Done. I think and hope that Elizabeth May will be included in the next debates. The Green Party has enough of the popular vote that it will be hard not to include them.

If the Green Party is included why can’t any of the other party’s that are funded by tax dollars? How many would that be you ask. All of them.

The Green party has a more legitimate claim to being in the debates than the Bloc Quebecois, which only runs 75 candidates. I don’t care if they have 54 elected members, they are a regional party for whom 75% of canadians can’t vote for. Duceppe just takes up space, at least in the English debate.
Maybe it;ll be the last time around for the Bloc anyway. If so, good riddance, or should I say, bon debarras.

I think the criteria for debate participation should be running at least 250 candidates, in at least 8 of 13 provinces/territories.

Nate — only parties that receive 2% or more of the vote receive public funding. So by your logic, there should be 5 parties included: CPC, LIB, NDP, BQ and Green. The other small parties don’t receive public funding and therefore should not be included.

Plus, the Greens received enough votes that under a fair electoral system they would receive a significant number of seats.

I know I’m beating a dead horse here, but the Bloc should never have been allowed party status.

Back in ’93 the Libs and tories got together and passed a law which required parties to run at least 50 candidates to qualify for Official party registration… If they had set 80 as the minimum, and require that Official party registration was also contingent on having candidates in 7 or 8 of 13 provinces/territories, there’s be no Bloc drinking from the public trough today.
In any case I STILL don’t think they should be in the debates. Min. 250 candidates in at least 8 provinces would be a fair standard.

Of course, even the meagre 50 candidate law was ruled unconstitutional, meaning that a 250 candidates in 8 provinces rule would be wildly unconstitutional.

You may not like what the Bloc has to say, but the principle of democracy demands that any party popular enough to win seats should be in the national debates. Period.

Would you feel the same way if say, by some twist of fate, the Chrstian Heritage Party won a seat?

Smok — while it would be ideal to have a broad minimum number of candidates, I do think there are enough Canadians (even if they are only in Quebec) that have endorsed the Bloc to warrant their inclusion in the debates. But I would say the same about the Greens, even though they haven’t won any seats. I favour a mixed-member system that harmonizes a common minimum vote share to qualify for regional seats, inclusion in public debates and public subsidy. I’ve suggested 3%, but some have argued for 5%. And if the CHP can win 5%, then absolutely, they should qualify for all three (regional seats, inclusion in the debates, and public subsidy). But 5% means almost 750,000 votes; considering they had just over 28,000 in 2006, they’ve got a long way to go.

You would have to invite every official national party in Canada into the debates, including the Marxist Lenninists and Comunist Party of Canada to allow the greens into the debates and this is silly. Many PArties actually run candidates in more ridings than the Bloq. No debate status until they have a seat to debate for/from. Them’s the rules and they are good rules.

Oh yeah these PArties are allowed into debates at the local level, which is why one assumes they run, just not national televised debates for leaders of the Parties not individual seats. Sorry.

This probably isn’t the first time I’ve said this to you Shoshana, but your reasoning is wrong. The Green Party receives public dollars because they get more than 2% of the vote. The other small parties do not. I think that number should be raised to at least 3%, but others have argued for 4% or 5%. Even at 4% the Greens would still get public dollars. This is an important distinction between the Greens and the other small parties (none of whom gained more than 0.19% of the vote). If Canadians are paying for the Greens, they deserve to hear their leader in the national debate.

FYI,
Green Party = 4.5% (24x more than CHP)
Christian Heritage Party = 0.19%
Progressive Canadian Party = 0.10%
Marijuana Party = 0.06%
Marxist-Leninist Party = 0.06%
Canadian Action Party = 0.04%
Communist Party = 0.02%
Libertarian Party = 0.02%
First Peoples Party = 0.01%
Western Block Party = 0.01%
Animal Alliance Party = 0.00%

The excuse that “all” parties would have to be in the debate is feeble to start with. Look at the result. Oh no, that means every registered federal party should get equal time, that will surely kill our democracy, *faints*. TV should be making the debate format fit the reality of Canadian politics, not cherry picking parties it feels fit the format.

