Elizabeth May: “If you look at precedence, the Greens are in the debates in 2015”

147 posts / 0 new
Last post
Debater
Elizabeth May: “If you look at precedence, the Greens are in the debates in 2015”

By Laura Beaulne-Stuebing | Canada Politics – 29 minutes ago

-

Excerpt:

-

“If you look at precedence, the Greens are in the debates in 2015,” she said.

There aren’t clearly-defined rules for how the network consortium — the group of Canadian TV networks that make the final decision on how many debates take place and who participates — works, but May said she’s clued in on what the general criteria has been in the past.

“The confusion is perhaps a bit of an effort, which would be unfortunate, if other parties want to try to keep me out, but I think I’ve met the consortium’s standards.”

May recalled the 1993 leader’s debates that included Reform Party leader Preston Manning, even though he didn’t have a seat in the House of Commons at the time. The only Reform MP — the party’s first — was Deborah Grey, who’d won in a 1989 byelection.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/elizabeth-may---the-gree...

 

onlinediscountanvils

With all the recent thread proliferation I know it's hard to keep track, but this specific issue is already being discussed in a thread you opened [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/election-2015/green-party-could-be-excluded-upco..., in addition to also being discussed [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/election-2015/canadian-leaders-debates-2015]here....

(btw, this is literally the 33rd election 2015 thread started by you, although you're still a distant second to you-know-who)

Debater

Almost 70% of Canadians want Elizabeth May in the leaders' debate, including a majority of CPC, LPC & NDP supporters.

--

The EKOS poll: Canadians want Elizabeth May in the debates

Mar 27, 2015

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2015/03/27/the-ekos-poll-canadians-want-elizabet...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
If you look at precedence, the Greens are in the debates in 2015

I think she meant "if you look at precedent".  Funny that a lawyer would duff that.  Or maybe she said "precedents" and some journalist duffed it.

Sean in Ottawa

Debater wrote:

Almost 70% of Canadians want Elizabeth May in the leaders' debate, including a majority of CPC, LPC & NDP supporters.

--

The EKOS poll: Canadians want Elizabeth May in the debates

Mar 27, 2015

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2015/03/27/the-ekos-poll-canadians-want-elizabet...

Count me in. It would be profoundly anti-democratic to exclude her.

nicky

Sean do you think the Bloc and F&D should be included as well?

I find it difficult to come up with a rationale for including one of the micro-parties and not the others.

NorthReport

Harper will decide whatever is to his advantage.

What is Haper's game? 

If Harper want to be able to clearly demolish Trudeau with as few obstacles as possible he may insist on debating just Mulcair and Trudeau

If Harper is more concerned about Mulcair he may want as many people as possible in the ring.

But rest assured Harper will be the one making the decision, because if he doesn't like it he won't play.

If you were Harper what would you do?

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

Harper will decide whatever is to his advantage.

What is Haper's game? 

If Harper want to be able to clearly demolish Trudeau with as few obstacles as possible he may insist on debating just Mulcair and Trudeau

If Harper is more concerned about Mulcair he may want as many people as possible in the ring.

But rest assured Harper will be the one making the decision, because if he doesn't like it he won't play.

If you were Harper what would you do?

If I were Harper I would delay -- these are bad numbers no matter which opposition party is leading. The conservatives need to be well over 35% to get a majority. If I were Harper I would run ads and try to create a narrative  to win with. The current lead he has is meaningless as it does not give him a majority. Harper can govern with a minority where the balance of power is the BQ-- but he can't if the NDP, Greens and Liberals have a majority of the seats between them -- in any configuration of seats (unless the Liberals keep him in power).

Harper has not been in reasonable majority territory in the last three years. The economy is not great and he is in trouble. The Liberals want you to think Harper is better off so they can scare people into voting Liberal.

The only hope the Conservatives have at this point is the Liberals letting them govern. To that end, we should elect as few Liberals as possible to reduce that possibility. The Liberals are focused on telling people they need the most seats in order to block Harper-- that is not true.

Centrist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Harper has not been in reasonable majority territory in the last three years. The economy is not great and he is in trouble.

I can categorically say that right-wing parties, such as the Cons, always seem to own the economy issue. Always. Have seen that election narrative won by both the Cons (and the BC Libs for that matter) over and over again.

