Why is Elizabeth May being blocked?

[nolanrh]

What I want to know is, why the hell corporate interests are dictating who is participating in this debate? We need an independent non-partisan organization hosting these debates. Invite the media who want to attend and cover it. Broadcast it over the Internet. Why on Earth we are letting them define the rules of our debate is beyond me.

[Glacier]

Corporate interests are not dictating who is included, journalists interested in quality debate are.

[nolanrh]

You didn't think Elizabeth May's performance in the last debate was a quality one? Or, do you think she took away from the quality of the overall debate? Have there been any reasons released by the coalition of broadcasters that indicate it was a journalistic decision and provided reasons?

From 2008:

“I think a political star was born last night,” Mr. Bricker said Friday. “They [respondents] didn't really know what she was going to do. Her first impression was really strong.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/article713432.ece

Finally, why don't you feel these decision be made by an independent organization, perhaps consisting of journalists and other interested, but independent, parties?

[grammafreddy]

Journalists are rarely independent thinkers and unbiased reporters of news these days.

But your questions are valid - why is who is attending being dictated to us, the voters?

[NAB]

Personally, I want to hear as much as possible from the TWO folk who have a chance to form a national government and be Prime Minister, without folk who will not get to form one constantly butting in and wasting everyone’s time. Nothing she has to say is of particular interest to the majority of Canadians right now, and I suspect her only reason for wanting a place in the debates is for its "free" photo-op / media exposure value to her personal effort to get elected, …as she bounces from riding to riding around the country election after election seeking what she considers the most promising place for her personal election chances. Hopefully her loss this time will finally lead to her coming to grips with reality.

Same with the last debate. While she may have acquitted herself well in the eyes of her supporters, she came across to me as just a peanut gallery chearleader for a couple of coalition bullies and their separatist coat tail rider trying to steal the limelight and power, and prevent me from obtaining information I needed on many critical issues as a result of the debate. It's very difficult for the leaders who acually elect members to parliament to have an adult debate with a constantly whining foot stomping spoiled child in the room.

Besides, people who constantly poke aggressively at others with their finger in the form of personal attack when trying to make a point, ….need to have that finger ripped off and fed to them.

Nab

[twobits]

Personally, I want to hear as much as possible from the TWO folk who have a chance to form a national government and be Prime Minister, without folk who will not get to form one constantly butting in and wasting everyone’s time. Nothing she has to say is of particular interest to the majority of Canadians right now, and I suspect her only reason for wanting a place in the debates is for its "free" photo-op / media exposure value to her personal effort to get elected, …as she bounces from riding to riding around the country election after election seeking what she considers the most promising place for her personal election chances. Hopefully her loss this time will finally lead to her coming to grips with reality.

Same with the last debate. While she may have acquitted herself well in the eyes of her supporters, she came across to me as just a peanut gallery chearleader for a couple of coalition bullies and their separatist coat tail rider trying to steal the limelight and power, and prevent me from obtaining information I needed on many critical issues as a result of the debate. It's very difficult for the leaders who acually elect members to parliament to have an adult debate with a constantly whining foot stomping spoiled child in the room.

Besides, people who constantly poke aggressively at others with their finger in the form of personal attack when trying to make a point, ….need to have that finger ripped off and fed to them.

Nab

Nab, I agree. I only want to hear from the two contenders. The news organizations have every right to include or exclude whom they want. They are footing the bill and expecting ad revenue to cover the cost. If you don't like, it don't watch and send them the message through ratings. A much more compelling to watch program would be just the two leaders. Case in point, I will not waste my time even watching this debate. I will instead be reading the Coles version in several publicatons and highlights on the news. I have no interest whatsoever in what the Green, NDP, or Bloc have to say as they are irrelevent. The Bloc especially...just watching the Duece speak gives him justification to exist on the Federal stage and I won't give it to him. On the other hand, if it were restricted to Iggy and Harper, I wouldn't miss it. Having four in a debate waters it down to pretty much useless.....five would make it a circus.

[grammafreddy]

I agree and that's why I said it was a waste of time.

[nolanrh]

Of course it's important to hear from the two parties that will likely form government. I'm not saying that a one-on-one debate shouldn't happen. However, to suggest that the only relevant ideas that deserve the national stage are the ones coming from established parties is ludicrous. You may want to take the "stick-your-head-in-the-sand" approach and only hear from the parties likely to form government, but I want the opportunity to hear from everyone.

