Canadian Federal Party Leaders Debates

[ToadBrother]

I suspect Mulcair is going to eat Trudeau's lunch in the debates. It's going to be embarrassing for Justin.

That may be, but it still won't do the NDP much good. From the Liberals' point of view, better Mulcair win than Harper, because a Mulcair win is pretty much neutral, whereas a Harper win could do some damage.

[Topaz]

Of course, May should be in there, she was before and got elected to Parliament. May and Tom, being lawyers can express themselves very well. Harper has to run on his track record and all the candidates have the right to question Harper on his actions. Many families don't have time to know what's going on in Ottawa and the debates may make things clearer for those people. I hope the younger generation listens to these debates because with Harper sending troops to Ukraine, if Harper gets another 4 years Canada could be at war and Harper could draft many people into military since our military isn't that strong.

[Remiel]

Neither the Bloc nor the FD are national parties. They have no business at all in the English debates, given the Bloc's drastically reduced statue and the fact that FD has never actually had someone elected to Parliament. This is where the Green Party is different: they have actually elected someone to Parliament. I would put the candidate threshhold a bit higher, at 90%, and say that anyone who both meets that criteria and had members elected to Parliament (as a member of the party in question) in at least one of the previous two elections automatically gains inclusion. A second method of gaining entry to debates would be having candidates running in 90% of ridings and possessing in the House of Commons more than 2% of the seats, rounded up (so 7).

The French debates are a bit different. I would venture similar rules, but they would be counted as a proportion of seats that have a base percentage, say 20-25%, of francophone residents.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Remiel

[Remiel]

No she shouldn't, if she is than all of the other fringe parties should be. She really has nothing to say, anyone could spew all kinds of unrealistic nonsense about the environment but eventually the reality of people needing real jobs to feed their families kicks in and the pollyanna vision of our green future goes by the way side.

Why is it only unreasonable to spew nonsense on the environment? Why are candidates who do nothing but spew nonsense on other topics not get threatened with exclusion. Like Stephen Harper.

[PIK]

Sop topaz I guess you did not see the debate she was in. Where she embarrassed the party with her rudeness and arrogance.

Edited April 14, 2015 by PIK

[overthere]

May won 1 seat and got less than 4% of the popular vote in the 2011, which was substantially less than she got in the previous election.

This somehow qualifies her for a seat in a leadership debate?

If you are going by seat count or popular vote, a better choice would be Duceppes replacement.

[cybercoma]

She is the leader of a party with 2 seats.

If she is in , then Party Leaders Mario Beaulieu (Bloc, 2 seats) and Jean Francois Fortin( 2 seats, Forces et Democratie) must also have a voice. And if we are allowing marginal voices a chance to shout at each other, how can we exclude any of the 8 Independents?

The challenge for Mulcair will be to simultaneously attack and belittle his opposition while at the same time appearing to be a statesman. Tightrope!

The BQ was the official opposition some years ago, so I understand why they're in the debates. I don't believe they should be because they don't run candidates in a substantial majority of ridings. The same goes for FD. Independents don't get a seat at the leaders debate because they are not party leaders—that should be obvious. Those independents are typically invited to the debates in their constituency where they are running. They have absolutely no bearing on the rest of Canada, so why on earth should they be in the national debate? Like I said, if a party has enough membership that it can run candidates in just about every riding, then they should have a national platform to have their positions heard. Independents don't fit that bill and the Québécois Nationalist parties don't either.

[Bryan]

At 4% of the vote, The Greens have not even come close to meeting any reasonable expectation of accommodation in the debates. The problems with the debate format right now is not that voices are not heard, rather than there are already too many included. It turns the "debate" into an unproductive yelling match.