Even when the economy is on a downward skid, right-wing parties still win the economy issue as folks who might otherwise look at placing their vote elsewhere, prior to and during an election campaign, finally have voter angst, hold their nose, and place their vote for the right-wing party on e-day.

Particularly true and relevant for suburban, exurban, and rural voters. Frankly, I still see Herr Harper within striking distance of a majority govt on e-day.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

We can count on the Liberals keeping Harper in power. It's all they know how to do!

Unionist

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

With all the recent thread proliferation I know it's hard to keep track, but this specific issue is already being discussed in a thread you opened [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/election-2015/green-party-could-be-excluded-upco..., in addition to also being discussed [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/election-2015/canadian-leaders-debates-2015]here....

See, oda you didn't have to worry. The last 3 posts have had nothing to do with the debate or E. May's participation. So it's not thread proliferation at all. It's attention deficit.

ajaykumar

If may is not included in the debates, let's not put the pei NDP , new Brunswick ndp in the debate. For a party that is allegdly fighting for democratic rights, what's so democratic about leaving may out? Worried about BC seats! NDP= hypocrisy

Debater

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Count me in. It would be profoundly anti-democratic to exclude her.

Chantal Hébert says that the BQ should also be in the debates based on 2 factors:

1.  The BQ has been in all the debates since 1993.

2.  The BQ finished 2nd in the popular vote in Québec in 2011 with nearly a quarter of the vote in the province.

NorthReport

So you're saying based on that premise the Greens should then be excluded?

addictedtomyipod

ajaykumar wrote:
If may is not included in the debates, let's not put the pei NDP , new Brunswick ndp in the debate. For a party that is allegdly fighting for democratic rights, what's so democratic about leaving may out? Worried about BC seats! NDP= hypocrisy

 

This response shows that anyone can be duped.

The fact is that this is an orchestrated campaign by the Green Party to gather sympathizers and support.  The fact that the media consortium makes the decisions then why is this campaign not geared toward them?  Why not ask the public to contact media? Instead the Greens use this issue to demonize all the other parties (yes, even the BLOC) so they look like the only pure, honest party to vote for.  Is this the best the Greens can do?

I challenge anyone here, especially AJ to find anywhere the NDP has said they want to keep Lizzie out of the debates.  It just has not happened.

Debater

addictedtomyipod wrote:

I challenge anyone here, especially AJ to find anywhere the NDP has said they want to keep Lizzie out of the debates.  It just has not happened.

That's just not true.

It's well-documented that the NDP tried to keep Elizabeth May out of the 2008 debates.  Layton was opposed to it.  He backed down once he saw the public outrage and the objection from women's groups.

NorthReport

Layton initially said that he was following the rules of the broadcast consortium, while NDP spokesman Brad Lavigne confirmed that Layton had refused to attend if May was present, noting that May had endorsed Liberal leader Stéphane Dion for prime minister, and arguing that her inclusion would in effect give the Liberals two representatives at the debate.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
noting that May had endorsed Liberal leader Stéphane Dion for prime minister, and arguing that her inclusion would in effect give the Liberals two representatives at the debate.

That always seemed to me to be a fair point.

If it's important to include May, so that the electorate can hear why they should vote for the Green Party, then wouldn't it also then be important that May be there to represent the Green Party? 

ajaykumar

Don't include may in the debate: she may win a few NDP seats in BC.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Without even so much as trying to step aside for the Liberal candidate??

addictedtomyipod

Debater wrote:

addictedtomyipod wrote:

I challenge anyone here, especially AJ to find anywhere the NDP has said they want to keep Lizzie out of the debates.  It just has not happened.

That's just not true.

It's well-documented that the NDP tried to keep Elizabeth May out of the 2008 debates.  Layton was opposed to it.  He backed down once he saw the public outrage and the objection from women's groups.

 

 

 

This thread is about the 2015 debates and that is what my comment is speaking to.

NorthReport

Laughing

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Without even so much as trying to step aside for the Liberal candidate??

Sean in Ottawa

I agree the BQ should also be in the debate.

From a democratic point of view it is offensive to exclude either the Greens or the BQ --  both can claim significant support over a long period, both have had MPs elected to the House under their party banner. Both are fielding large numbers of candidates with some having potential to win. Election debates should not determine elections through decisions about who is included.

