The decision came down today. Despite having a member in parliament, Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party, will not be allowed to participate in the televised debates. See the full story at the link below
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/09/08/greens-debates.html
And I can’t say I fully disagree with that decision. The Green Party’s member of parliament got there by defecting from his party AFTER getting elected, and after a scandal involving campaign spending. He was cleared of all charges but the damage was done and he was let go from the liberal party, ultimately joining the Greens.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe the Green Party has enough of the popular vote to warrant a spot in the debates, and they are no longer a one issue party as the have a fully developed platform. But that’s not how the system works now. If the people didn’t elect a Green member, then the people shouldn’t be represented by one. And the Green Party shouldn’t receive the benefits that go along with having an elected member of parliament.
My biggest issue is that this was decided by a consortium of television networks! How do the television networks have the power to decide which political party’s voice can be heard and which can not? Suppose the television executives all believed in criminalizing abortion, and thus arranged that only candidates who support that view will be given airtime. Scary thought.
It was also insinuated by the above news article that the NDP, Conservatives and Bloc would not participate in the debate if the Greens were included. Well, like the television networks, it’s not up to the political parties to decide who’s voice should be heard either. Though I believe those threats to be empty. No political party is going to give up that valuable airtime.
The legality of Elizabeth May’s claim that she deserves a spot in the debates needs to be presented to an arbitrator and the results should be binding. To the networks, the politicians, everyone.
One point that is being constantly overlooked with regards to the Green Party’s inclusion in the televised debates is that the Green Party receives federal funding as a party that earned more than the 3% of the popular vote threshold. Every party earns $1.75 in federal funding per vote when they get 3% or more in the previous election.
Having 1 MP, illegitimately or not, is totally irrelevant. Any party that receives taxpayer money should be included in the debates. One of the many red herring arguments presented in today’s media coverage included: why shouldn’t the Marijuana Party or the Rhinoceros Party be allowed to join if the Greens are allowed? Well the government passed legislation requiring 3% of the vote to receive funding; none of those silly parties came remotely close to 3%. Any party receiving funding should get to be in the debates by rule. Canadians are paying for the Green Party’s operations, they deserve to hear their plans for the country.
The fact that the Greens got 4.5% of the vote and have no seats is a problem unto itself with our electoral system. Besides, that is an arbitrary rule as is since the Consortium (using upper case because its basically the Company from Prison Break) has no predefined rules for who gets to participate.
Journalists rule the world. Haven’t you figured that out by now?
In terms of who to allow in the debate, I think there needs to be some general groundrules laid down. Maybe something like a party has to meet two of the following three requirements:
1) Has to have 5% of the popular vote
2) Must have a candidate in every riding
3) Must have a current MP who was elected under the party’s banner
This would give the Green party something to shoot for, and keep the more fringe parties (such as the Communist party or the Marxist-Leninist) out of the debates. Plus, if the Green Party can meet two of those goals, then no one can stop them from being in the debate.