Federal Election Talk, Monday, May 2, 2011 (3)

111 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sean in Ottawa

I saw the tweet.

As a person who believes that the FPTP system is robbery, I am disappointed. I do not support the Green party or May. However, I do support a more democratic system that would have a Green seat with over a million votes for that party.

As an NDP supporter, I see no justification to keep May out of the debate on the pretext that over a million votes is not enough simply because her supporters are too spread out to win a bogus FPTP contest.

As well, the debates are not to reward past success only. They are to help people evaluate and decide. The Green party is a legitimate choice widely acknowledged by those same broadcasters. Canadians have a right to hear what she says and accept or reject it.

The argument that the Greens are more like the excluded fringe parties is bogus both in their investment and presence on the national scene; their voting history over several elections; their involvement and influence in campaigns; the number of candidates they produce and the attention given them which is a consensus acceptance of their existence as a meaningful part of the political landscape. I am appalled by the arrogance of broadcasters editing out the political representative of hundreds of thousands of Canadians (even assuming the Green vote will tank). I am concerned by the precedent this sets. The debates should be about support and consideration not about seats-- at least in our warped system. At what point could the bar be raised higher-- to say only two leaders?

For those who are gleeful-- consider this: with May excluded, additional time will go to Harper that would have gone to opposing him. The false arbitrary rationale to exclude her after her party gained support in the last election will go to help Harper.

And frankly, while I did not buy what she was saying. I watched the debate. She was worth listening to. She made it more interesting and I think her input will be missed.

Sean in Ottawa

BTW I understand Layton remains sympathetic to her being in the debate.

Life, the unive...

This a decision of the TV consortium.  End of story.   May has taken herself out of the national debate by placing her entire party's focus on winning one seat - hers. 

Sean in Ottawa

So how is that fair?

So we should keep her out because she has no seat AND criticize her for making that a focus. Seems bizarre to me.

She still is a national leader. When she drops below 2-3% in an election and when her party does not produce candidates in every region of the country let's consider dropping her from the debate. In the meantime it does not make sense except form a partisan point of view unless of course you accept that the FPTP system is a fair and reasonable way to choose who governs and I don't.

I don't buy the argument that because the FPTP system is a gross distortion that we must add to it through the media consortium.

Frankly I think if she were a right-wing loon calling for tax cuts and corporate handouts they would welcome her.

I think the real point is that people don't want her heard there-- corporate Canada does not and neither do the competing parties but that is no excuse.

Unionist

Excellent post, Sean. I find almost no point of agreement with the Green party either. But calls for openness, democracy, and fair voting start to sound awfully shallow when they are selective.

 

Sean in Ottawa

No doubt May would be on about the corporate tax cuts wouldn't she?

Should it be up to a private consortium of business interests to decide who voters get to see debate? Isn't that a farce?

The debates should be held fairly organized by Elections Canada and the private broadcasters should get an option to broadcast or not -- period. Not some money bags deciding on the political content in any way.

Life, the unive...

My point is that the final decision is the media consortuim.  No party can change their decisons.  May used the "we have an MP card last time", now she's moved the goal posts.  It was May and the Greens that created this situation themselves.

If we want open debates than the entire process has to change.   I would support a non-MP holding leaders debate.  May can be the big fish in that pond, but the current debates are farsical as it is.   I don't really care either way, but I can't help but feel that no matter what the situation, including polling under 2% and May would claim to be shocked.  

And Sean there is a big difference between trying to win A seat, and trying to ONE seat.   When all the resources are being put in ONE then it is no longer a national party, but a vanity party.   And by the way this is not a partisan position.  I was one of the orignal founders of the Greens in Ontario.   What we are seeing with May is not exclusion, but the natural evolution of the drift rightward started under Harris and continued under May.

Unionist

I guess I should have said - several excellent posts, Sean!

Life, the unive...

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

No doubt May would be on about the corporate tax cuts wouldn't she?

Should it be up to a private consortium of business interests to decide who voters get to see debate? Isn't that a farce?

The debates should be held fairly organized by Elections Canada and the private broadcasters should get an option to broadcast or not -- period. Not some money bags deciding on the political content in any way.

I agree a thousand per cent with paragraph two and three

MegB

Continued here.

Pages

Topic locked