Both the Green Party and the BQ have brought valuable ideas to the debates and viewers have benefited. This is not just about final voting decisions but the need to see what is being said by each and how they respond to challenges.

I refuse to consider quesitons of political strategy as being relevant to who should be in the debates.

 

 

NorthReport

The only party that is true to its name is the Cons.

The Liberals aren't liberal

The Greens are not as green as the NDP.

And the NDP are not new.

Stockholm

Why not have TWO depates in each language - in week two of the campaign - have a six way free for all with harper, Mulcair, Trudeau, May, Beaulieu and Fortiun then 10 days before election have a second debate just between Harper, Mulcair and Trudeau?

Centrist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I agree the BQ should also be in the debate.

From a democratic point of view it is offensive to exclude either the Greens or the BQ

IMHO, it certainly has been offensive including the BQ in the English-language debates over the years. What the hell point is that all about? The BQ is not a national party BUT a Quebec separatist party. The BQ is also not an English-speaking party but a Franco-speaking party - whose voters are also francophones in Quebec. Alone.

Sure the BQ leader should be in the French debate. But in the national English debate? What the hell for?  Again. Their entire voting segment is only in Quebec and would only tune into the French debate. And that's where the BQ leader should only be. Period.

Aristotleded24

Centrist wrote:
Sure the BQ leader should be in the French debate. But in the national English debate? What the hell for?

To give a chance for anglophone voters in Quebec to make an informed decision.

Debater

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I agree the BQ should also be in the debate.

From a democratic point of view it is offensive to exclude either the Greens or the BQ --  both can claim significant support over a long period, both have had MPs elected to the House under their party banner.

This is a valid point.

Although F&D has 2 MP's like the BQ & Greens, they have not actually elected an MP.  That is the difference.

Also, at this point in time, F&D only plans to run candidates in about 30-40 ridings in Québec (basically in the regions).  They do not plan to run candidates in Montréal or in all the ridings in Québec like the BQ.

So the organizers of the debates do have a couple of legitimate justifications that can be used to exclude F&D.

Centrist

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Centrist wrote:
Sure the BQ leader should be in the French debate. But in the national English debate? What the hell for?

To give a chance for anglophone voters in Quebec to make an informed decision.

 

When something akin to 90% of QC anglophone voters don't vote BQ? Doesn't leave much of an audience left in Quebec. At all. Hypothetically, should a hard-core, right-wing Alberta separtist party also be at the national English debate with an AB MP or 2? NO!!

Debater

The BQ was in the English debates for 2 decades.

On what basis could they be excluded now?

And it's not necessarily all about whether voters will vote for a particular party in the debates, but also to learn more about the other parties even if they aren't going to vote for them.

Sean in Ottawa

Debater wrote:

The BQ was in the English debates for 2 decades.

On what basis could they be excluded now?

And it's not necessarily all about whether voters will vote for a particular party in the debates, but also to learn more about the other parties even if they aren't going to vote for them.

And to see how the other parties respond to them. It is useful to see the party you are leaning towards respond to all the other parties who have been in the House -- and may be after this election. I have no trouble leaving the bar at having elected an MP, although if there is a history of recieving a minimum level of support in a previous election I can see the point to incude. F&D is in their first election having never recieved any votes under that banner nor electing an MP.

Perhaps a minimum of something like 3% nationally or 20% in one province or electing an MP in the last election or running in over 90% of the ridings could apply -- this would allow multiple ways to get in the debate.

Once in the debate perhaps there should be another level in order to have equal billing to the main leaders. This might be 3% in the previous election AND an incumbant MP AND running in at least 50 ridings.

If you meet the first test then you get a 2 minute opening and closing statement but no further participation.

If you play with these numbers you can see rationales for including the Greens or not but these rules should be established for the next election not this one so the parties know what is at stake. The Greens had 3.91% in 2011 and the BQ had 6.04%.

The problem is there are no rules other than the ones made up after an election.

Aristotleded24

Centrist wrote:
Hypothetically, should a hard-core, right-wing Alberta separtist party also be at the national English debate with an AB MP or 2? NO!!

