I agree wholeheartedly. I have not heard of your website before, but will be for sure checking it out now. Found out about it on Facebook. Our friend Jack is done for, for sure now. At least with young Canadians it seems. I sent a huge rant email to the NDP.

My issue is this delusion he has about being Prime Minister, and the disconnect between making this reality (which would be proportional representation) and Jack’s recent actions. So instead I am going to throw my time, money and support behind the move for proportional representation, because as far as I can tell this is the only way to get out of (or at least on some level deal with) this quagmire of partisan politics. I’ve had it with first-past-the-post and with vote splitting that results in Stephen Harper running the country.

Here’s my email. Keep up the pressure! :)
____________________________________________

For shame Jack and whomever else was involved in your recent decision to follow the Conservatives in threatening to boycott the Leaders’ Debate if Elizabeth May was allowed to participate. You have made me ashamed of the NDP. You are supposed to be the new DEMOCRATIC party, and I still cannot believe to this day that the Greens have not been allowed to participate while the Bloc has, even though they are only in Quebec. So much for democracy, it seems.

Unless I hear some pretty darn good reasons or some stellar political positions pretty soon(and I have to say, your moratorium in the tar sands proposal is far from realistic or good leadership in terms of what the Canadian people actually want), you have lost my vote for this election.

This issue is that crucial, Jack et al, you have seriously misjudged the Canadian people. All you have to do is hear the court of public opinion going on right now on the CBC. You have disappointed me tremendously, and as a university educated, 28 year old female voter whose family is from Edmonton, Alberta and traditionally votes NDP, this is a major thing. I think you will have find that in this single decision, you have said more about your priorities to Canadians than you could in any posed political campaign or photo op. I think you will find that significantly more votes will bleed from the NDP to the Greens now than would have previously just due to their general ‘threat’ to the NDP, and my vote will very likely be among them.

You essentially capitulated to that bully, Stephen Harper, you didn’t think about how stupid he would look if he was the only one who didn’t show up for the leaders debate. You should have called his bluff, now you have the same mud on your face. Your reputation will suffer tremendously.

You can talk about the “rules” all you want but the perception will be that you took an easy out, that this was a cowardly backdoor exit to a significant issue. Like Stephane Dion said, including Elizabeth May just makes sense, it’s about fairness. I’m no Liberal fan and have never voted for them. But I thought that this issue speaks to the guts of what the NDP stands for, sticking up for the little guy, making sure everyone has a voice. This is certainly a true Canadian value.

You can also talk about wanting to become Prime Minister all you want, but the bottom line is Jack, that you will never be Prime Minister unless we do something to fix democracy in this country, to make sure that votes actually could so people give a damn. Most likely this will be if we get some kind of proportional representation in this country, and that still means dealing with the Greens. They can’t be ignored any longer. I would love to have an NDP Prime Minister, but you gotta be realistic, Jack. You just can’t do it with the voter share you have, and sadly I don’t think it will ever get big enough in enough ridings to work out in our current electoral system.

Stephen Harper’s comment about the Greens just being Liberal lackeys is ridiculous, and exceedingly dismissive. I hope you don’t take the same line. If this were the case, why would they bother running against each other in all the other ridings? Why would people vote Green instead of Liberal? Even if it is the case, people still have the right to choose, and they can change their minds if they are unhappy.

It’s all so juvenile and people saw that instantly. You gave in to the bullying, Jack, you walked away from a righteous fight and a chance to show REAL strength.

So here I am seriously reconsidering my vote for the NDP. This also means I am very reluctant to donate to the NDP, which I usually do as a single person with no dependents, especially around election time. This is huge to me Jack. Canadians deserve a decent explanation for your decision, and I hope to god these are not your true colours, or the true colours of the NDP showing through.

For shame Jack and whomever else was involved in your recent decision to follow the Conservatives in threatening to boycott the Leaders’ Debate if Elizabeth May was allowed to participate. You have made me ashamed of the NDP. You are supposed to be the new DEMOCRATIC party, and I still cannot believe to this day that the Greens have not been allowed to participate while the Bloc has, even though they are only in Quebec. So much for democracy, it seems.

