election, I'd like to see some form of Fair Voting implemented.

Until then, a vote for the Greens is a waste of voting.

Worse than that, it denies votes to the "other" left parties - NDP and Liberals and assists the Cons in attempting to once again assume office.

If they change that to a stronger "We support proportional representation.", then perfect!

Many times on P&P E. May has argued for PR. It's ludricous to suggest she does not support PR.

Support of proportional representation was one of the first policies the Green Party of Canada adopted a quarter century ago.

At the second to last national convention of the GPC in Pictou NS, another resolution supporting proportional representation for Canada was adopted. I was there.

It looks to me as if the platform team is proposing a deliberative process and a referendum instead of a government enacting a proportional representation system without a national consensus.

The GPC and Elizabeth May support PR, but they believe that the decision (like other structural decisions) should be made by Canadians directly rather than by politicians acting alone.

Doug Woodard, St. Catharines, Ontario

I have a small issue with the "5% threshold" argument in regards to the Green Party. The fact is, they had not achieved that threshold when E.May was allowed to participate in the last debate. The Green Party was being push-polled into the news, and their supposed "10% support" was being used to justify their entry into the debates. They did, with all of the national coverage, then manage to break the 5% and receive national funding. 

And they've accomplished nothing since. 

I personally think that if E.May isn't in the debates this time around, it's just karma, a balancing of the books. And if the Greens can get their 5%+ without that artificial boost they'll have earned their place for next time, fair and square.

Ms. May should bring her solid "no" to Bruce County and see what kind of reception she gets. I would consider myself a progressive, and I am a woman, and I don't see the nuclear industry as "dangerous." And there are other progressives who also are supportive as nuclear as a base for power generation. But sure Ms. May should stand outside of a nuclear plant and make a big stomp speech.

I think it could well be a draw.

In any event as some have pointed out their priority is getting a seat not national vote as that clearly does not matter.

So their success or not will be measured by whether May gets her seat.

As for other parties-- I am not sure the Greens pull that much more from one party than another so it may not mean much what their vote does.

The second choice polls are worthless because they do not measure the chance that a person could vote for their second choice and the pollsters prompt for this. Typically small parties do well on second chocie because there is such animosity between the bigger ones. When a Conservative says the NDP is a second chocie that does not mean they would consider voting NDP -- just means they hate the Greens and hate the Liberals more.

Political opportunity is there for anyone who wishes to intelligently take advantage of it.  Political intelligence would continue to argue the undemocratic nature of how the leader debates are 'packaged' and continue to ask the question of why the Green Party is being excluded.  Whining about being excluded or equally whining that rules are rules and we don't have a say in the matter only expresses self-centred, status quo partisan politics.  It reinforces what's wrong and diminishes what's right.  We're (Greens) supposed to be the Party that 'thinks outside the box' so there must be other ways of dealing with the debate issue.  Ms. May can still be a part of the debate by responding to the same questions and issues via the internet.  When I ran in 2008 I was at a private house party organized by local nurses and their roommates who had invited the candidates to come and answer questions.  Olivia Chow, Christine Innes and I accepted the invitations and answered questions.  Olivia was asked why the NDP supported the exclusion of the Green Party and she stated that it had been a mistake and shouldn't have happened.  (COMMENT WITHDRAWN AS MY FACTS WERE CLEARLY WRONG.)  

The Green Party earned the vote subsidy by clearly surpassing the 2% measure.  If 2% is the measure for political legitimacy then it's absurd to argue 5% as a new arbitrary measure for admittance into a national leaders debate in an election.  The Greens were at 4.6% before the last election and would have surpassed that measure without the debate.  The Greens obtained the 4.3% in 2004 without subsidy.  We would have held onto that measure without the subsidy in 2006.  The money helps the party just as it helps the NDP even with the NDP earning more donations than the Greens in regular fundraising. 

The Green Party has supported electoral reform and made it a part of its platform in 2006 and 2008 and it's still a part of the platform in 2011 and it will always be a part of the platform.     

LS - "Hopefully the Greens will go down in this election because I think in 2008 the increased Green vote helped the Cons."

Once again this tiresome argument is brought up. In 2004 when the Green Party earned 4.3% of the vote we ended up with a liberal minority. In 2006 with the Greens maintaining roughly the same vote percentage the result was a conservative minority. In 2008 with the Greens earning 6.7% of the vote, a weakened Liberal Party, and a stronger showing by the NDP, the conservatives were held to a minority.