[ToadBrother]

The BQ was the official opposition some years ago, so I understand why they're in the debates. I don't believe they should be because they don't run candidates in a substantial majority of ridings. The same goes for FD. Independents don't get a seat at the leaders debate because they are not party leaders—that should be obvious. Those independents are typically invited to the debates in their constituency where they are running. They have absolutely no bearing on the rest of Canada, so why on earth should they be in the national debate? Like I said, if a party has enough membership that it can run candidates in just about every riding, then they should have a national platform to have their positions heard. Independents don't fit that bill and the Québécois Nationalist parties don't either.

I tend to agree. The rules should be:

1. Has Official Party Status

2a. And has run candidates in a large majority of ridings nationally (and by large majority, I'm thinking at least 75%)

2b. Or holds a significant number of seats in Parliament (say at least 10% of seats).

The Greens certainly ran lots of candidates, but it failed rule 1. The Bloc failed rule 2a, but until the meltdown in 2011, still held at least 10% of seats since the 1990s, thus passing rule 2b. 2b allows for the chance of regional parties to still get in on the debate.

[cybercoma]

Why is it only unreasonable to spew nonsense on the environment? Why are candidates who do nothing but spew nonsense on other topics not get threatened with exclusion. Like Stephen Harper.

Didn't you get the memo? Environmentalists are terrorists, which I guess makes Elizabeth May the leader of a terrorist organization.

[ToadBrother]

At 4% of the vote, The Greens have not even come close to meeting any reasonable expectation of accommodation in the debates. The problems with the debate format right now is not that voices are not heard, rather than there are already too many included. It turns the "debate" into an unproductive yelling match.

I have felt the same way about All Candidates Meetings, at least in my riding (both Federal and Provincial). You end up giving the Marxist-Leninist candidate, whose total votes you can usually count without resorting to your toes, getting equal time with the Tory, Liberal and NDP candidates. I finally stopped going, because I simply did not care what the Marijuana Party candidate had to say, and yet he and three or four other fringe candidates with absolutely no chance of being elected before the heat death of the Universe were given equal billing.

[Keepitsimple]

At 4% of the vote, The Greens have not even come close to meeting any reasonable expectation of accommodation in the debates. The problems with the debate format right now is not that voices are not heard, rather than there are already too many included. It turns the "debate" into an unproductive yelling match.

I agree - but I'm OK with allowing the Greens - and other parties who meet a threshold - to have two or three minutes of National airtime to address the nation, say what they stand for, outline one or two key platform planks and then refer to their website for more information. This would occur at the outset, prior to the main parties making their opening statements.

[ToadBrother]

I agree - but I'm OK with allowing the Greens - and other parties who meet a threshold - to have two or three minutes of National airtime to address the nation, say what they stand for, outline one or two key platform planks and then refer to their website for more information. This would occur at the outset, prior to the main parties making their opening statements.

That, to my mind, would be the better solution. It allows them a national platform, but doesn't clutter the leaders' debates with people who really have not earned the spot.

[cybercoma]

I have felt the same way about All Candidates Meetings, at least in my riding (both Federal and Provincial). You end up giving the Marxist-Leninist candidate, whose total votes you can usually count without resorting to your toes, getting equal time with the Tory, Liberal and NDP candidates. I finally stopped going, because I simply did not care what the Marijuana Party candidate had to say, and yet he and three or four other fringe candidates with absolutely no chance of being elected before the heat death of the Universe were given equal billing.

At the riding level, everyone running should be heard.

[ToadBrother]

At the riding level, everyone running should be heard.

And they are. The local newspapers usually have spreads detailing the candidates. But when I went to an ACM, I really wanted to hear what the candidates who were likely to represent me had to say, and really didn't care what some lady who was going to get no more than about 8 or 9 votes thought on any subject.

When I was a young, we used to play the post-election "Name the Commie" game, where we tried to guess at who the five people who voted for the Communist Party were, and we always knew at least two of them were; our neighbor, who was the candidate for the Communist Party for like thirty years, and his wife, though we did ponder if she really voted for him in the privacy of the voting booth

[Bryan]

I agree - but I'm OK with allowing the Greens - and other parties who meet a threshold - to have two or three minutes of National airtime to address the nation, say what they stand for, outline one or two key platform planks and then refer to their website for more information. This would occur at the outset, prior to the main parties making their opening statements.

