Sep 17 leaders debate

Canada_First · September 18, 2015

It doesn't matter, you either believe in Democracy or you don't.

Democracy lost with that debate.

How was democracy lost?

G Huxley · September 18, 2015

Because the leader of a party with MPs in the house of commons and the most respected parliamentarian in Canada was denied a place in the debate.

That is a loss for Democracy, which requires the people to be represented and have diversity, choice and a fair voice and a win for authoritarians in Canada.

Edited September 18, 2015 by G Huxley

Smallc · September 18, 2015

"I know things are not exactly great in the economy", said Harper.

Only in Canada would such an admission not be considered a fatal political mistake.

He's not the Iraqi information minister. He can say things the way they are when they're plainly obvious, I would think.

Smallc · September 18, 2015

Because the leader of a party with MPs in the house of commons and the most respected parliamentarian in Canada was denied a place in the debate.

She's not going to be the prime minister at the end of this. One of the 3 men on stage tonight will be. That's the difference.

G Huxley · September 18, 2015

He's not the Iraqi information minister. He can say things the way they are when they're plainly obvious, I would think.

He may have to do that testifying on Duffy.

G Huxley · September 18, 2015

She's not going to be the prime minister at the end of this. One of the 3 men on stage tonight will be. That's the difference.

It's really not a difference because Democracy can't be based on induction. You can't say 'I think such and such will win so only they have a chance.' You have to give everyone a fair chance and let the voter decide, not decide for them in advance by not giving them a choice. That is how authoritarianism works, not democracy.

Smallc · September 18, 2015

It's really not a difference because Democracy can't be based on induction. You can't say 'I think such and such will win so only they have a chance.' You have to give everyone a fair chance and let the voter decide, not decide for them in advance by not giving them a choice.

Should the leader of the Christian Heritage Party be there?

G Huxley · September 18, 2015

Yes, why not? Everyone deserves a fair voice. If they can field enough candidates that shows that they were able to get at least a thousand people to sign in numerous ridings, that means that they are already representing a portion of the electorate which in a democracy deserves at least a chance at getting elected.

And thankfully we have a parliamentary system and not a winner takes all system like they have in the States so it's not just All about the future prime minister, in fact it's really not, as the next government will likely be a coalition.

Edited September 18, 2015 by G Huxley

Canada_First · September 18, 2015

It's really not a difference because Democracy can't be based on induction. You can't say 'I think such and such will win so only they have a chance.' You have to give everyone a fair chance and let the voter decide, not decide for them in advance by not giving them a choice. That is how authoritarianism works, not democracy.

Greens polling at 4% nationally. Regardless of anyone's wildest dreams May will not be PM. Plus she's an American.

G Huxley · September 18, 2015

In my province May is polling 10-16% which is massive, and some polls have suggested the Greens may take every riding on Vancouver Island where I live. And as I already said Democracy can't be decided by induction in advance. You can't base democracy on the polls for an election, but on the result of a fair election after a fair process. If no one is ever given a fair and level chance then no one else will have a chance. That's logic. That's the difference between authoritarianism and democracy.

Edited September 18, 2015 by G Huxley

Smallc · September 18, 2015

Yes, why not? Everyone deserves a fair voice.

Because you have to draw the line somewhere.

G Huxley · September 18, 2015

The line should be obvious. If a party can field a certain number of candidates nationally I'd say 20 then they should be able to participate in the national election debates at least if it was a real democracy.

The majority of Canadians in polls have also said that May should be allowed to participate in the debates, so if it was a democracy and not a charade of one she would be.

Edited September 18, 2015 by G Huxley

hitops · September 18, 2015

In my province May is polling 10-16% which is massive, and some polls have suggested the Greens may take every riding on Vancouver Island where I live. And as I already said Democracy can't be decided by induction in advance. You can't base democracy on the polls for an election, but on the result of a fair election after a fair process. If no one is ever given a fair and level chance then no one else will have a chance. That's logic. That's the difference between authoritarianism and democracy.