I think the only real argument is that with the Green Party and the NDP growing stronger and maintaining or increasing their vote share we end up with a minority government headed by the liberals or conservatives. I've heard that it might be a liberal minority this time around and I suppose the argument will then arbitrarily shift to; "oh those green vote splitters are just going to guarantee a liberal majority."

thankfully the Greens and the NDP are both very clear about stopping healthcare privatization.

Where have you 'heard' there might be a Liberal minority?  The Liberals are unlikely to have the numbers to get a minority.

Perhaps one should become more knowledgable. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842

"More than 10,000 people have died in the Japanese tsunami and the survivors are cold and hungry. But the media concentrate on nuclear radiation from which no-one has died - and is unlikely to."

Interesting article which provides a balanced perspective.

The Liberals would be wise to form coalition with others and go after Con ridings rather than undermine the NDP.

I see Thanks that you didn't bother to read the article for a discussion rather than just do certain talking points and I find that less than intellectual. Oh well

This election is very much a regional one without a unifying national narrative.  BC is a not Ontario or the Maritimes or Quebec.  The NDP stands to make gains in BC with a resurgent Liberal vote while possibly losing seats in Ontario because of the same resurgence.  If Harper tanks in Quebec he doesn't win a majority and if the NDP takes hold we will see a very tight parliament.  

I prefer that the NDP stay out of any direct coalition and support the other party that bids the highest in social programs. If they go into a formal coalition then in the election after that any positives will go to the credit of the Liberals and the NDP will get squeezed out as the unnecessary junior partner.  

BTW: Getting back to the main topic of this thread - the Greens being excluded - well today we have yet more evidence of what a joke of a party the Greens are once you stray from the two or three ridings out of 308 where they are actually campaigning. Today EMay takes her campaign to Montreal where she is appearing with her "deputy leader" Laraque - the former hockey goon, who I surmise would be May's second in command in running the country if she won the election!

He seems to have gone seriously off message by saying that the current election was a shame and total waste of time and money, that nothing would change and that Flaherty's budget really wasn't all that bad and should have been supported by the opposition parties.

http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/elections-2011/320778/may-comprend-lar...

Excuse me but that is the cart before the horse.  Rex and Troy already by play whatever rules their bosses want them too.  They are there because they manufacture consent for the corporate agenda they could not do anything else and keep their high paid jobs.  They are mouth pieces not the brains or power.

Amazing Stock - don't know how I missed that story! It's definitely difficult to determine which is more of a joke - Laraque, who sounds as if the $300 million cost of the election has come directly out of his bank account - or May, who condescendingly attacks the majority of Canadians by affirming that she keeps Laraque around because he thinks like them!

There is actually quite a bit of evidence that PACs affiliated with the GOP were funneling money to the Green Party in the US to get them on the ballot in as many states as possible.

Speaking of which, our feeders are empty... and there are suspiciously many fat jays, chickadees, downy woodpeckers, and squirrels around...

Ok, back to the Greens.

Elizabeth will get a chance to speak on Sunday.
"May will be interviewed by a panel of respected journalists in a live half-hour broadcast on Sunday. The panel includes: Nick Dixon, CHCH News Anchor, Richard Brennan - National Affairs Reporter for the Toronto Star, Christina Blizzard, Political Columnist with the Toronto Sun, and Nicole Macintyre from the Hamilton Spectator.."
http://tinyurl.com/44utdzw
She has also received this exposure from the Globe & Mail when she met with the editorial board.
http://tinyurl.com/3z83h2f
The platform release received coverage and it's up to individual candidates to present it at the door, in local debates and local earned media where it exists.
Unless there is real frustration among regular voters I think the Green Party will increase the vote again. I think the debate issue will resolve itself in the next election by altering the format and/or an alternative debate produced by someone else other than the main broadcasters.

I think any party that runs in some given percentage of ridings should be included in the debate. If you say, "you must have x% of the popular vote to participate" then you can't get the vote because nobody knows about you and nobody knows about you because you can't get the vote because nobody knows about you because you can't get the vote because nobody knows about you ..... which is of course precisely what our overlords want. There's the risk of opening up some minuscule possibilities. 

I disagree with you, but we can agree to disagree.

@Boom Boom:

That or bury us all in press releases complaining about not getting the number of questions she, as the leader of a federal party, feels that she should be entitled to.

CBC last night profiled her riding - She may win in Saltspring Island where they're environmentally aware, but the rest of the riding will likely will go to Lunn.