Unless I hear some pretty darn good reasons or some stellar political positions pretty soon(and I have to say, your moratorium in the tar sands proposal is far from realistic or good leadership in terms of what the Canadian people actually want), you have lost my vote for this election.

This issue is that crucial, Jack et al, you have seriously misjudged the Canadian people. All you have to do is hear the court of public opinion going on right now on the CBC. You have disappointed me tremendously, and as a university educated, 28 year old female voter whose family is from Edmonton, Alberta and traditionally votes NDP, this is a major thing. I think you will have find that in this single decision, you have said more about your priorities to Canadians than you could in any posed political campaign or photo op. I think you will find that significantly more votes will bleed from the NDP to the Greens now than would have previously just due to their general ‘threat’ to the NDP, and my vote will very likely be among them.

You essentially capitulated to that bully, Stephen Harper, you didn’t think about how stupid he would look if he was the only one who didn’t show up for the leaders debate. You should have called his bluff, now you have the same mud on your face. Your reputation will suffer tremendously.

You can talk about the “rules” all you want but the perception will be that you took an easy out, that this was a cowardly backdoor exit to a significant issue. Like Stephane Dion said, including Elizabeth May just makes sense, it’s about fairness. I’m no Liberal fan and have never voted for them. But I thought that this issue speaks to the guts of what the NDP stands for, sticking up for the little guy, making sure everyone has a voice. This is certainly a true Canadian value.

You can also talk about wanting to become Prime Minister all you want, but the bottom line is Jack, that you will never be Prime Minister unless we do something to fix democracy in this country, to make sure that votes actually could so people give a damn. Most likely this will be if we get some kind of proportional representation in this country, and that still means dealing with the Greens. They can’t be ignored any longer. I would love to have an NDP Prime Minister, but you gotta be realistic, Jack. You just can’t do it with the voter share you have, and sadly I don’t think it will ever get big enough in enough ridings to work out in our current electoral system.

Stephen Harper’s comment about the Greens just being Liberal lackeys is ridiculous, and exceedingly dismissive. I hope you don’t take the same line. If this were the case, why would they bother running against each other in all the other ridings? Why would people vote Green instead of Liberal? Even if it is the case, people still have the right to choose, and they can change their minds if they are unhappy.

It’s all so juvenile and people saw that instantly. You gave in to the bullying, Jack, you walked away from a righteous fight and a chance to show REAL strength.

So here I am seriously reconsidering my vote for the NDP. This also means I am very reluctant to donate to the NDP, which I usually do as a single person with no dependents, especially around election time. This is huge to me Jack. Canadians deserve a decent explanation for your decision, and I hope to god these are not your true colours, or the true colours of the NDP showing through.

~Seriously Disillusioned in BC~

I’m also voting Green thanks to Harper (who I voted for last time) and his un-democratic approach to these debates.

My position is that according to the rules, a party must hold a minimum of 12 seats in order to be a recognized official party. 1 unelected seat does not make the Green Party an official Party. To grant the Green Party a spot is to go down a subjective and dangerous slope. It means the Libertarian Party and Neo-Rhino Party must also have their leaders at the debate. It’s not like the Bloc Quebecois presence is insult enough.

James — First, check your facts. Official party status has nothing to do with it. If it did, how did either the Bloc (1 seat in by-election + 7 floor crossers) or the Reform party (1 seat in a by-election) get into the debate in 1993? And there are plenty of examples of non official status parties getting into the debates.

Second, check your facts. Let’s review the 2006 results:

Green – 664,068 votes
Libertarian – 3,002 votes

Greens had 221 times (that’s 22100%) more than the Libertarians. Not in the same universe, let alone in the same ballpark.

Well DemocraticSPACE you have lost a reader. And your mind obviously.

If you were ever in fact an NDP voter, and now you are voting Green, I feel sorry for you for being fooled by Liberal trickery and clever branding.

Bravo, Greg!

I agree quite a lot.

Now I don’t think I’ll be voting for the Liberals, the NDP and the Conservatives. That leaves me to the Bloc and the Greens. Hmmm…keep posted. I haven’t been really motivated yet to follow this election closely due to the lack of fire. Soon, I will be perhaps when the leaders put on the boxing gloves.

