G Huxley

"Fiorina went from happy hour status to 2nd place based purely on the debates. The Green Party could very well do the same given the opportunity. Who knows what can happen." Of course that is why the other parties are so terrified of the greens and of democracy itself.

"The debate organizers are private concerns. They owe no particular political party any favors." On the contrary the debate organizers owe Harper for the debate which will make them a lot of money and prestige and as the article has shown they have been funding conservative think tanks. Tid for tat and quid pro quo wink wink. "The Greens will be lucky if they get anywhere beyond re-electing their leader. They are a fringe party of no particular note, so as far as I'm concerned they haven't earned the right to be involved in a national debate." Your opposition to Democracy has been noted. Their leader is currently the most respected parliamentarian in Ottawa. "Heck, until they've shown they can even produce enough MPs to earn Official Party status in Parliament, I don't think they should even be considered." I'm sure you didn't apply the same logic to the Reform party the antecessor to the current Conservative Party when they had no seats and were allowed in the debates.

For last election, not this election.

The voter at the polls on election day are supposed to pick the front runners not the debate organizers.

Parties can be regional. That's part of Democracy in Canada.

There have been lots of parties without official party status that have taken part in the debates. The Progressive Conservative Party, (part antecessor to the current Conservative party and had the same number of Federal MPs in 1993 as the current Green Party), the Reform party (the main antecessor to the current conservative party) etc. Oh but they have a short term memory don't they? They benefited from being allowed in the debates without Official Party Status sometimes even without any seat at all, and now they are excluding others by having different debates run by funders of right wing think tanks. The right wing authoritarians are on the march against Democracy.

It's a full circle so the money from the debates is going to end up funding conservative right wing think tanks. It's about time Conservative party supporters realize that they are taking part in a genuine movement against Canadian democracy.

From the article: "The Aurea Foundation, with assets of almost $16 million, reported no political activities in its most-recent filing with the CRA last year. It helped fund a group of largely conservative think-tanks, including the Fraser Institute, the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and the Montreal Economic Institute."

Excellent. Canadians have to fight for Democracy as the dominant powers will do everything they can to stop it.

The reason that Canada did better in the crisis than our neighbours down south is that we had more financial regulation in place and the high oil prices were boueying the dollar/economy.

"What do you define as significant? Quebec is about 23% of Canada, population wise. Even if every person in Quebec voted for this party they wouldn't have a chance of getting in however you think they should represent Canada as a whole?" Each segment makes up the whole. Almost a quarter of Canada's population is a very significant amount, but the number is irrelevant. What matters is that the Quebecers deserve the representation they choose just like everyone else. Most voters don't feel the conservative party represents them, so the idea that the reigning party represents all Canadians is false. "I didn't ask if you have or would vote for them, I am asking if you 'can' vote for them. If you don't live in Quebec then you certainly cannot vote for them. Democracy is about choice....so how's my inability to vote for the Bloc democratic? Its not." You can still vote for them. You could write Gilles Duceppe in on the ballot. " Again...this is all about being given the opportunity to choose the party which the Bloc will never do outside of Quebec. Hence should not be considered a national party. " When you vote you aren't necessarily voting for the next national party. Some people vote for who the opposition will be. I've never voted for a party that won Nationally. Also there was a time when it looked likely the Bloc was going to be part of a national coalition. So if that came to pass they would have been part of a National government.

"You keep talking about democracy but have you ever looked up the definition of democracy?" I've written papers on the origin of Democracy. "Whole population. How does the Bloc represent the whole population?" Simple answer. Each segment of the population makes up the whole. The Bloc represents a significant portion of the Canadian population, so to exclude them from the process is anti-democratic. "I couldn't vote for them if I wanted to." I've never voted for them either, but that doesn't mean others shouldn't have the option of voting for them. "They are not a national party and should not be at a federal election based on the fact they don't represent the whole population" They are a national party and no party represents the whole population. The current party in power doesn't even represent a majority of voters.

