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

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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

 I remember the NDP leadership debates during the leadership contest.

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.

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.

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 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.

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?

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"! 

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.

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.

Godwin