That's a good plan. have a tough threshold to actually debate such as the one ToadBrother suggested, but then have a lesser one that if you qualify, you at least get to make an opening statement before the debate begins.

[ToadBrother]

That's a good plan. have a tough threshold to actually debate such as the one ToadBrother suggested, but then have a lesser one that if you qualify, you at least get to make an opening statement before the debate begins.

Perhaps rule 3 could be "If you have run candidates in at least 75% of the ridings or half the REGIONS in the country, you get three or four three minute spots on the national networks."

[Bryan]

Perhaps rule 3 could be "If you have run candidates in at least 75% of the ridings or half the REGIONS in the country, you get three or four three minute spots on the national networks."

I see what you did there: Bloq doesn't even get an opening statement in your scenario! Well played, but perhaps a bit too harsh if the appearance of inclusion is the goal?

[Big Guy]

Interesting!

How does a small minority party then become a major or dominant party if it is not given the same opportunity to spread its message?

The various networks donate the time for these "debates". Is there a better or more efficient or more effective method or format of allowing each political party free television time (giving them all the same access) and still maintaining some semblance of control?

The TV debate is a recent phenomena. In the USA it has now progressed to additional debates between candidates for Vice President.

Has any televised debate changed your mind as to your choice of candidate?

[overthere]

The BQ was the official opposition some years ago, so I understand why they're in the debates. I don't believe they should be because they don't run candidates in a substantial majority of ridings. The same goes for FD. Independents don't get a seat at the leaders debate because they are not party leaders—that should be obvious. Those independents are typically invited to the debates in their constituency where they are running. They have absolutely no bearing on the rest of Canada, so why on earth should they be in the national debate? Like I said, if a party has enough membership that it can run candidates in just about every riding, then they should have a national platform to have their positions heard. Independents don't fit that bill and the Québécois Nationalist parties don't either.

So the small and shrinking popular vote, and the lack of seats for the Greens are not relevant?

The only criteria is running losing candidates in many ridings?

[Bryan]

So the small and shrinking popular vote, and the lack of seats for the Greens are not relevant?

The only criteria is running losing candidates in many ridings?

That's the key thing. The requirements can't skewed to allow one group in over another. It needs to be a universal standard. IMO, the BQ should never have passed any standard only because they were too regional. I don't know what the line should be, but it seems pretty obvious to me that if you run candidates in only one province, you shouldn't count as a national party (even if you win every seat in that province). What ever the line is, it needs to reflect an appreciable level of nation-wide support. The same should apply if the LPC had no support outside Ontario, or the Conservatives had nothing outside of Alberta.

[overthere]

The Libertarians already have 60 announced candidates, how many more before they get on the national debate in your opinion?

[ToadBrother]

That's the key thing. The requirements can't skewed to allow one group in over another. It needs to be a universal standard. IMO, the BQ should never have passed any standard only because they were too regional. I don't know what the line should be, but it seems pretty obvious to me that if you run candidates in only one province, you shouldn't count as a national party (even if you win every seat in that province). What ever the line is, it needs to reflect an appreciable level of nation-wide support. The same should apply if the LPC had no support outside Ontario, or the Conservatives had nothing outside of Alberta.

If you have Official Party Status already, I think your inclusion in the debates should be automatic.

[Bryan]

If you have Official Party Status already, I think your inclusion in the debates should be automatic.

Even if you only represent one province, and have made no attempt to even pretend to be a national party?

Besides that, it also still leaves the door open for the multi-person person shouting matches we've sen before. It's not a debate when it's structured like that. How would you structure the debate itself so that would actually work?

[Remiel]

"The Consortium" has invited Elizabeth May to the debates. Looks like a done deal.