betsy Posted April 16, 2007 Report Posted April 16, 2007 The Green Party had always wanted and tried to get in on the election debates between leaders. The reason they were not included before was due to the numbers of seats that they have. There's some buzz by pundits that on the next election....the Green might get a spot. But how could it be now that Elizabeth May is endorsing Dion to be the Prime Minister? Is it still okay? Quote
geoffrey Posted April 16, 2007 Report Posted April 16, 2007 I don't really see much value in giving Dion a translator? Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") --
Michael Bluth Posted April 16, 2007 Report Posted April 16, 2007 The Green Party had always wanted and tried to get in on the election debates between leaders. The reason they were not included before was due to the numbers of seats that they have. There's some buzz by pundits that on the next election....the Green might get a spot. But how could it be now that Elizabeth May is endorsing Dion to be the Prime Minister? Is it still okay? I don't know if OK is really the question at this point. May's inclusion in the debates will require some level of agreement among the four parties who have taken part in the last two Federal elections. After the formation of the Dion-May axis something tells me the Greens, NDP and Conservatives aren't going to be too receptive to the Mayster taking part. Quote No one has ever defeated the Liberals with a divided conservative family. - Hon. Jim Prentice
blueblood Posted April 16, 2007 Report Posted April 16, 2007 The Green Party had always wanted and tried to get in on the election debates between leaders. The reason they were not included before was due to the numbers of seats that they have. There's some buzz by pundits that on the next election....the Green might get a spot. But how could it be now that Elizabeth May is endorsing Dion to be the Prime Minister? Is it still okay? No, no seat no spot, I'd even go to say have official party status in the HOC to participate in the debate. Why not let the leaders of other parties in the official debate then, how about all the independant MPs then too. Just because May is making a buzz in the media does not give her the right to participate, put people in the seats. Was the reform party in the debate in 88? Quote "Stop the Madness!!!" - Kevin O'Leary "Money is the ultimate scorecard of life!". - Kevin O'Leary Economic Left/Right: 4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77
jdobbin Posted April 16, 2007 Report Posted April 16, 2007 Do we ever know there is going to be a debate? Quote
August1991 Posted April 16, 2007 Report Posted April 16, 2007 Elizabeth May has more reason to be involved in the English debate than Duceppe does. The debates are organized by a consortium of TV networks. It will be for it to decide who to invite to the next debates - assuming the debates take place. In 2006, the Greens got about 660,000 votes or about 4.5% of all votes cast. In 2004, they got 580,000 votes or about 3.5% of the total. Quote
searchingforaformerclearity Posted April 16, 2007 Report Posted April 16, 2007 The "no seat no spot" rule is ridiculous. People need choices in a democracy and therefore the media spotlight needs to be shared amoung all party leaders, even the fringe ones. Quote
DFCaper Posted April 16, 2007 Report Posted April 16, 2007 (edited) No, no seat no spot, I'd even go to say have official party status in the HOC to participate in the debate. Why not let the leaders of other parties in the official debate then, how about all the independant MPs then too. Just because May is making a buzz in the media does not give her the right to participate, put people in the seats. Was the reform party in the debate in 88? I agree completely. Should be an Offical Party Leader to qualify. Unless the other parties all agree. Which I doubt they would. Edited November 29, 2008 by Charles Anthony fixed quotation format Quote "Although the world is full of suffering, it is full also of the overcoming of it" - Hellen Keller "Success is not measured by the heights one attains, but by the obstacles one overcomes in its attainment" - Booker T. Washington
Martin Chriton Posted April 16, 2007 Report Posted April 16, 2007 There is a rule for this: if you don't have a seat you're not invited. Exceptions shouldn't be made on a per party basis. If you want the Greens included get the rules changed so *any* party now and in the future that meets those criteria can be included. Exceptions shouldn't be granted when it's advantageous for a party to bring in a "fan". Personally, I dislike the debates as there is already so many parties participating, not much debating actually takes place. Maybe one of the debates should just be between the top 2-3 parties? Quote
