It is beyond belief that a broadcast consortium that no one appointed has decided to exclude Elizabeth May from the leaders' debate. That a handful of TV executives can wipe out the clear voting preferences of almost a million Canadians and exclude the only woman leader from the debate is an egregious example of how our democracy is dying of a thousand blows.
It is time for the people of this country to stand up and let the media and the politicians know that an election is a time for people's voices to be heard and Elizabeth May speaks for a lot of people in this country.
Here is what you can do:
- Sign petition
- Write consortium chair Troy.Reeb@globalnews.ca
- Vote in media polls
- Read, like and share Elizabeth's Globe article
Do we know that this is an ideological issue or is it a function of Liberals having proxy stooges in the GPC? The previous leader was a former Tory and had a circle of former/future Tories around him? Why would a merger be a good idea? Neither party has a firm Green platform beyond a chimera of empty platitudes?
A merger of the Greens and the NDP?
That has been suggested before.
The Green Party of Canada being the "junior" of the two parties would disappear into the NDP.
Elizabeth May doesn't want that.
That's why the Green party is more closely related ideologically to the Liberals than the NDP.
I am not a supporter of the NDP and I have not once raised a concern about vote splitting (a non-concern for me as it is always a ruse especially on how it is used against Ralph Nader by Alterman and those other Democratic party shills at The Nation).
One of my many concerns about the Green Party is that it really is not fighting on Green issues. They have wasted huge resources to create a campaign commercial about 'civility' in politics - if anything Canadian politics is too bland.
We have one central issue no matter where we are on this planet and this is getting off fossil fuels. That should be the focus of any Green Party anywhere, no matter in what the country it currently has a functioning body.
Wow I guess all you posters (excluding cheeseburger) are NDP supporters since one could make the same argument about the NDP splitting the vote and letting the Conservatives get in when the Liberals would get all the left of centre votes if only they wouldn't run. How about proposing a merger of the NDP and the Greens or something else useful.
Who is that petition going to? It doesn't say. It just looks like a gimmick to get more suckers on their email list!
There are two issues here:
Prior to the last election, Elizabeth May aregued for her inclusion based on the Green Party having achieved the traditional standard: at least one elected Member of Parliament. There was some argument that a solitary floor-crosser might not actually be sufficient, but at the end of the day, it was determined that, as a leader whose party held a seat, however gained, Elizabeth May should be there.
Having made that argument, Elizabeth May conceded the standard. At one level, it is irrelevant whether or not that is the appropriate threshold. It is the threshold she accepted as legitimate before the 2008 election.
Now, because her vanity party no longer meets the criteria, Elizabeth May would like different criteria because, after all, she is Elizabeth May and she's entitled to her entitlements - much as she decided she was entitled to a Senate appointment and a Cabinet seat at the time of the near coalition.
This isn't about politics. It's about Elizabeth May's inflated ego. Seriously, this woman is more annoying (and more self-absorbed) than Celine Dion.
2. The second question is more serious. Is the traditional standard (at least one sitting MP) a reasonable thhreshold for inclusion in the debate?
People can reasonably disagree on that, although I can't see that anyone would seriously want to argue that there should be no threshold at all apart from being an officially registered political party.
A minimum of one MP does demonstrate that a party is a serious political entity. However, the vagaries of the political system can result in anomalies where a party may receive an indisputably substantial number of votes yet still win no seats. In the 1993 federal election, for example, despite receiving the third largest popular vote and being the incumbent government, the Progressive Conservative Party came within less than 11,600 votes of winning no seats at all.
Would anyone seriously argue that the party which had been the government of Canada less than four years earlier, which was running second in national opinion polls, should have been excluded from the 1997 leaders debate had Jean Charest and Elsie Wayne not managed to buck the anti-Tory trend in 1993?
There is a credible alternative threshold which is likely fairer and which would be unaffected by such potential anomalies. In order to receive the per vote public subsidy, as well as election rebates, a political party must garner at least 2% of the popular vote overall, or an average of 5% of the vote in constituencies contested. Currently, only five parties have met that standard, including the Green Party of Canada. I would be quite willing to make this the standard for the inclusion of parties in the leaders debate.