No if you were an NDP or Lib strategist you would do the same thing they are doing. Ignoring the greens to get THEIR own message out. Why the hell would a strategist in say the NDP devote any time to giving another group more media when they struggle to get media time for themselves. It is an election and you are trying to get your message through. Getting E May in the debates would do what for the other parties. Make them seem nice, or dumb for making it look like more of a gang up on harper like last time. Seriously look at it from a strategists POV. The only strategist that I think would recomend that would be Soudas. It makes Harper look like an underdog by having to fend off one more attacker.

Who's snarling at the ndp? Watch your accusations.  I think that one of the biggest problems that non-voters have with politics is that they don't trust the leaders or the parties. If leaders put democracy before their own partisan interests, well I guess that wouldn't fly with those inside the bubble and rabid partisans of whatever party. If you don't think that a majority of canadians believe that the greens should be in [or the bloc out], then you are as out of touch as the leaders, who threw in together to prevent an audit of mps by the auditor-general. The media barons are playing the voters like a cheap fiddle, and calling those corporate connivers out on their control of the debate would go some way in restoring many canadians' faith in the political process. The bloc is not a national party, and I never see the lies expressed in the "french" debate translated and braodcast to the rest of canada. Your mentality plays into the hands of rex and the rest of the pundits who want to marginalize the ndp along with the greens. Hang together or they hang you separately. And save your vitriol for the cons/libs [no difference], and shovel your bs where it belongs.

Sigh.  I suspect you are right.  I would like to see Lunn get beaten, but I just don't think Elizabeth May is up to the job.  It's going to be unfortunate if she ruins another opportunity to have beaten a Con MP.

NOT "if" she ruins, she already ruined it when she announced. I would actually wager a bit that if, Harper gets a majority this time she gets a Senate seat from him for a job well done.

That is not a reason for inclusion in the debate.

If you think it is should Ignatief be in the debate?

Should Harper?

They have not shown themselves supporters of democracy?

There could have been 4 debates-- a seperate English and French debate for Quebec. It is bizarre to see the BQ in the debate outside Quebec and May excluded when the Greens are a choice and the BQ is not.

Interesting wager... given Harper's sheer, bloody vindictiveness I somehow can't really picture him doing it in the event he gets a majority. If, on the other hand, he manages to actually form a minority that will survive an initial vote of confidence, I can picture him being convinced to do so simply on the basis that having E. May in such proximity to the parliamentary press gallery will do damage to the Libs and NDP. Will be interesting to see how that unfolds.

Gilles Duceppe was smart to realize that the broadcasters were stupid to schedule the French debate at the same time as the hockey game and get it re-scheduled.

Seems nobody else thought about it until Gilles Duceppe raised it.

Canadians really shouldn't base their whole identities around hockey, but there's nothing we can do about that.  Unfortunately most Canadians would rather think about hockey than about their country's future.

The Bloc does not claim to be a national party. It is smart enough to recognize that there are many english voters in Quebec, however.  

Now with my explanation over, I'd like you to explain what "lies" you think you're referring to, birdfeeder...

I do not consider lumping in the ndp with the other major parties, on certain subjects, to be "snarling". Being overly sensitive to any criticism of the party is your personal problem, not a problem of the ndp. May's style, or lack of, is not my concern, nor your attacks on her or her party. The point that I made is that the media controls the debate.   The "rules" of said debate are made up as they go along, and they also decide the "questions".  I do not feel that any party that does not run nationally deserves a place. Others think differently. However, why is it up to the right-wing media cartel to decide? So save your personal attacks for the cons, shoveler, as it's their style, as well as yours.   Jeezus, it is well known that brian mulroney lied through his teeth in both official languages. I include "false promises" as lies. The french debate is not shown on the broadcast networks, you must be a cable cabel customer to view it, so I will have to rely on your translation of it [certainly not shoveler's!]. Next election, "sun tv" will no doubt be included in calling the shots.

Bird feeder you and May are the type of people that have kept me from considering voting for you party.  But continue on attacking potential allies and whining about how every one is mean too you.  Pathetic is proper term for that political strategy.  If you were paying attention to anything you would know I am not sure I will even vote for the NDP this election because of Libya.  I will not vote Green while you have a back stabbing, self serving egotistical control freak for a leader.

I quoted your own words and you ignored that and instead just kept on with talking points and insults. Your party deserves the same fate as befell the CPC.  Marginalization to the point of irrelevancy despite the truth of much of your message.