Why is Elizabeth May being blocked?

[steven lloyd]

May's exclusion is either;
gender based discrimination,
political discrimination
or a publicity stunt.

Really Nibs ? Only three possible reasons ?

[Tacklewasher]

Well then maybe our national political debates shouldn't be a private show. I dislike corporations having the power over who is heard.

AGAIN

Who pays for it and what conditions are set as to who attends?

If it's coming out of my taxpayer funds, then I think it is reasonable to restrict it to parties with current MP's.

If we go beyond that, where does the line get drawn and why does it get drawn so your views are represented but the next parties aren't?

[Tacklewasher]

Something interesting in the latest poll.

If you scroll down on this page to the graph of the polling results,

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le1969494/

Right now the Greens are polling at 3.8%. Not only is this down from the 6.8% of the vote received in 08, it is down quite a bit from their pre-vote polling of around 10% last time. I don't know why that is and I don't know what kind of votes that will translate into, but it does seem to give some more credence to not including them.

[albertabound]

We do not need another rude blowhard at the debate like may who has nothing to bring to the table.

[JLives]

Well then maybe our national political debates shouldn't be a private show. I dislike corporations having the power over who is heard.

AGAIN

Who pays for it and what conditions are set as to who attends?

If it's coming out of my taxpayer funds, then I think it is reasonable to restrict it to parties with current MP's.

If we go beyond that, where does the line get drawn and why does it get drawn so your views are represented but the next parties aren't?

I don't care who pays for it. Public or private funds, the line needs to drawn after the Green Party and not before. So we should include Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, the Bloc (even though it pains me to type that) and the Greens. That's it.

Are we voting on who is currently in office or who we want to put in in this future election because using parties with current elected MP's only would infer we want status quo. Many of us are not satisified with that.

[Tacklewasher]

I don't care who pays for it.

I do. As it stands now, we are already paying $300-$400 million for this farce. Don't need to foot the bill for the debate as well.

Public or private funds, the line needs to drawn after the Green Party and not before. So we should include Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, the Bloc (even though it pains me to type that) and the Greens. That's it.

And what is your rationale for the line to be drawn there? Just because that is where you want it to be drawn? What are you using as criteria? I'm not trying to be an *bleep*, but if it is privately funded, they can do as they like and if it is publicly funded, the rules need to be clear and justified. I don't see why the Greens should be included over the next few parties. But I do see why it should be limited to those already in the house.

Are we voting on who is currently in office or who we want to put in in this future election because using parties with current elected MP's only would infer we want status quo. Many of us are not satisified with that.

Again, don't take the inclusion in the debates as a limit to the available choices. All parties can still get their message out through other means and their exclusion from the debates does not mean they are not running or can't get their message out.

[nolanrh]

One alternative criteria would be the number of votes in the previous election. In the same way we set a threshold for parties to receive public funding, we could set a threshold of votes required to participate in a publicly regulated leadership debate.

In the last election the Green Party got 5 times the number of votes as all the other minor parties combined. There is clearly a rational distinction that can be drawn between the Green Party and the remaining parties that did not win seats. In fact, we draw that distinction already in respect to public funding, requiring at least 2% of the popular vote to qualify for per vote funding.

A final thing to consider is the number of Green supporters lost to strategic voting.

Nolan

[NAB]

To me, only the ability to elect members to parliament gives a party credibility. Also IMO there is no way a party should get any funds from the taxpayers based on its share of the popular vote unless it is represented by elected MP's.

Nab

[I Think]

Nab, that is just your opinion, other folks think that the leader of a party which got 900,000 + votes should be allowed full voice.
My opinion is that the Bloc has no place being represented because they are trying to dissolve Canada.

[Bsuds]

Nab, that is just your opinion, other folks think that the leader of a party which got 900,000 + votes should be allowed full voice.
My opinion is that the Bloc has no place being represented because they are trying to dissolve Canada.

As well as they are restricted to only one province so are not national and should not even be included. At least the Greens are across Canada.

[NAB]

Nab, that is just your opinion, other folks think that the leader of a party which got 900,000 + votes should be allowed full voice.
My opinion is that the Bloc has no place being represented because they are trying to dissolve Canada.

Of course it is my opinion nibs. That's what "IMO" stands for. Other's are entitled to their opinion as well and we can only really debate the issues that form the basis of anyone's personal opinion as to their validity.. I just don't consider 900,000 votes a big deal, unless they elect someone. It will be interesting to see how many votes the Greens get this time as a proportion of votes cast, particularly if we get a major turnout of voters.

I do agree on the Bloc thing however, as I have indicated in prior posts. No organization that does not have the interests of the country as a whole at heart should neither be involved in national debates, nor for that matter even represented in the national parliament in any way. It particularly should not be in a position to make the call as to whether a national government is to be brought down by the opposition on a non-confidence vote - which is what happened a little over a week ago. In essence, a bunch of separatists, interested only in a minority sector of voters in one province, brought the business of Canada to a halt. Fortunately, the Greens are unlikely to ever be in a position to do that, although I suspect they would love to give it a shot if their narrow agenda, much like the Bloc's, ever gained credibility and traction.

Nab

[Tacklewasher]

Well. She is going to take it to court.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le1971157/

Based on previous rulings, she is going to lose.

I can't believe I'm agreeing with the CRTC on something, but

the CRTC, has ruled the networks do not have a legal obligation to set rules on who gets in and who doesn’t.

and I do agree with that.

Oh well. More money and court time wasted on something that has already been ruled on.

[NAB]

Well, if May is successful (which I doubt she will be) in forcing the media to include her... were it me I would cancel the debate all together, and let the political parties organize and fund their own if they want one based on each participating party paying an equal share of the total cost. Then we would see if May and the Greens are prepared to put their money where their mouth is instead of constantly trying to ride on the coat tails of everyone else or the taxpayers.

May's probably done as Green Leader after this election anyway if she doesn't win a seat.

Nab

[Loed]

The problem is it's so difficult to get your foot in the door. 900,000 votes in Canada isn't paltry and shouldn't be treated as such.
A lot of this stuff is just PR moves by all the parties involved.
It's sad that a party so openly against Canada, is allowed to run. While I understand freedom of speech, that kind of stance is just so anti-everything. It makes no sense, yet people vote them in.

I really wish it was feasible to be involved in politics sometimes.

[Tacklewasher]

I really wish it was feasible to be involved in politics sometimes.

Just get a partial lobotomy and put a big magnet next to your moral compass.