That scenario already played itself out. Reform was invited to the 1993 debates even though it only had 1 elected MP going into that contest.

Brachina

  The debates in the UK will have 7 leaders at thier debates.

 I remember the NDP leadership debates during the leadership contest.

Winston

Brachina wrote:

I remember the NDP leadership debates during the leadership contest.

... And with nine contestants, two of whom spoke little or no French, these were a complete sh*t show!

I don't see how the Greens can be invited to the next debates without also inviting the BQ and F&D. Certainly, with double the votes and twice the seats, the BQ has more right to be there than the Greens do. I'm not so sure that a party with 3-4% of the vote in the last election, has never polled higher than 10% nor elected more than a solitary MP to the House should be there.

That said, I think the goalposts for inclusion should be transparent and fair. These would be, of course, subject to debate but I figure that they should include three criteria:

1) Candidates running in the vast majority of ridings in all regions of the country - if you are not running in the bulk of the 338 seats and a significant portion of the population has no option to vote for you then you are a distraction in a national debate;

2) A high vote share in the previous election AND a significant proportion of supporters in pre-election polling. I would suggest that this threshold should be 5 or 10% - not the 3% Sean was suggesting; and

3) An established presence in the House, demonstrating the ability to elect siginificant numbers of MPs. This number should not be 1 or 2 - we shouldn't let every yahoo who is about to lose a nomination race and starts his/her own party into the debates. I would suggest that having Official Party status is more appropriate. 

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

The problem is there are no hard and fast rules. This tiresome process of having the parties negotiate with a Broadcast Consortium every time needs to be abolished. Debates are managed by Parliament, not broadcasters of reality tv shows.

1. The "Broadcasting Consortium" should damn well do what Parliament wants to the letter. They will simply broadcast what our elected representatives want. They should have no say in it at all. This is our precious democracy and we don't need media hucksters being a gateway to political information and manipulating information about our democracy for their commercial interests.

Up yours, Toronto media elites! Screw your advertising revenue and your time. You make billions off of the Canadian media. You will facilitate its democracy when needed without question.

2. A party is a "group". As groups can contain zero or more elements, any person can declare themselves a party.

3. The next step is that the party has to be recognised by the House. Generally you would do that at Elections Canada.

4. An "official Parliamentary party" has too high a bar now with 12 MPs. A slight move to some kind of proportional representation is adding a required percentage of the vote in to qualify it as an official party. 5% has worked well in Europe, up to a point. We do have to engineer it to stop the rise of fascists, who have proved to be a threat to Parliament and democracy in general. Many here see Canada trending in this direction.

With 5% of the vote, 1 or more MPs is reasonable. With FPTP they may be very lucky to have 1 or 2 (when 15 would be more like it under the rules of the Bundestag), so they are representing a view that might be held by 1,000,000 Canadians.

5. Now, the decision of who appears on the debates is easy. All official parties may send a leader to the debate. If one of the leaders wishes to no-show because he does not want to debate with Elizabeth May, so be it.

6. The 'Broadcasting Consortium' must broadcast it. If they resist that, we change the CRTC rules which force them to. Yet another example of private Toronto media interests trying to control and manipulate the national agenda.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
We do have to engineer it to stop the rise of fascists, who have proved to be a threat to Parliament and democracy in general. Many here see Canada trending in this direction.

Shouldn't the eligibility and legality of any party be determined at step 3, rather than by gerrymandering the cutoff?

Sean in Ottawa

montrealer58 wrote:

The problem is there are no hard and fast rules. This tiresome process of having the parties negotiate with a Broadcast Consortium every time needs to be abolished. Debates are managed by Parliament, not broadcasters of reality tv shows.

1. The "Broadcasting Consortium" should damn well do what Parliament wants to the letter. They will simply broadcast what our elected representatives want. They should have no say in it at all. This is our precious democracy and we don't need media hucksters being a gateway to political information and manipulating information about our democracy for their commercial interests.

Up yours, Toronto media elites! Screw your advertising revenue and your time. You make billions off of the Canadian media. You will facilitate its democracy when needed without question.