Canuck E Stan Posted April 16, 2007 Report Posted April 16, 2007 Elizabeth May has more reason to be involved in the English debate than Duceppe does.The debates are organized by a consortium of TV networks. It will be for it to decide who to invite to the next debates - assuming the debates take place. In 2006, the Greens got about 660,000 votes or about 4.5% of all votes cast. In 2004, they got 580,000 votes or about 3.5% of the total. This kind of reasoning would have had the Rhino Party or the Marijuana Party or any other Fringe party participating. Bad enough listening to 4 leaders. No Status No Seats No Debate. Quote "Any man under 30 who is not a liberal has no heart, and any man over 30 who is not a conservative has no brains." — Winston Churchill
Michael Bluth Posted April 16, 2007 Report Posted April 16, 2007 I agree completely. Should be an Offical Party Leader to qualify. Unless the other parties all agree. Which I doubt they would. I think that is pretty much the way things go now. It's pretty irrelevant at this point. Don't think we'll see the Greens in the debates. Quote No one has ever defeated the Liberals with a divided conservative family. - Hon. Jim Prentice
August1991 Posted April 16, 2007 Report Posted April 16, 2007 There is a rule for this: if you don't have a seat you're not invited. Exceptions shouldn't be made on a per party basis.Ross Perot was invited to debates in the US. The ADQ did not have official status yet Mario Dumont was included in Quebec.No one outside of Quebec can vote for the BQ and yet Duceppe has been included in English debates. (This has always struck me as the height of Canadian irony.) The TV consortium will invite leaders depending on whether it feels they are newsworthy. I'm not advocating that May be included but I wouldn't be surprised if she were included in the English debates. Quote
Canuck E Stan Posted April 16, 2007 Report Posted April 16, 2007 There is a rule for this: if you don't have a seat you're not invited. Exceptions shouldn't be made on a per party basis.Ross Perot was invited to debates in the US. The ADQ did not have official status yet Mario Dumont was included in Quebec.No one outside of Quebec can vote for the BQ and yet Duceppe has been included in English debates. (This has always struck me as the height of Canadian irony.) The TV consortium will invite leaders depending on whether it feels they are newsworthy. I'm not advocating that May be included but I wouldn't be surprised if she were included in the English debates. This is not an American election/debate. This is not a provincial debate(Dumont had seats). Duceppe has seats representing Canadians in Quebec. May,she has Dion and has zip. Quote "Any man under 30 who is not a liberal has no heart, and any man over 30 who is not a conservative has no brains." — Winston Churchill
Michael Bluth Posted April 16, 2007 Report Posted April 16, 2007 This is not an American election/debate. This is not a provincial debate(Dumont had seats). Duceppe has seats representing Canadians in Quebec. May,she has Dion and has zip. Getting a presidential nominee on the ballot on all 50 states in the US is quite the ordeal. That's what got Perot invited. Dumont received 18% of the vote in the 2003 election, which lead to his inclusion in the 2007 debates. May received a little under 4.5% of the vote in 2006. Quote No one has ever defeated the Liberals with a divided conservative family. - Hon. Jim Prentice
gc1765 Posted April 16, 2007 Report Posted April 16, 2007 Dumont received 18% of the vote in the 2003 election, which lead to his inclusion in the 2007 debates.May received a little under 4.5% of the vote in 2006. So what's the magic number, 5%? 10%? 15%? Anyone? Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
Canuck E Stan Posted April 16, 2007 Report Posted April 16, 2007 Dumont received 18% of the vote in the 2003 election, which lead to his inclusion in the 2007 debates. May received a little under 4.5% of the vote in 2006. So what's the magic number, 5%? 10%? 15%? Anyone? The number is having Party status,seats in the house and a leader who is elected in a riding.Nothing magic. Quote "Any man under 30 who is not a liberal has no heart, and any man over 30 who is not a conservative has no brains." — Winston Churchill
gc1765 Posted April 16, 2007 Report Posted April 16, 2007 The number is having Party status,seats in the house and a leader who is elected in a riding.Nothing magic. Is that more important than percentage of vote? Imagine a completely hypothetical situation, a party gets 15% of the vote but no seats. Another party gets 5% of the vote, and enough seats for party status. Who is more worthy of being involved in the debate? Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
Canuck E Stan Posted April 16, 2007 Report Posted April 16, 2007 Who is more worthy of being involved in the debate? Who cares? This is your democratic system.First past the post. Don't like it get it changed. Quote "Any man under 30 who is not a liberal has no heart, and any man over 30 who is not a conservative has no brains." — Winston Churchill
gc1765 Posted April 16, 2007 Report Posted April 16, 2007 Who cares? This is your democratic system.First past the post. Don't like it get it changed. Isn't that what we are debating? Whether the Green Party Should be involved in the debate? Not whether the Green Party will be involved in the debate. Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