In my memory this is the first time this has ever happened. Harper's official reasoning for not attending the consortium debate is that he called it "A cabal" paranoia talk. So then he goes to elitist organizations that excluded the Greens in the new debate. So his talk about cabal was double think, his real problem was that it wasn't cabal enough for him. Mulcair's reasoning is that he would only debate in debates the Prime Minister was in. In other words going along with Harper's exclusionary tactics because it would keep May out of the debates and improve his numbers. His predecessor Jack Layton for a time tried to keep May out of the debates until enough people in his party protested at his anti-democratic position. That process resulted in May finally being allowed in the debates previously.

The electoral college is winner take all though. Because the results of the electoral college are what determine who the next president is. You're right though that the parties in Canada are more tyrannous to their own members. Step out of line or say something sleightly which they don't want the public to hear and they get booted out of the party.

They aren't but such is democracy. They deserve a chance to like everyone else. Quebec deserves representation of their choice like all the other provinces. Just because you disagree with them, doesn't mean they shouldn't have a fair chance like everyone else. Even if they don't form the government they can still have influence. Again since we have a parliamentary system it isn't winner takes all like it is with the presidential system in the States.

Yes in fact Harper was simply emulating Cameron's contempt for democracy hijinx. It seems that the authoritarian image worked in the participatory panopticon which is the 21st century UK and Harper is hoping it works in Canada too.

69cat: Harper and Mulcair split from the Consortium debates in favour of these ones because it meant May was going to be discluded from them. Otherwise why would they have ditched the Consortium debates which most Canadians would have watched? It's pretty obvious.

Accountability Now: I don't see what the problem with letting the Bloc in the debates is. So they have a regional agenda like everyone else. They have a lot of support. Let them be heard. Frankly it seemed Gilles Duceppe was about the only genuine person in the debates for a period of time. I'm from the West coast, but found myself musing that he would make the best federal leader. As for his recent return as head of the Bloc, I think it's pretty sad given the circumstances.

Again Official Party Status is not relevant to the debates it's an internal thing in the House of Commons set up by the Trudeau govt in the 1970s. In a fair election the debates should not be exclusionary. Canadian politics is already regional. The voter distribution between parties across Canada demonstrates this and 20 candidates would cover a huge region. The fear of regional politics in Canada is pretty absurd when Canadian politics is already basically regional. If you really want to get rid of regional politics then proportionate representation rather than riding based elections would be the way to go. Yes the parties are free to have separate debates, but they have been undemocratic in choosing debates purposely excluding others so as to make the election process unfair. This is undemocratic and I won't be voting for undemocratic parties. My ancestors fought for Democracy in Canada and I will continue that struggle despite the party elite's and many of their followers efforts to prevent it in Canada.

69 I made no mention of the Bloc. I have said previously in fact that I consider that the Bloc should be allowed in the debates and I thought Gilles Duceppe was a good debater. In fact for a time I considered him to have been the best debater in the Federal debates. What I have already said in this thread as what I consider the qualification for people to enter the federal debates is if they have registered 20 candidates nationally, which would require that they gathered 20000 signatures nationally in support of their candidates running showing that there is a genuine movement.

Cybercoma: Thank you I note though that the information regarding it has nothing to do with democratic elections, but rather what happens after the elections in the House of Commons in so far as parties are concerned: ``Though the Canada Elections Act defines it, there is no single accepted definition of what constitutes a “political party.” `` In 1963, the Speaker also suggested that a distinction might be drawn between political parties that contest an election, and those that are formed subsequently.`` In answer as to who was responsible for passing the act it seems to have been the government of Pierre Trudeau in the 1970s.

Again that`s in the House of Commons. The electoral process is outside of the House of Commons.

Thank you Vancouver King! Another true supporter of Democracy in Canada here!

Who decided on the 'official party status?' the elite seeking to maintain the status quo so yes it is undemocratic. Also it applies to the elected bodies, it doesn't apply to the actual election process. e.g. it has no bearing whatsoever on the debates. May was allowed to be in the debate that Harper and Mulcair jumped ship on.

Thank you finally another person who believes in Democracy in this thread. My respects to you.