Democracy is a battle of competing ideas, with the bests ones winning out and the losers relegated to the never-to-be-implemented bin. Those that don't get a chance to get on TV, never stand a chance. I am not convinced that only the established parties have winning ideas and I want to see the ideas of the lesser known parties showcased on equal footing. I also want to see the platforms of the establishment challenged by someone who is actually interested in changing the status quo.

The Green Party garnered 1 million votes last election, they speak for a significant portion of the Canadian population. Elizabeth May is a well-spoken, intelligent woman, who is dedicated to her cause and her party. I believe that her ideas deserve a chance to be tested on the national stage, and so do at least 1 million other voters.

As an aside, I will not be voting for the Green Party in this upcoming election.

[Glacier]

You didn't think Elizabeth May's performance in the last debate was a quality one? Or, do you think she took away from the quality of the overall debate? Have there been any reasons released by the coalition of broadcasters that indicate it was a journalistic decision and provided reasons?

[...] Finally, why don't you feel these decision be made by an independent organization, perhaps consisting of journalists and other interested, but independent, parties?

I am agnostic about May's participation in the debate. Personally, I vote based on my local candidate, and not on the leaders of the respective parties. Now many voters seem to follow the leaders instead, so in that regard, I can certainly understand why people have called for May's inclusion in the debate.

Sure, she is a good debater and brings important issues to the table, but in the eyes of many (and I assume those making the decisions) it's the sheer number of people included in the debate that raises the concern. Still others want see a debate between party leaders that have even a remote chance of become the Prime Minister.

The question is, where do we draw the line? In one regard it makes sense to draw it after the Green Party, but if we go by percentage of seats in the parliament, clearly the line should be drawn before the Greens. As has been indicated in the media, the latter criteria is how the determined the cutoff.

Do I have reasons to indicate it was a journalistic decision? Only that one of my parents is a journalist, and corporations never interfere on these kinds of decisions. Do you have reason to indicate corporate interests are determining who is included and excluded?

As to your last question, the best way to figure out who to vote is by attending a Candidate's Forum where we can actually talk directly with the people we'll be voting for. In other words, way too much emphasis is put on the leader's debate (IMO) and not enough on the people who will be representing us in Ottawa. The consortium of CBC, CTV, etc. making decision sits right with me. That's just my opinion anyway.

[nolanrh]

I suppose your position is a sound one, if you assume that corporate interests never influence the content of the media they own. I don't believe that is true, and thus I believe this decision should be made by a group of people setup to be intentionally independent & non-partisan.

You may recognize a better way to decide who to vote for, but the fact remains that many rely on leadership debates to inform themselves. A consortium deciding who participates in a debate does NOT sit right with me.

[wthwyt]

So based on your graph Glacier and way I believe election should be done, voting percentages. The last Federal Election outcome should have looked like this:

Conservatives = 116 seats
Liberals........ = 81 seats
NDP............ = 56 seats
Bloc............. = 32 seats
Greens.......... = 23 seats

Total............ = 308 seats

(+/- 1 or 2)

It will never happen.

[twobits]

And why is it that the electorate focuses on the leadership more than the person they are actually voting for in their riding? Because of forced votes along party lines dictated by the leadership. Let's face it, unfortunately our MP's are sheep and there is only one person holding the herders crook. That is the greatest travesty to our so called democratic system.

[NAB]

If Elizabeth May wants to get her message out (that is get it out beyond the few who already know what it is), let her (and them) get out and run a national campaign like all the credible parties who actually elect members do. She (and they) would find out very quickly how many people who are not hard core Greenies even give a damn about her and her "issues" in this election... much the way hardly anyone outside the province of Quebec really care about the Bloc's platform, and they elect members to the House. So instead of running a national campaign (that they cannot afford anyway because those million or so so called supporters who voted Green in the last election aren't convinced enough to put their money where their mouth and vote is), she wants to ride on the cheap on the coat tails of a nationally televised leadership debate.

As for intelligence, anyone who has a modicum of it would know that their cause has much more chance of making progress if they are a member of a party that actually has a chance of doing something about it, rather than wandering around in the never never land of the activist fringe. (Intelligence isn't much good without some common sense supporting it anyway). But May knows that she is unlikely to be accepted as a candidate for a main stream party, with the possible exception of the NDP, who cannot afford to be choosy about who they "let in" these days or they would have very few candidates at all.

Nab

[Tacklewasher]

Journalists are rarely independent thinkers and unbiased reporters of news these days.

Except Fox News

[NAB]

Journalists are rarely independent thinkers and unbiased reporters of news these days.

Except Fox News

LOL. Glad I don't watch American channels. I suspect folk who do to any significant degree get a very distorted picture of what to expect as real life in Canada. ;-)

Nab