However, prior to the 2008 election, Elizabeth May did NOT argue for the establishment of a new standard or threshold for inclusion. She explicitly accepted the existing standard - and argued for her own inclusion based on her party having met that standard (hwoever devious the means).
It is beyond hypocritical for Ms May, having accepted the existing standard when it suited her, to argue that applying that same standard today is unfair.
But then, beying hypocritical is about what we've come to expect from Liberal Lizzie.
If May is allowed to take part in the debate why shouldn't other parties be allowed too. The Maxists /Leninist Party runs a candidate in every riding yet they are not invited. Why should May get special treatment?
There, you admit it! The "I don't give a crap" people are the silent majority. I could probably get more than a million votes, but I'm just too apathetic to bother with that sort of thing.
And all May's party has to do is get the most votes in one riding. Just one out of 308. Until the Greens can do that, they don't deserve a seat at the big table.
I like the Greens, There's a good chance I'll vote for them, because the environment is an important issue. It's probably like throwing my vote away, but I don't give a crap. And let's face it, they're a one-issue party and it's not like anyone who's interested can't just go to their website to find out more.
Hey sillyface, why should seats be taken into consideration? It should be percentage of votes. Our fpp system is flawed so you can't really make good decisions based on it.
What an utter flap over nothing. We are talking maybe the greens gaining one seat.
I wish there was such an outcry over the result of every FPTP voting system after every election. Parties getting way more representation than they deserve, and others losing many more.
When is she going to stop ensuring another Con MP gets in? Please make a promise now Ms. May that you will leave politics when you lose again?
The whole, original point of having a Green Party was to bring environmental issues to the fore. Almost every major news event of the past 10 years screams that we need a massive, war-like footing to convert to renewable energy. Yet the current Green Party's focus is political 'civility'; what a joke that would be if we were not running into the eco-hell wall. Judy Rebick has made some important points here but I cannot get exercised for Elizabeth May; her leadership and her circle have misdirected, mislead the Green Party. Elizabeth May is an absolute failure and I cannot push myself to fight for her behalf, even with larger democratic issues at hand.
I seriously wonder if the broadcasting consortium is, in fact, in favor of the Green Party of Canada.
This is deja vu. We've been here before. The same flap arose over the broadcasting consortium's initial disallowing Elizbeth May into the televized federal leaders debate in 2008.
Can you think of a better way to focus attention on the Green Party of Canada?
It certainly puts them in the national spotlight and stirs up some debate over the "controversy" among those who care. Elizabeth May and the Greens get their Andy Worhol's 15 minutes worth of fame out of it.
With the First Past The Post (FPTP) voting system the Greens are a "spoiler" party that steal votes from the NDP. They haven't even managed to win a seat in Parliament. That seems to be their only realistic goal - to win a federal seat.
The best strategy for them is to once again become a single political plank (issue) party. Only this time make it reforming Canada's unfair FPTP into Fair Voting (a.k.a. Proportional Representation or PR.) With a Fair Voting system everyone benefits: the Green Party, the NDP and all the parties and the Canadian electorate.
Better still, the Green Party of Canada should do this and deregister itself as an official political party and become a political pressure group or organization.
Then the Canada Green political organization can campaign all it likes for Fair Voting and positively shape Canadian public opinion on this issue without stealing votes from other parties.
If successful in getting another party (like the NDP and/or Bloc) or other parties to campaign for Fair Voting and if (hopefully when) Canada adopts Fair Voting, that then would be the most opportune time for the Greens to become an official federal party in Canada again.
When your don't give a crap party gets one million votes then I would certainly consider it. Ahh sectarianism is a death knell for the left. Now they are talking about one on one debate and exclude Jack too after all he doesn't have a chance of winning according to the MSM. Democracy takes a second place to partisanship No wonder so many people don't give a crap.
F@#$ off.
Best news we've heard in SGI for a while.
May is a professional vote splitter brought in by Gwyn Morgan et al to make sure the enclave of Orchardistas that has captured the local Liberal riding association do not achieve power.
Last time out she was splitting the vote in favour of Peter MacKay, our mortal enemy.
There's a vendetta at work here.
And why is it that the leader of a party that can't get one seat in parliament should be included in the debate?
How about me? My "I don't give a crap" Party has just as many seats as Elizabeth may's Greens. Shouldn't I be in the debate too?