[hurley_108]

romanP romanP:

Here's my problem with this situation:

Elizabeth May isn't allowed into the debates because her party doesn't hold a seat in Parliament. But she doesn't hold a seat in Parliament because the electoral system is rigged to always elect the same parties in some sort of similar configuration with the NDP and Bloc always grasping at power and never getting it, and the Liberals and Conservatives switching places every once in a while. Anybody who tries to get their foot in the door gets their foot stomped on by the people who already share the privilege of being guaranteed at least a few seats in Parliament. One of the most important tools to gaining seats in Parliament is deemed inaccessible to those who do not already hold seats in Parliament.

The Green party ervolves around the idea that the environment is the most important issue in politics. "There is no economy if there is no environment" is a claim I see a lot online in support of the Green party.

In 1993, the Reform party had one floor crosser going in, the Bloc had 8. Coming out, Reform had 52, the Bloc 54. This proves that if a cause is popular enough, it can overcome the barriers placed in front of it by our SMP electoral system.

The Green party, however, cannot re-elect a floor-crosser. They can't elect anyone else, either, even their Leader (who, in '08, made a very poor choice of riding, casting doubt on her credibility as a leader).

But remember, they had May at the debate last time. They had every possible advantage they could under our current system, and they still elected nobody.

I've heard a football analogy, maybe even based on a true story, I don't know, of one coach dismissing his loss saying that his team ran more yards than the other. The other's coach replies "Great, next time we'll play for yards run then."

Now I'm all for electoral reform. I think it's undemocratic that almost a million voters elect nobody, that the NDP gets almost twice the votes of the Bloc but half the seats. But that's not the system we have today, going into this election.

To me, the standard for inclusion in the debates is electability. If you're in there, using up debate time and energy, and electing nobody, then you're wasting that time and energy. And ALL the historical evidence says that the Green party is simply not electable.

I argued on this board in '08 that May deserved to be there. But as Keynes said "When the facts change, I change my mind." The facts have changed, and been added to. And I have changed my mind.

[EyeBrock]

Well put Hurley!

[dino_bobba_renno]

Ditto on Eyebrocks compliment to Hurley.

I was roaming around checking out polls on whether or not people thought May should be in the debate. Holly cow what a wide range of results. CBC it think was something like 70% in support, Star was around 50+ %, Sun 60% against, just a crazy difference in numbers between all of them .

I think this will be much like the last time, they'll come out and say she's excluded and then cave in after a while and let her participate.

[mentalfloss]

I think anyone over 3% should get a go. They should also extend these debates to 3 hours and cover all topics involved. As it stands, the debate will suck just like the last one, regardless if May is there or not.

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

I was roaming around checking out polls on whether or not people thought May should be in the debate. Holly cow what a wide range of results. CBC it think was something like 70% in support, Star was around 50+ %, Sun 60% against, just a crazy difference in numbers between all of them .

Not surprising. The liberal and ndp scatmunchers from the CBC would support her involvement. The conservative scatmunchers from the Sun are scared to tits of her.

[Scape]

martin14 martin14:

romanP romanP:

Here's my problem with this situation:

Elizabeth May isn't allowed into the debates because her party doesn't hold a seat in Parliament. But she doesn't hold a seat in Parliament because the electoral system is rigged to always elect the same parties in some sort of similar configuration with the NDP and Bloc always grasping at power and never getting it, and the Liberals and Conservatives switching places every once in a while. Anybody who tries to get their foot in the door gets their foot stomped on by the people who already share the privilege of being guaranteed at least a few seats in Parliament. One of the most important tools to gaining seats in Parliament is deemed inaccessible to those who do not already hold seats in Parliament.

No, the Greens dont have a seat in Parliament because their ideas are bonkers,
and very few are actually stupid enough to vote for them.

The Bloc never had a problem getting into Parliament or entering debates,
because good or bad, their ideas attract votes. Your contention the system is rigged is
just so much bs, and the Bloc is proof of that.

Martin that's a strange take. The Greens don't get to talk at the debates because the parties like it that way it cuts in on their face time. Plain and simple.

Truth be told only the Grits and the wigs would hold a debate if they could get away with it but the public won't allow it. The Bloc doesn't attract votes, they are the only provincial party running in a federal election, they have been gaming the system since the start.

[romanP]

Scape Scape:

I'm with Rex on this. 1 hour of one on one debates between the leaders not have some consortium of the media designate who should talk.