The debate is not enshrined in law, there is nothing saying we have to hold a single one. Private entities are holding them, and they can invite whoever they want. They invite who they think is relevant to the viewers. The most democratic aspect about these debate is that these media companies have the freedom to do that. If they want to invite only Justin Trudeau and have him stare lovingly into the camera for 2 hours, they can do that. Of course, nobody would watch it. If they don't want May, there's nothing un-democratic about it any more than you as a private citizen not giving equal praise to each candidate on this forum.

Edited September 18, 2015 by hitops

G Huxley · September 18, 2015

"Private entities are holding them, and they can invite whoever they want. They invite who they think is relevant to the viewers."

That's exactly what is wrong here. We are seeing the piratization of democracy by vested corporate interests and the main parties going along with it.

Edited September 18, 2015 by G Huxley

Canada_First · September 18, 2015

In my province May is polling 10-16% which is massive, and some polls have suggested the Greens may take every riding on Vancouver Island where I live. And as I already said Democracy can't be decided by induction in advance. You can't base democracy on the polls for an election, but on the result of a fair election after a fair process. If no one is ever given a fair and level chance then no one else will have a chance. That's logic. That's the difference between authoritarianism and democracy.

If the Greens have the best platform. People will vote for them regardless of participation in the debates. I like the Green party but they don't belong in the debates until they have a lot more seats. 12 seats plus.

hitops · September 18, 2015

"Private entities are holding them, and they can invite whoever they want. They invite who they think is relevant to the viewers."

That's exactly what is wrong here. We are seeing the piratization of democracy by vested corporate interests and the main parties going along with it.

Democracy IS a private activity. It is private individuals participating. Anyone can hold a debate. You can hold your own debate, and there is nothing forcing you to watch anybody else's. The Globe and Mail is not taxpayer funded. They can invite whoever they want, and if you don't like it, then don't buy their newspaper.

There is nothing about democracy that requires any single candidate, or any group of candidates to be invited to any given place at any given time.

Edited September 18, 2015 by hitops

G Huxley · September 18, 2015

If the Greens have the best platform. People will vote for them regardless of participation in the debates. I like the Green party but they don't belong in the debates until they have a lot more seats. 12 seats plus.

That's not true. Probably less than a percentage of those who vote green nationally actually read party platforms sadly enough.

G Huxley · September 18, 2015

Democracy IS a private activity. It is private individuals participating. Anyone can hold a debate. You can hold your own debate, and there is nothing forcing you to watch anybody else's. The Globe and Mail is not taxpayer funded. They can invite whoever they want, and if you don't like it, then don't buy their newspaper.

There is nothing about democracy that requires any single candidate, or any group of candidates to be invited to any given place at any given time.

Of course you are free to be anti-democratic in a democracy as Harper and Mulcair have shown in their anti-democratic exclusionary authortiarianism.

Canada_First · September 18, 2015

That's not true. Probably less than a percentage of those who vote green nationally actually read party platforms sadly enough.

It's no secret that I'm a Tory voter but I have also voted Green as I did in my provinces last election and would do so again.

If people still don't know the Green platform after the longest writ period in decades then that speaks to a failure in the Green campaign Imo.

G Huxley · September 18, 2015

Of course not, as I said previously only a very small percentage of Canadians actually read party platforms.

69cat · September 18, 2015

I have to like TM for nailing JT to the wall. Just after JT attacked Harper for deficit spending TM says, "but you plan to run $10B a year for three years". Burn.

And Harper something to the effect of "For seven years i have been coming to work and it has been either the banking crisis, housing bubble, world financial crisis and now China. Things in the world are still unsettled and so we must keep the budget balanced". Couldnt have summed things up better.

G Huxley · September 18, 2015

And 6 years of Harper running deficits sure proves it.

Canada_First · September 18, 2015

And 6 years of Harper running deficits sure proves it.

The important thing is that PM Harper has the best plan moving forward. The other two will put Canada into serious deficit for generations and will have nearly unchecked immigration. Both of these things are dangerous to our security and our financial stability. We will become like Greece potentially. That us very scary.