2. A party is a "group". As groups can contain zero or more elements, any person can declare themselves a party.

3. The next step is that the party has to be recognised by the House. Generally you would do that at Elections Canada.

4. An "official Parliamentary party" has too high a bar now with 12 MPs. A slight move to some kind of proportional representation is adding a required percentage of the vote in to qualify it as an official party. 5% has worked well in Europe, up to a point. We do have to engineer it to stop the rise of fascists, who have proved to be a threat to Parliament and democracy in general. Many here see Canada trending in this direction.

With 5% of the vote, 1 or more MPs is reasonable. With FPTP they may be very lucky to have 1 or 2 (when 15 would be more like it under the rules of the Bundestag), so they are representing a view that might be held by 1,000,000 Canadians.

5. Now, the decision of who appears on the debates is easy. All official parties may send a leader to the debate. If one of the leaders wishes to no-show because he does not want to debate with Elizabeth May, so be it.

6. The 'Broadcasting Consortium' must broadcast it. If they resist that, we change the CRTC rules which force them to. Yet another example of private Toronto media interests trying to control and manipulate the national agenda.

 

Interesting what you are saying but it sounds like you are saying May shoud be in yet your numbers suggest otherwise. The GP got 3.9% of the vote in 2011 so would not meet the 5% threshold.

In 2011 the Greens elected May but their popular vote went lower than it had been ever since the year 2000 -- worse than in 2004, 2006, 2008. Interesting to consider that May was allowed in the Debate in 2008 and her party got almost 7% of the vote but got less than 4% when she was barred in 2011. I am disturbed by the notion that the decision to deny her entry to the debate could have had an effect on the result to that degree but it could have. If inclusion or exclusion in the debates has the potential to affect results to this degree I think we are better to err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion.

Sean in Ottawa

Another point -- the very idea of exclusing the only female party leader so the men could have a talk really ought to encourage all Canadians to give their heads a shake.

And whether or not people decide to vote Green in the end, many more consider the party and they ahve a right to hear what she has to say.

This is not just about the rights of a party -- this is the rights of voters to hear from all their options in order to make an informed choice.

robbie_dee

We shouldn't have to to limit ourselves to just two (French and English) debates. Why not have one pair of French and English debates that include all parties with representation in the HoC (BQ, Con, F&D, Green, Lib, NDP) and then a second pair of French and English debates with just the Prime Minister and Leader of the Official Opposition going head to head? That way all parties would have a voice but the strongest two leaders would also have an uninterrupted opportunity to debate head-to-head.

robbie_dee

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I do thin it would be absurd to exclude the Liberals leader and not just becuase he has been at ornear first in the polls for the last two years.

I suppose, he is rather a light-weight though.

Sean in Ottawa

robbie_dee wrote:

We shouldn't have to to limit ourselves to just two (French and English) debates. Why not have one pair of French and English debates that include all parties with representation in the HoC (BQ, Con, F&D, Green, Lib, NDP) and then a second pair of French and English debates with just the Prime Minister and Leader of the Official Opposition going head to head? That way all parties would have a voice but the strongest two leaders would also have an uninterrupted opportunity to debate head-to-head.

I like the idea of more debates.

I do think it would be absurd to exclude the Liberals leader and not just becuase he has been at or near first in the polls for the last two years.

Sean in Ottawa

robbie_dee wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I do thin it would be absurd to exclude the Liberals leader and not just becuase he has been at ornear first in the polls for the last two years.

I suppose, he is rather a light-weight though.

People should have the opportunity to see that for themselves -- true for all leaders

Stockholm

Which brings me back to my original "best of both worlds" idea:

Round 1 - leader of all parties with any representation in parliament - Harper, Mulcair, Trudeau, May, Beaulieu and Fortin

Round 2 - leaders of all parties with official status in parliament - Harper, Mulcair and Trudeau

 

What's not to like?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Another point -- the very idea of exclusing the only female party leader so the men could have a talk really ought to encourage all Canadians to give their heads a shake.

What if she's excluded, but it's not "so the men could have a talk"?  What do we do then?

Make a patronizing special exception for "the fairer sex"?

Winston

Stockholm wrote:

Round 1 - leader of all parties with any representation in parliament - Harper, Mulcair, Trudeau, May, Beaulieu and Fortin

Round 2 - leaders of all parties with official status in parliament - Harper, Mulcair and Trudeau

This is pretty much what Rex Murphy and others were suggesting for last time (minus the whole "Round 1"): that only those leaders "with a realistic chance of forming government" should be invited. Of course, when Rex suggested that, he was thinking that only Iggy and Steve should be there. Now that the NDP is a contender, I wonder if his tune has changed...