The arguement that they can’t win a seat until they are allowed into a national televised debate is flawed. The same can be said of all above parties. In fact more so. They could probably get public funding if they were in National debates to raise their profile. The line is drawn at no seat no place in a National televised debate for PArties with seats in the house of Commons. Its a good rule. The greens do not belong in a National televised debate for Party leaders with 4% of the vote. They just dont. THat’s like asking to get on the ride at Disneyland when you aren’t tall enough even when your brother is tall enough and you know you will be tall enough eventually. Sorry you dont get on the Ride. Its for everyone’s good and the Networks would be openning themselves up to lawsuites if they dont stick by this rule. NO seat, NO Leaders Debate. And honestly, The Green Party is as fringe as many of the above mentioned with barely a platform to speak of, certainly nothing worthy of a National Leaders Debate.

well, shoshana, i’ll let your reputation speak for itself. you’ve been on the wrong side of the facts for so long, it’s hardly worth debating you.

What do you mean that Dion would win if he got more % of delegates to show up and ex-officio support. Yeah I was really wrong there. Or that Liberals weren’t impressed with Ignatieff and that he wasn’t going to win far less be at 47% on the first ballot. Or that Brison wasn’t going to do as well as you predicted as with Volpe or that Ken was really at 5%. Yeah I’ve been wrong so often its hard to count. lol

PS the Greens wont be in a national televised leaders Debate and shouldn’t be.

Sorry 37% on the first ballot for IGs from his camp and was it 35% that you predicted math genius.

shoshana — your arrogance continues to amaze me, especially given your track record. fyi, we did not project ignatieff at 37%. we didn’t do final first ballot projections, but the last one we did — on oct 24 — had ignatieff at 32%. that was the maximum we ever had him; previously we was around 31%. i wasn’t surprised he didn’t get 32%, given the events after oct 24; i figured he would get around 30%; he got 29.3%, so no real surprises there. that last projections also had brison at 3.6%, he got 4.0% — higher, not lower than we projected.

you emailed me saying “Rae has won the Liberal leadership no question.” and proceeded to lay out an argument why rae would win no question (http://shoshanab.blogspot.com/2006/11/bob-rae-has-won-liberal-leadership.html). let’s see, throughout the delegate selection you continued to disparate me (and others) for underestimating dryden, and it turned out many us actually over-estimated him. you also smeared kennedy and claimed none of his delegates would show up (in fact, kennedy had one of the highest turnouts). you said he couldn’t deliver his delegates. obviously that proved wrong, given what happened after ballot 2. you also claimed via email that “I am surprised Dion has done so well.” so, you see, that you’ve been on the wrong side of the coin so consistently, i am not the least bit surprised that you would have no problem trumping local nominations (re: appointing female candidates) or denying canadians the opportunity to hear a world-renowned, highly respected person like Elizabeth May, even though the Greens are one of the 5 parties supported by public tax dollars. like i said, it’s hardly worth debating you.

“Only parties that receive 2% or more of the vote receive public funding.”

All parties now receive public funding retroactive to Jan. 1, 2004:

http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2006/2006onsc16462.html

Joe, that will probably be appealed.

The bottom line is the “Deb Gray” standard, elect a MP, not even if a MP crossed the floor should they allowed in the debate. If the standard is changed it opens the door to lot of other unelectable parties and makes the event pointless.

Go to court and win but what makes it alright to reset the bar below them but above a lot of other parties. Quite hypocritical.

No one can force the big 4 parties to participate anyway and I doubt they would if the Greens et al would go in.

During the next election, the Green Party should be included in the televised debates. Here’s why.

The environment is now the single most important issue on the minds of Canadians, and while the Green Party has policies on all issues, making environmental policy work for Canadians is a specialty. Recent polls show that Canadians understand this, with the Green Party at over 10% nationally.

One in every 22 Canadians who voted in the last federal election – 665,940 voters – cast their ballot for the Green Party.

Voters have a right to hear where ALL the major parties stand on the issues. That’s one of the cornerstones of democracy – an informed electorate. On Thursday, January 18th, 2007 Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said Elizabeth May should be allowed to take part in the televised debate during the next election campaign because of her “long experience in the issues of sustainability and the environment.”

As far as vote quantity goes, the next highest after the Green Party was ‘Independent’ with 76,696 votes, about one tenth the amount the Green Party received.

As far as percentages go, the next highest federal party after the Green Party had only zero point two percent.

I’ve heard some people say that if the Green party is included in the televised debates during the next election, we’d have to include all federal parties. Unfortunately for democracy the networks have the authority to say who’s included and who’s not, and in the end they have the authority decide to let only the Green Party be added, based on information including the above information.

There have been times in the past when other major federal parties had few or no seats in parliament, yet they were not ignored. With rising support, national interest, and you tax dollars helping to fund the federal parties including the Greens, why not let the Green Party have it’s voice heard?