Evening Star Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 In the past, the NDP should not have been invited. Now, the 3 people on stage have a legitimate chance of becoming head of government. That seems to be the most reasonable test for a national debate stage. Well, what is the criterion for determining who has a legitimate chance at becoming head of government? At the start of the 2011 campaign, some people were calling for 2-man Harper/Ignatieff debates, arguing that they were the only two who had a 'legitimate chance' - of course, the Liberals ended up a distant third and the NDP became Official Opposition. I'm fine with using 'holds a seat in the House' and could even understand 'official party status' as the criterion but 'has a legitimate chance' seems problematic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Because... you think that the only position of any importance is the head of state? Head of government (totally different position - that explains your earlier lack of understanding). Elizabeth may doesn't belong in a debate between potential prime ministers, your mistaken inferences non withstanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 (edited) 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. We have one female leader of a political party. She should be on stage with the rest of the men. Edited September 20, 2015 by WestCoastRunner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Well, what is the criterion for determining who has a legitimate chance at becoming head of government? At the start of the 2011 campaign, some people were calling for 2-man Harper/Ignatieff debates, arguing that they were the only two who had a 'legitimate chance' - of course, the Liberals ended up a distant third and the NDP became Official Opposition. Yes, that's the only problem that I see with the idea. Still, to me anyway, it feels like Elizabeth may debating with potential prime ministers (something not even she claims that she can become) is a waste of her time and mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Huxley Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 (edited) "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. Edited September 20, 2015 by G Huxley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Fiorina went from happy hour status to 2nd place based purely on the debates. The important thing to mention here - she wasn't at the main debate. She was in fact at a second (well, first) debate for people with lower support in the polls. I'd have no problem with that - two different debates, one with frontrunners and one with the rest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Yes, that's the only problem that I see with the idea. Still, to me anyway, it feels like Elizabeth may debating with potential prime ministers (something not even she claims that she can become) is a waste of her time and mine. It may be a waste of your time but so what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Huxley Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 (edited) Yes, that's the only problem that I see with the idea. Still, to me anyway, it feels like Elizabeth may debating with potential prime ministers (something not even she claims that she can become) is a waste of her time and mine. Naturally as a conservative you don't want others to have a voice. I'm sorry that you consider democracy a waste of your time. Edited September 20, 2015 by G Huxley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 It may be a waste of your time but so what. The more people on the stage, the more difficult the debates become, and the less meaningful they become overall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Naturally as a conservative you don't want others to have a voice. I'm sorry that you consider democracy a waste of your time. I'm actually leaning Liberal the this point, in spite of Justin Trudeau. I prefer Thomas Mulcair as leader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 The more people on the stage, the more difficult the debates become, and the less meaningful they become overall. Seriously. You can't follow 4 leaders in a debate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Huxley Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 (edited) "The more people on the stage, the more difficult the debates become, and the less meaningful they become overall." How does less more ideas and people represented make them less meaningful? Edited September 20, 2015 by G Huxley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Huxley Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Seriously. You can't follow 4 leaders in a debate? Choice is very overwhelming for some. To them democracy is just too complicated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 The more people on the stage, the more difficult the debates become, and the less meaningful they become overall. The thing is, I didn't feel this way about the Maclean's debate. I thought May brought a lot of value. (She was the strongest there imo.) The Globe debate was much more of a mess, with only three competitors on stage. To be clear, I don't even think the Greens have a case here. If Munk just wants to invite leaders of parties with 'official status', that is their prerogative afaic. I'm just interested in what people think of the criteria + I enjoy seeing May in debates! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 The important thing to mention here - she wasn't at the main debate. She was in fact at a second (well, first) debate for people with lower support in the polls. I'd have no problem with that - two different debates, one with frontrunners and one with the rest. We don't have 20 zillion people running. Do you seriously see the need for a happy hour debate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Seriously. You can't follow 4 leaders in a debate? Actually, there should be 6, if we're talking anyone with seats in the house at dissolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Actually, there should be 6, if we're talking anyone with seats in the house at dissolution.I have no problem with 6. I can keep up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 The thing is, I didn't feel this way about the Maclean's debate. I thought May brought a lot of value. (She was the strongest there imo.) She certainly knows her stuff, but her ideas don't play to the majority of Canadians - hence her party's current standing in the polls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 I have no problem with 6. I can keep up. Good for you. Most of the people organizing the debates appear to have agreed with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Huxley Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 "To be clear, I don't even think the Greens have a case here. If Munk just wants to invite leaders of parties with 'official status', that is their prerogative afaic"It goes against their claim to be a non partisan organization however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 We don't have 20 zillion people running. No, we don't. We have 3 serious contenders, and those other people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Huxley Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 "She certainly knows her stuff, but her ideas don't play to the majority of Canadians - hence her party's current standing in the polls. "On the contrary May has been polled as the most respected leader by Canadians and Harper the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 It goes against their claim to be a non partisan organization however. Clearly explain how. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 She certainly knows her stuff, but her ideas don't play to the majority of Canadians - hence her party's current standing in the polls. So what? Let her debate against the big boys. Let's she what she's made of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 We don't have 20 zillion people running. Do you seriously see the need for a happy hour debate? Well, there are 21 parties registered for this election: http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?dir=par&document=index〈=e§ion=pol I would be genuinely interested in seeing a debate that included the Communists and Libertarians, actually. I'm not sure how to make it manageable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.