My position has not changed. Deborah Grey(1989) and Gilles Duceppe(1990) were both democratically elected in by-elections. Blair Wilson just crossed the floor. Also, I still maintain that unofficial parties should not be allowed to participate in the debates. Retroactively, that means I deem the decisions to include the Reform Party and Bloc Quebecois then were wrong.

you guys are ignoring the fact that the ONLY reason may was not included this time was the fact that Layton and Harper said they would not attend if she did

I am in the same position and will be taking the same action. Shame on the NDP!

The Green Party does not deserve to be at the debate! A party that has 4.5% of the vote is not a major party. They have not proven themselves as they have not elected an MP. May is demanding to be given a seat at the debate without earning it. Once you have proven you are a player on the Canadian political stage, then you deserve a spot on the debate. The BQ did elect a member, had several floor-crossers, and had large support in Quebec. The Reform did elect a member, and had large support out West. The Greens have not elected a member, and have extremely marginal support everywhere.

It also opens a dangerous slippery slope. If one floor-crosser and an average of 4.5% support in every riding is enough, than surely one independent with 30%+ support in his riding deserves a spot at the leadership debate.

People aren’t thinking rationally. If you open the door for the Greens on such shaky justification, you open the door for everyone. The debate is not legally a part of a Canadian election, and it is up to each individual leader to decide whether it deserves his participation.

Excluding May IS the democratic choice, since the democratic process has demonstrated they are not one of the major parties.

Il est clair que l’homme à abattre dans cette élection est Stephen Harper. Tous les chefs des autres partis ciblent férocement le chef du PC. En invitant Mme May aux débats – télé, ils en rajouteraient une, dans un crédo dans lequel Harper est plutôt faible, qui risquerait de lui faire perdre des votes, même chose pour le jovialiste de jack Layton. Voilà, une des principales raisons.. de cette position de harper et Layton.
J’aimerais ajouté que la présence du BQ et de son chef à ces débats est démocratiquement justifié. Depuis plus de 15 ans, une large majorité de québécois vote en bloc pour le BQ. Nous faisons encore malheureusement partie du Canada et nos intérêts doivent être protégés et défendus par les meilleurs représentants. De plus, ajoutons que les chefs fédéralistes se gargarisent que le canada est un pays bilingue, Le plus bilingue de tous les chefs au parlement su canada..est… Gilles Duceppe…Harper se défend pas mal en français.. mais..c,est toujours laborieux, même chose pour Jack et je ne parle même pas de E. May. Quant à S. Dion…Il est pire que Jean Chrétien en anglais… et c’est pas peu dire…
je vous invite à venir lire le reste de ce billet à http://lumenlumen.blogspot.com/
participez également à mon sondage maison – merci amis et amies du ROC

I think you’re being a little petty here (which is only an understandable response to Jack’s own pettiness). But anyone voting on October 14th has to realise that a Green vote only serves to elect Conservative MPs. A true Green supporter should vote NDP and hope for a hung parliament where the NDP can make their support conditional on legislation to introduce proportional representation. Far-fetched perhaps, but still more plausible than a Green MP actually being elected on October 14th.

I this this is a fantastic blog but why should a woman with no elected representation in the House get to debate. What about the leaders of the other fringe parties we have in Canada, like the Communists or Christian Heritage? They would complain like crazy. One Liz gets some ELECTED (not purchased) MPs then she should be present at debates.

I think Eric Grenier made a good point.

It’s not that I’m dead set against having Elizabeth May in the debate. In fact, I think if the consortium decided to include her, I would be OK with it. But there is some merit to the argument that the Green Party has yet to “elect” an MP, and therefore, shouldn’t be lumped together with the Bloc and Reform examples.

I know the reason she wasn’t included was because of the threats from Harper and Layton to walk, but maybe, the Greens just haven’t earned it yet.

I hope everyone that feels strongly about having May included is also strongly in favour of porportional representation. If this country truly listened to the will of the electorate, than we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Agreed, Lanny.

Greg, I find your logic shocking. Especially from someone who has strongly advocated for strategic voting in the past.