Rex is absolutely right. I'm so glad someone in the media said exactly what I've been saying for the past week.

[romanP]

Thanos Thanos:

The system isn't rigged. If the Green support is so diffused and scattered across the entire country that they can't even get one seat then too bad for them. That's just the way it is.

"That's just the way it is" is good enough for you, is it?

Listen, first-past-the-post doesn't work. It's very undemocratic. It ensures the end result of a two-party system because if you aren't already at the top, there is no way to secure enough votes to get there. Do you think there will be a day when the leader of the NDP will be Prime Minister? I'm not talking about Jack Layton, I'm talking about anyone who leads the NDP. I don't think that could ever happen, and it's not for a lack of leadership or because the NDP is too left-leaning. It's because one party could gain a million votes and have six seats while another could get the same amount of votes and get no seats.

[romanP]

martin14 martin14:

romanP romanP:

Here's my problem with this situation:

Elizabeth May isn't allowed into the debates because her party doesn't hold a seat in Parliament. But she doesn't hold a seat in Parliament because the electoral system is rigged to always elect the same parties in some sort of similar configuration with the NDP and Bloc always grasping at power and never getting it, and the Liberals and Conservatives switching places every once in a while. Anybody who tries to get their foot in the door gets their foot stomped on by the people who already share the privilege of being guaranteed at least a few seats in Parliament. One of the most important tools to gaining seats in Parliament is deemed inaccessible to those who do not already hold seats in Parliament.

No, the Greens dont have a seat in Parliament because their ideas are bonkers,
and very few are actually stupid enough to vote for them.

Something tells me you've never read their platform.

[dino_bobba_renno]

romanP romanP:

martin14 martin14:

romanP romanP:

Here's my problem with this situation:

Elizabeth May isn't allowed into the debates because her party doesn't hold a seat in Parliament. But she doesn't hold a seat in Parliament because the electoral system is rigged to always elect the same parties in some sort of similar configuration with the NDP and Bloc always grasping at power and never getting it, and the Liberals and Conservatives switching places every once in a while. Anybody who tries to get their foot in the door gets their foot stomped on by the people who already share the privilege of being guaranteed at least a few seats in Parliament. One of the most important tools to gaining seats in Parliament is deemed inaccessible to those who do not already hold seats in Parliament.

No, the Greens dont have a seat in Parliament because their ideas are bonkers,
and very few are actually stupid enough to vote for them.

Something tells me you've never read their platform.

I have, it's a lot better than what it was during the last election but it's still based on the concept of a "green economy" which is something I don't think the majority of people buy into.

[romanP]

Yogi Yogi:

romanP romanP:

Here's my problem with this situation:

Elizabeth May isn't allowed into the debates because her party doesn't hold a seat in Parliament. But she doesn't hold a seat in Parliament because the electoral system is rigged to always elect the same parties in some sort of similar configuration with the NDP and Bloc always grasping at power and never getting it, and the Liberals and Conservatives switching places every once in a while. Anybody who tries to get their foot in the door gets their foot stomped on by the people who already share the privilege of being guaranteed at least a few seats in Parliament. One of the most important tools to gaining seats in Parliament is deemed inaccessible to those who do not already hold seats in Parliament.

I gotta agree with you that the system is rigged,.... by the non-voters! Only 59.9% of eligible voters cast a ballot in the last election!

The fact that there are so many non-voters is a symptom of a broken electoral system. If change is stamped out because the leader of a party that has 7% of the popular vote isn't allowed into televised debates, and the people who aren't voting choose not to vote because they don't see the point when all of the other parties are just offering more of the same, why would those people change their mind and vote?

[romanP]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

romanP romanP:

martin14 martin14:

No, the Greens dont have a seat in Parliament because their ideas are bonkers,
and very few are actually stupid enough to vote for them.

Something tells me you've never read their platform.

I have, it's a lot better than what it was during the last election but it's still based on the concept of a "green economy" which is something I don't think the majority of people buy into.

Whatever anyone's opinion of their platform or whether or not the majority think it's good, these are not factors that should decide whether someone should be in a televised debate. I don't like the Conservative platform, should I go around saying I don't think the Conservatives should be in the debate? "Of course not", you'll say, "That's ridiculous!"