geoffrey Posted April 16, 2007 Report Posted April 16, 2007 You say it's a matter of quantum, that I shouldn't logically exclude the Green Party at 4.5% when I accept the NDP at 15%. What of the Christian Heritage Party and the Marxist Leninists? They run alot of candidates. Why exclude them and include the Greens? Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") --
Canuck E Stan Posted April 16, 2007 Report Posted April 16, 2007 Isn't that what we are debating? Whether the Green Party Should be involved in the debate? Not whether the Green Party will be involved in the debate. And how many ridings do they represent in the house? Fringe parties without a seat representing no one is just that. Quote "Any man under 30 who is not a liberal has no heart, and any man over 30 who is not a conservative has no brains." — Winston Churchill
gc1765 Posted April 16, 2007 Report Posted April 16, 2007 And how many ridings do they represent in the house? Fringe parties without a seat representing no one is just that. Going back to my original hypothetical scenario: Which is more of a "fringe" party; a party with 5% of the popular vote and seats in the HOC, or a party with 15% popular vote and zero seats? Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
gc1765 Posted April 16, 2007 Report Posted April 16, 2007 You say it's a matter of quantum, that I shouldn't logically exclude the Green Party at 4.5% when I accept the NDP at 15%. What of the Christian Heritage Party and the Marxist Leninists? They run alot of candidates. Why exclude them and include the Greens? Is this addressed to me? If it is, I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am saying it's not how many seats that should count, but the percentage of the popular vote. Where to draw the line is a different question, which is the question that I posed in hopes of hearing other people's opinion. For example, let's pretend I used the number 10%, then only the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP and Bloc (barely) would be involved. Someone else might prefer the number 4% in which case the greens would be included too, but not the others. Do you agree that it's the % of vote and not number of seats that count? If so, where would you draw the line? Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
betsy Posted April 16, 2007 Author Report Posted April 16, 2007 But May is endorsing Dion as the Prime Minister. Therefore, she IS NOT seeking to be Prime Minister. She is campaigning for Dion, really....although she is supposedly the "leader" and carrying the banner of another party. Ethical issues here to be addressed. or maybe even legalities. I don't know. Are there any specific rules other than having such numbers of seats? By her own decision to campaign for Dion to be Prime Minister (while being the supposed leader of the Green Party), the Green Party is now actually a big joke....something that cannot be taken seriously as a party. So, why should she be included in an election debate that is meant for candidates running to be Prime Minister? Quote
madmax Posted April 16, 2007 Report Posted April 16, 2007 The Television Networks may have more say to this in the end. If they think they can get better ratings they will. Think of the Scenario, after all Leaders go head to head with one another it gets down to May and Dion Libs:I really like you Elizabeth Green:I like you do Mr. Dion. L:Remember when Garth Turner was a CPC member. G:Yes I do. L: Remember when he campaigned for you in London G:Yes L: He's Liberal Now G: Yes L: Well, nudge nudge wink wink. G: What do you mean. L: You know..........., the phone call. G: Sorry, thanks for not running a candidate. L: Sooooo G: What are you implying L: Well, I am pretty green as a leader G: I am Green too L: Well, how about it, on national TV G: How about what? L: Tell them. G: What? L: Go ahead and tell them, tell them what you told me. G: What? L: on the phone, tell them, that I am going to be a great Prime Minister. That you support me. G: I did that before L: But this is the debate, tell everyone how great I am to lead and work on the environment. G: But you didn't get it done. L: What!!!!! G: Oh yes, you should be President, opps, Prime Minister, but you didn't get it done. L: Oh Shit. G: I still am thinking about joining you guys, but I was a Mulroney Tory L: Oh good, Remember Garth? G: You mentioned him earlier. L: Yes, nudge nudge wink wink. G: Oh yes, sorry, the phone call. I wish I could have gotten Layton to back you as well. But I got outed. L: We didn't run anyone against you. We have lots of media saying you can win there. Pretty good isn't it. G: I said you would be a good Prime Minister. L: I want you to win. You would make a great cabinet minister. You can be a Gliberal. G: Well, wasn't Belinda a Conservative, then a cabinet Minister, and no just a Liberal MP. She's quitting isn't she? L: I thought we liked each other? G: No I am just another single minded opportunist taking advantage of the Liberal offers. L: I really Like you Elizabeth G: I like you to Mr. Dion Time is over return to your chairs L: I have a dog you know. You know his name? G: I know . L: No, it's Kyoto. Quote
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.