I also think the argument put forth by Harper and Layton (that May and Dion have an alliance, so only one of them should debate) has some credence. In Australia, where the Liberal Party and National Party formed a coalition, only the leader of the Liberal Party was allowed to debate – even though the National Party ran a full slate and won 10 seats. The Green Party was not in the debate, and didn’t win a seat, although it did get almost 8% of the vote (much more then the Green Party of Canada has ever received).

Joe Clarke today in the Toronto Globe and Mail today calls for a reconsideration of the decision not to include Elizabeth May in the debates. He urges people to lobby for this. He is right. Why should Harper’s well established control the debate tactics carry over into the debates themselves?.These tactics widely deployed are one of the core reasons to get rid of his government. So here is an opportunity to focus on his govts. anti- democratic tactics in the context of a highly public example of he operates.
So I urge the NDP to join others in lobbying for the inclusion of May.

I don’t think the Greens should be allowed at the debate for one simple reason, one which concerns both Layton and Harper. May and Dion are ‘in bed’ with each other and having her in the debates is a disadvantage both for the NDP and the Conservatives. Whose to say she won’t try and sway votes to the Liberals during the debates. She knows she has no chance of becoming prime minister and may not even have a chance at getting a seat in the house or any green into the house for that matter. So what’s the best solution for her? Support her good old friend Dion in the debates to try and sway electors from both the left and the right so that in the case Dion does win she can have some political power. Now that is what I call undemocratic. Not letting her join the debates is simply a means to stop this very un-Canadian stunt Dion and May have pulled on the people of West Nova, St. Laurent-Cartierville and the rest of the electorate. (And for anyone who would like to say the Conservatives have done the same with Andre Arthur, the two situations are totally different. Two party leaders ‘shacking up’ is not the same as a party rooting for an independent whose policies are pretty much in line with those of the party’s. Arthur happens to be very controversial so having him under any party’s banner could be to the detriment of that party. Not running anyone against him allows the best of both worlds: an extra vote without having to worry what comes out of his mouth)

Look back at history…if the media consortium and “CON-DIPPERS” had their way back a number of elections, Preston Manning of Reform and Lucien Bouchard of the Bloc would never have been permitted to join the leaders’ debates. Manning represented a party with no presence east of Manitoba and spoke no French — however, he participated in the English and French language debates with the only caveat that he speak French in his opening remarks. Bouchard was not running outside of Quebec but he participated in both the English and French debates. Now Layton and Harper feel they can be in a snit and all righteous about who can go in their debate. Alas, they forget that it’s not their debate but Canada’s debate — perhaps a time out for both parties and their leaders is in order.

Bill C-24, which came into effect in 2004, states “Registered political parties that receive at least two percent of the number of valid votes cast nationally, or five percent of the number of valid votes cast in the electoral districts in which the registered party endorsed a candidate, will be eligible for a quarterly allowance which, on the basis of a full year, will amount to $1.75 per valid vote received by the party in the previous general election.”

Like it or not (and there are many who don’t) the Green Party received 664,068 votes (or 4.5%) in the last election. This entitled them to approximately 1.1 million dollars in federal funding for their party. I would think that most people would like to know who that money is going to.

The rule for inclusion in the debate should be simple: if our taxes pay for their party, they should be in.

Chris – I have strongly advocated for strategic voting? Really? I believe we need a voting system that translates first choice preferences into seats, whether that be STV, MMP or what.

Your premise is wrong — there is no coalition between the Greens and Liberals, formal or otherwise. The two leaders agreed not to run against one another, which used to be tradition in Canada. But that’s the extent of their cooperation.

Looks like it worked:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/CanadaVotes/News/2008/09/10/6725126-cp.html

Too late for my vote!

Eric – your logic is perverse. Excluding a voice is democratic, eh?

It perverse logic again to suggest that an independent with 20,000 votes (30% of one riding) deserves to be be in the debates but a party with nearly 700,000 votes does not.

Moreover, you are forgetting history. Your party — the Bloc Québécois — was included in the 1993 debates despite not electing a member under the Bloc Québécois banner. Gilles Duceppe was elected as an INDEPENDENT. Go check the facts yourself. And the remaining 7 members who were sitting as Bloc upon dissolution in 1993 had crossed the floor. Your entire argument is flawed based on your own criteria.