"If at first an idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for its survival." -Albert Einstein

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

Truth be told only the Grits and the wigs would hold a debate if they could get away with it

Actually the Grits and the Whigs are the same group. I think you mean the Whigs and the Tories or the Tories and the Grits.

[romanP]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

romanP romanP:

Here's my problem with this situation:

Elizabeth May isn't allowed into the debates because her party doesn't hold a seat in Parliament. But she doesn't hold a seat in Parliament because the electoral system is rigged to always elect the same parties in some sort of similar configuration with the NDP and Bloc always grasping at power and never getting it, and the Liberals and Conservatives switching places every once in a while. Anybody who tries to get their foot in the door gets their foot stomped on by the people who already share the privilege of being guaranteed at least a few seats in Parliament. One of the most important tools to gaining seats in Parliament is deemed inaccessible to those who do not already hold seats in Parliament.

The Green party ervolves around the idea that the environment is the most important issue in politics. "There is no economy if there is no environment" is a claim I see a lot online in support of the Green party.

Well, it's true. If you can't breathe, how are you going to make money, and what would you do with money in a world where no one can even breathe anyway?

$1:

In 1993, the Reform party had one floor crosser going in, the Bloc had 8. Coming out, Reform had 52, the Bloc 54. This proves that if a cause is popular enough, it can overcome the barriers placed in front of it by our SMP electoral system.

You mean if a cause is rich enough. The Reform party had some rather large financial backers in their early days. I don't think the same can be said of the Green Party.

$1:

But remember, they had May at the debate last time. They had every possible advantage they could under our current system, and they still elected nobody.

That shouldn't matter. You're talking about a difference of one seat, not a difference of 146 seats changing to 127 seats. The argument of "you don't have a seat, you can't debate" doesn't hold much water when you consider that the only parties that have ever held seats are in the same position now as they were thirty years ago. The only thing that has changed is that two major parties became one, so we lost a choice. Our democracy is stagnating, and it's plainly obvious when we keep having elections with the same results that nobody wants.

$1:

I've heard a football analogy, maybe even based on a true story, I don't know, of one coach dismissing his loss saying that his team ran more yards than the other. The other's coach replies "Great, next time we'll play for yards run then."

That'll be great when our government is run by football coaches and the rules of football. But it isn't, so your analogy is irrelevant.

$1:

Now I'm all for electoral reform. I think it's undemocratic that almost a million voters elect nobody, that the NDP gets almost twice the votes of the Bloc but half the seats. But that's not the system we have today, going into this election.

Whoa, what? Did we have a successful referendum to get rid of first-past-the-post that I missed? Wow, that must have been a long nap...

$1:

To me, the standard for inclusion in the debates is electability. If you're in there, using up debate time and energy, and electing nobody, then you're wasting that time and energy. And ALL the historical evidence says that the Green party is simply not electable.

Of course it does, when there's always such a massive slander campaign against them to make sure nobody votes for them. Hell, a lot of people won't vote for them just because their leader is a woman. So much for progress?

$1:

I argued on this board in '08 that May deserved to be there. But as Keynes said "When the facts change, I change my mind." The facts have changed, and been added to. And I have changed my mind.

Just because you change your mind it doesn't make you right.

[romanP]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

Ditto on Eyebrocks compliment to Hurley.

I was roaming around checking out polls on whether or not people thought May should be in the debate. Holly cow what a wide range of results. CBC it think was something like 70% in support, Star was around 50+ %, Sun 60% against, just a crazy difference in numbers between all of them .

That just speaks of who reads those papers, not of whether the Green Party should be in the debates.

[dino_bobba_renno]

romanP romanP:

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

I have, it's a lot better than what it was during the last election but it's still based on the concept of a "green economy" which is something I don't think the majority of people buy into.

Whatever anyone's opinion of their platform or whether or not the majority think it's good, these are not factors that should decide whether someone should be in a televised debate. I don't like the Conservative platform, should I go around saying I don't think the Conservatives should be in the debate? "Of course not", you'll say, "That's ridiculous!"

"If at first an idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for its survival." -Albert Einstein

That's not really what I was getting at. I was just saying that their platform has improved.

I don't support May being in the debate because a) they don't hold a seat and b) because 4 is enough. I don't feel her participation in the last debate added any value to it.

If they held a seat that would a completely different story, there would be no reason to exclude them.

But this is all redundant anyways, they'll cave in and let her take part just like they did last time.