This article was last updated on April 16, 2022
Canada: 
Oye! Times readers Get FREE $30 to spend on Amazon, Walmart…
USA: Oye! Times readers Get FREE $30 to spend on Amazon, Walmart…
On the one hand, all the arguments from 2008 hold, with the added emphasis of more votes in that election, further legitimizing the Green Party as a viable option. It’s also true that the Greens didn’t secure any seats in 2008, once again, one could argue May had her chance at the national table- that seems to be part of the logic in today’s decision. You can pick arguments on all sides, but I want to pull back and think in a wider context.
What do we want out of these debates? I admit, five people arguing, yelling, everyone trying to be heard, stand out from the herd, the format creates a less than optimal presentation for voters. There are simply two many people in these debates now, to politically correct, at the expense of the best discussion. Duceppe shouldn’t be in the English debates, but this is Canada, we can’t dare offend people that are offended by Canada, go figure. Aside from this blight, maybe we need to pear down the competitors, maybe we need a series of debates, more "head to head" so to speak. Further, maybe we need to dispense with the niceties entirely and give the two guys who can actually lead this country, travel abroad as our elected head, the chance to have a focused discussion. Crazy talk I know, but while it’s cute and all that Jack is running for PM, everyone knows it’s a farce.
I’m just tossing out ideas. What about an "all candidates" debate, featuring the five leaders, or better yet a series of these debates, involving different participants each time? On top of that, I would love to see, partisan I know, DA HORROR, Harper and Ignatieff actually sit down for an hour and discuss things. The Brits get it with their QP, the Americans system has a focused debate for the top job, but in Canada no seats May is created the same as the Prime Minister. This whole debate about May is braced by a sense of fairness, and yet her inclusion also brings another measure of unfairness.
I don’t know what the answer is, but 2008 is in the books and I’d rather not have a repeat of that hog the spotlight, talk over each other, yellfest. Quite simply, the five person format doesn’t work, so we need to rethink everything, not just a kneejerk "let May in" reaction. Bigger questions for me, welcome comments.
Click HERE to read more from Steve Val.
Article viewed at: Oye! Times at www.oyetimes.com
I am enraged by this action to manipulate access of legitimate political representation plus refuse the rights of the Canadian people to challenge the standing of any legitimate political representation especially during an election. The indivcomment_IDual(s) responsible should be stripped of their responsibilities and thrown to the wolves. This decision may be common in dictatorships but not in a presumed democracy.
I was thinking exactly what you were thinking as I clicked the article.
Personally, I think Elizabeth May had her chance, and she should not be included this year, she isn’t even running a Federal Campaign this year so it wouldn’t make sense to include her.
Next, I agree with your point on Gilles Duceppe, but by excluding him from the English debates would isolate enlish speaking Quebecers, and I’m sure that they do exist.
The most interesting comment_content you made, that i agree with 100% is a debate between Harper and Ignatieff, it would be very interesting to give the two of them some focus because the reality is that they are the 2 that are fighting to be Prime Minister and hearing Jack Layton’s “policy” doesn’t make sense in a debate format because he will never have the seats to act on his comment_content_IDeas.
Overall, great article.
If Elizabeth May must be included in any leaders debate, then lets just cancel the debate period. Problem Solved.
If Elizabeth May must be included in the debate, then let’s just cancel the debate. Problem solved.
Not allowing Elizabeth May to participate into the political party leaders’ debates again strikes me as a muzzling effort. Why should the public kowtow to the broadcasters’ decision? Something also niggles at me about the men not letting a woman in, on whatever pretext, as the other party leaders seem not to have objected to May’s exclusion. For the comments here, it interests me that so far no other woman has stated her view. “Why rock the boat? Change is scary.”
May is a party leader, and this time the Greens will have a rep. in every Canadian voting district; a million votes in 2008 represents a reasonable showing. Whether we vote for Elizabeth May or not, we need to hear her.
Excluding Elizabeth May strikes me as a muzzling effort. Why should the public kowtow to the broadcasters’ decision? It reinforces the look of a group of men excluding a woman, as the other party leaders have so far not objected to May’s exclusion. “Change is scary; stick to the unimaginative.”
May leads the Green Party, which will have a rep. in every rcomment_IDing. One million votes in 2008 is not a bad showing. We need to hear what she has to say.
Given this is the choice between Harper or Ignatieff as PM, with the race, in reality, between the Conservatives and Liberals, why not narrow and focus the debate. It allows us to get to the heart of every issue posed by question by the debate panels, with the answers vocomment_ID of the NDP and Bloc rhetoric around their own limited agendas.
I would have one question to be asked of Mr. Ignatieff in that debate with the PM, and that is: “regardless of what he says now, the Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe sacomment_ID he could support – but not join – Liberal coalition (March 29, 2011) – What happens if Harper Conservatives get a majority or even a minority?
William Perry, Victoria
I only question that while they aren’t allowing The Green Party – Elizabeth May to debate then why are they allowing Gilles Duceppe. His only interest is Quebec and yet is running for Prime Minister of Canada!?
[quote name=”simon creighton”]I am enraged by this action to manipulate access of legitimate political representation plus refuse the rights of the Canadian people to challenge the standing of any legitimate political representation especially during an election. The indivcomment_IDual(s) responsible should be stripped of their responsibilities and thrown to the wolves. This decision may be common in dictatorships but not in a presumed democracy.[/quote]
VERY WELL SAID
THE Voters have a right to HEAR the GREEN Party Leader. and Voters pay Parties $2.00 per vote so it is only fair for the Greens to vae a FAIR chance at the subscomment_IDiy as well.
ON EVERY LEVEL it is UNDEMOCRATIC.
Greg Vezina
co-author Democracy EH? 1993