I’m going to side with the vast majority of Canadians on this one, since 80% support the Greens inclusion in the debates. Those in the minority are welcome to express their opinions, but thus far, all I’ve seen is spin and contorted logic to deny Canadians a chance to hear what the Greens have to say, so they can make an informed democratic choice.

Ok people. Take a deep breath and calm down. Keep your opinions of the Green Party out of this for a second and ask yourself what the rules for inclusion in the debate should be.

Some possibilities:
* have at least 1 (or N) sitting MP(s) – seems a bit arbitrary to me. If Blair Wilson had decided to join the Christian Heritage Party, should Ron Gray be at the Leader’s Debate?
* elect at least N MP(s) – If N=1, this is at least consistent with previous precedents. Both Reform and the Bloc elected candidates in by-elections before they could participate. However, I don’t think this is strict enough. When Canada finally moves to PR, there will be likely be more parties. A leader’s debate with 10 people seems a bit unruly.
* opinion polling of at least N% – considering how widely variant polling/inaccurate can be, this seems dangerous.
* percentage of popular vote in last election > N% – you would have to decide on a threshold. Would it be 5%, 10%. Note: the Green party has never met either of those thresholds. And the Bloc has almost dropped below 10% a few times. This approach would probably be the fairest and keep the debates to a reasonable size, but it doesn’t work well for new parties without any electoral history.
* Some combination of the above – Maybe something like “at least 5 elected MPs and 5% of the vote in the last election”.

So, what do people think? In my opinion, any criteria the Greens meet now is either unfair or unsustainable into the future.

Sorry, Greg. I apologize for suggesting you advocate for strategic voting. I remember you released guides in the past, but I just found one and saw the disclaimer that explains your rationale. My bad.

I think you’re exaggerating your case with Stephen Harper when you say he has shown “outright contempt for democratic values.” Hasn’t he spent his entire life participating in, advocating for and promoting democracy (as he sees it, at least)? You just disagree with his policies and some of the things he’s done, but by being overly partisan and dramatic you ultimately weaken the objectiveness and validity of your opinion.

YEAY! we won! hurrah!

To anyone who thinks this was the wrong decision, do a bit of reading on the BC election of 1991. Wilson, with 0 seats, elected or otherwise, was allowed to debate. His party went on to form the official opposition.

Greg,

With the system as it is, 600,000 votes portioned out over 308 ridings is really nothing at all, less than 2,000 votes per riding. While I am not saying an independent actually deserves to be at a debate, he or she at least managed to actually get elected, something the Green Party hasn’t managed with its $1.1 million.

And no, I am not forgetting my history. Duceppe was elected as an independent because the Bloc wasn’t an official party yet. But it was well-known he was running as a Bloc Quebecois member, which is the most important thing of all. And the floor-crossing is fine. If 7 MPs crossed the floor to join the Greens, I would be fine with the Greens at the debate. With only one seat that was gained mere days before the election for mere political reasons, the Greens have as much representation in the House as André Arthur, who at least managed to get elected.

I made it quite clear that I was including the Bloc’s floor-crossers in my original post.

And if democracy is your intent, then why not the Marijuana Party? Or the Communist Party? Or Christian Heritage Party? Why are their voices being suppressed?

In my opinion, the criteria should be ELECTING at least 2 MPs and having official party status. That ensures that you don’t have Parties of One nor extremely regionally based parties with no support elsewhere.

If we had proportional representation, then 5% would be a good line to use.

I want to thank Greg and all the other bloggers who have made a “noise” about this for it now seems that both Layton and Harper have backed down and will NOT block May from the debate. I note that for those concerned with setting a precedent that they should check past telivised debates, by past criteria there is no doubt that the Greens should be included. Perhaps future critera should include having a candidate in at least 80% or 90% of the ridings across Canada,this is after all is a FEDERAL election. Can you hear the screams comming from certain regional parties!
Sounds like demorcracy wins on this one, we need a few because it been nothing but losses for some time now.