I do suspect that some variant of Stockholm's suggestion would end up being the Consortium's preference: 2 such debates in each official language. But I am also certain that, were that to be proposed, Justin would flat-out refuse to participate in the "Round 2" debates.

So... we're likely going to end-up with one dreadful, unwatchable, overly-moderated, six-leader free-for-all in each official language that does absolutely f*ck all to help voters differentiate their choices.

Yay, "democracy"! 

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

The 5% (or whatever number we choose) is a cutoff, but I don't think you can call it a gerrymander.

Whether it is 5 or 4 or 10 or 3, I think there should be some set percentage of the popular vote, and "bright line" rules which are not open to discussion or interpretation.

I have no interest in dictatorially setting it as 5, but I am suggesting a framework which might be used as rules. In my opinion we do need rules.

Because I am suggesting some formal rules, it does not indicate my support or lack of support for the Greens. No rules are going to be implemented in this election cycle. In the next one nonetheless looks very likely the Greens would be well above a 5% threshold at that time.

The whole debate format is going to change from the traditional TV format to something more interactive. Viewer A may want to hear Justin Trudeau's plans for high speed rail development, and viewer B may want to hear Elizabeth May's views on pensions.

When more than 2 get involved in a debate, it becomes a shouting match. Each leader can debate who they want to. I don't want to hear the shouting match of all the leaders on Keystone, I want to hear Harper vs. Mulcair on it. Even with 3 participants, debates can get farcical.

All in all, several hours of content could be developed. Most voters would probably want to see only 20 minutes of it, so it would be ranked in various ways. Viewers' questions could be incorporated too. An internet system could democratically pick the most popular questions, which could form organically.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The 5% (or whatever number we choose) is a cutoff, but I don't think you can call it a gerrymander.

I totally get that and I agree.  Whatever cutoff we choose will be, from a logic point of view, arbitrary (though hopefully well considered).

But you said:

Quote:
We do have to engineer it to stop the rise of fascists, who have proved to be a threat to Parliament and democracy in general.

And "engineering" and "gerrymandering" aren't that dissimilar.  It kind of sounded like you were suggesting that we need to pick some threshold that will keep out some legal and registered parties because we don't like them.  So, maybe, for example, if the "No More Immigration Party" is polling at 2.3% we should make the threshold 3%, but if they're polling at 5.4% we better make it 7% to be on the safe side.

I'm not looking to encourage any objectionable parties, but I think that if they meet Elections Canada's requirements then it's hardly democratic to start "engineering" things in order to deny them the same opportunity we'd give to any other party that meets  Elections Canada requirements but is more in keeping with our politics.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

And "engineering" and "gerrymandering" aren't that dissimilar.  It kind of sounded like you were suggesting that we need to pick some threshold that will keep out some legal and registered parties because we don't like them.  So, maybe, for example, if the "No More Immigration Party" is polling at 2.3% we should make the threshold 3%, but if they're polling at 5.4% we better make it 7% to be on the safe side.

I'm not looking to encourage any objectionable parties, but I think that if they meet Elections Canada's requirements then it's hardly democratic to start "engineering" things in order to deny them the same opportunity we'd give to any other party that meets  Elections Canada requirements but is more in keeping with our politics.

I agree completely. I wrote a post in a thread about proportional representation in which I addressed the issue of setting a high threshold for representation with the idea of keeping out certain undesirable parties. The point I made there also applies here: if you believe in democracy, you have to trust the voters not to elect Nazis. If you don't, then why bother having an election at all?

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Nazi Party: 1928, 2%. 1930, 18%. July 1932, 37%...

I believe in democracy, but I also know that Nazis can get 43.9% as they did in March of 1933.

The more layers of democracy you have, the more bumps in the road you put for Nazis. The constitutional structure of the Weimar Republic slowed Hitler down. Modern Canada's would not.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Okay.  But if the modern Nazi Party of Canada ends up polling at 37%, where do you propose we "engineer" the threshold in order to stop them?

robbie_dee

Godwin

Pages