Your premise is wrong — there is no coalition between the Greens and Liberals, formal or otherwise. The two leaders agreed not to run against one another, which used to be tradition in Canada. But that’s the extent of their cooperation.

I don’t believe it was ever a tradition outside of by-elections, particularly since many PMs have lost their seats to the then-opposition (e.g. Mackenzie King, Campbell, many premiers) in general elections. So, yes, this sort of deal is indeed unprecedented in recent Canadian political history.

Eric — as I noted elsewhere, I would not have supported the Greens inclusion in 1993, when they were a fringe party. Just as I wouldn’t support the Marijuana, Communist or Christian Heritage Party today. Look at the numbers. It is disingenuous to claim the Greens are the same as these parties. The fact is, where the Greens spend money, they are very competitive.

You have your criteria, that’s fine. I’m just saying that my democratic criteria err on the side of giving the Greens a voice, while you support denying them that voice.

Greg – what are your “democratic criteria”? Give me a hard and fast rule that we can apply next time a new party wants to join the leader’s debate. Or is it all subjective? Because if that’s the case, there’s going to be more whining and complaining when this happens next time.

For Jacquie and all others who support fairer voting, can I encourage you all (especially those who live in BC) to support BC-STV between now and next May when it will be voted on a second time (coz saying Yes once was apparently not enough!)? Check out STV.ca for ways to get involved.

For Chris, who wants some criteria for inclusion in the leaders’ debate – I would propose the following:

1. The party has a theoretical possibility of forming a majority government (ie, is running in a majority of the ridings)

2. The party has demonstrated a significant amount of voter support in the past by attracting a certain percentage of the popular vote. I would propose one of two criteria: (1) meeting the threshold for federal funding (currently 2%) or (2) reaching a level that would entitle the party to representation in most countries with a proportional representation system (typically 2-5% of the popular vote).

These two criteria make it possible, but not easy, for new parties to emerge and would encourage parties to have a national rather than a regional focus, which would contribute to nation building. I would not require election of a candidate – given the strong bias of our current system against smaller parties, this would in my view be an unfair criterion and would create a bias in favour of regional parties.

Chris – It would be nice the threshold we used to give public money to parties was the same as what determined participation in the debates. Don’t you think Canadians deserve to hear what they are getting for their tax dollars? Even if we doubled the current threshold, to 1 in 25 Canadians (4%), the Greens would still be in the debates.

Thanks guys. I’m happy with those criteria. Bring on the debate!

I think Elizabeth May better be careful about wishing for something as it might happen. I think that she was actually better off being excluded from the debate. May is very good at doing a bit of maudlin role-playing as the helpless victim and the she could have spent the next three weeks avoiding talking about actual substantive issues (which she is very weak at) and instead just getting lots of publicity over the “poor Elizabeth May wants to debate and those meanies won’t let her” shtick. Now she will get her wish and be in the debate and we can watch her get cut to ribbons and get exposed as the abrasive, sanctimonious scold that she is. A lot of people flirt with voting green as long as they don’t have to confront the fact that it is an actual party with a leader who is not all that appealing. I think her actual performance will be a total anti-climax.

Interesting that you would switch votes just because of a position on a tv debate instead of something more substantial and policy orientated like the environment, health care, taxes, etc. Now that May is in the debates, does that change anything? In the grand scheme of things its pretty small potatoes is all.

Also, I don’t know how much this has been discussed. But the Greens have been in Canadian debates before. They were in the BC provincial election debates in 2001 and 2005 with higher polling numbers and higher election results than they are likely to get this time. Recieving 12% and 9% in those elections.

The result was still 0 seats and minimal impact in the legislature. As will likely be the result this time. But I suppose there is a little bit of precedence for the Greens to be in the debates now even though they won’t win seats.

I am certainly glad that the Greens will now have a voice in the debate. They may have started small just as the CCF, (the party which became the NDP), did in the years before TV debates. In those years (the 30′s. 40′s & 50′s), democracy happened in neighbourhoods, voice against voice debating in public. Democracy should be about debate and voices being heard!

There is too little information now, really getting heard… Too many disinterested voters who don’t necessarily read papers or attend debates whether they are delivered through media or at a public gathering.

Sad when the morning guys on the most listened to station here in Montreal chat about how sad it is that we Canadians do not have a vice-president to choose from, like in the US. Saying that they do not know, who would take over from our PM if a situation required it… A listener called in and said, “Isn’t it the Governor-general?”. The radio morning show hosts thought it just might be true… I do not understand why we do not have some required political education (except for those new Canadians who want to become citizens).

In short, anything which can help educate the average citizen is good for democracy. Certainly this is one of the messages Elizabeth May is trying to get through by wanting to be heard in the TV debates.

I am certainly glad that Jack Layton, has been forced by the number of dissenting voices to remember his own democratic ethics! Perhaps the current NDP is listening too much to professional strategists and forgetting the values they inherited from the CCF, values which up until now, I never worried about being questioned by this grass roots party.

I’ll hold my nose and continue to vote NDP, even though I think Layton has behaved like a horse’s ass in this episode.

When all is said and done, you have to go back to 1988 for the last time that a leaders debate in a Canadian federal election actually had any impact on the results of the election. For all the hype, they really just tend to confirm the impressions that people already have of the leaders and parties.

Read Mr.Morrow,
Your blog, if I read correctly, is callad: DemocraticSpace….
It is hard to comprehend the comments of some of your correspondents that try to stiffle the democratic debate using an argumentation based on polls and numbers.
In an era in which we look for ways to introduce “proportional representation”, it is scandalous to exclude the Greens from the democratic debate knowing full well that under that system, they would have many reps in Ottawa and elsewhere for that matter!!!
Beware of the dog that does not bark: Mr.Harper, in his short time as PM, has demonstrated and proven his anti-democratic bias by introducing a culture of lies, secrecy, bullying,manipulation etal..name it….
Finally, I might be late but I wish to voice my indignation towards the Gov.Gen.who should have asked another party to govern in view of Mr.Harper’s confessed inability to rule as he wished.It is no so sure that another Party would have been unable to do better than him.
That is another travesty of democracy specially in view of Election laws, fixed and accountable.
Bye

Lots of interesting viewpoints here. I think what has been exposed here is that there are no eligibility rules for leaders debates and the media consortium is not accountable to the people.

Going forward, there should be:

- a set of rules
- an owner of the rules that is accountable
- a method to amend the rules should it be needed

or else this will just end up being a TV show “The CBC/CTV/Global Invitational” or maybe “Survivor: Ottawa”

The Greens have arrived. Are they a single issue party? The debate will tell. I hope the debate format permits one-on-one sessions between all pairs of candidates so we can see May duke it out not only with Harper, but with Dion, Layton and Duceppe as well.

I don’t have a problem with Elizabeth May being included in the debate, but I do insist that, in exchange, she be expected to terminate any electoral agreements she may hold with Stephan Dion and the Liberals.

To jj_frap,

The agreement Elizabeth May made with Stephane Dion is a bit of a joke. Dion won this riding, St-Laurent/Cartierville with one of the largest percentages of popular vote, not just in Quebec, but across the country. So by May not running a Green candidate in this riding, nothing much is was ventured.

With May running against Peter Mackay, it seems pretty much a longshot that the Liberals not running a candidate in that NS riding, that much will be lost by the Liberals.

But in terms of democratic principle, the deal stinks! If May is such a strong defender of democracy at its best, then she should practice it herself.

Many people in my riding, one of the two affected by this deal, are angry at being deprived of the element of “choice”. And if this kind of quasi-strategic party manoevering became more prevalent, what a mess it would make!

I was surprised to read in your comments (letter to jack) that you had actually voted NDP last election, Greg. Partly because I thought you were no longer a resident of Canada, having been in the states for so long, and partly because I know that, while your web site tries hard to be non-partisan, you have been active in the liberal party, and quite critical of the NDP.

I have no problem with Elizabeth May being in the leaders’ debate. I do have worries that in our stupid non-proportional electoral system, the increased green vote, in the 100 or so key ridings that matter, may serve to elect a conservative majority which would be the worst possible thing for the environment. It would sort of like the French voters that voted green etc. in the before last presidential election, and then found they had to choose between LePen and Chirac in the final round. See Eric’s comments on Sept 10 above.