More Debates, Not Fewer Debaters

The unethical fools at the Broadcast Consortium will probably gladly keep Elizabeth May away from the debates this year too.
Especially amusing is the Conservative spokes-tool saying more participants would make it a gong show. Mulcair wanting a debate focused on women, while angling to keep the only female leader out of the room, is special too.

What’s wrong with the Star and Robert Benzie to write an article about debate controversy and not even mention the Consortium considering blocking the Green Party again because they got away with it last election?

Why would it be up to the Conservatives to decide how many televised debates there are? Clearly, the Broadcast Consortium isn’t actually in charge here. It’s known that Layton and Harper conspired to keep May from debating previously.

11 responses to “More Debates, Not Fewer Debaters

  1. Perhaps a compromise can be reached, 1 debate where all the leaders, including small parties can attend, and the rest, the ones people will actually watch so they can figure out who to vote for will just be the 3 main parties.

    Look your right it isn’t fair, but sometimes there things that are far more important then fair at stake. The future of this country, perhaps it’s very survival is at stake, and this is the NDP chance to beat the old parties and save this country.

    So if I have to choose between Elizabeth May’s feelings and saving country, sorry May but I’m not picking you and if you have to sit this one out, we’ll an NDP victory will give you proportional rep which will give the Greens far more then they could possibly win in this election.

    In fact it might be in Elizabeth ‘ interests to sit this one out.

    • It’s not an acceptable compromise because it sends a message that there are “main” parties, and “ones people will actually watch”. The choices should be presented equitably.

      • So we should also be including the Libertarians, the Animal Alliance Enviromental Voters, the Christian Heritage Party, and the rest of the minor party leaders? So all choices are presented “equitably”?

        You must have a cut off somewhere, and so far I don’t see you fighting for the rights of other minor parties – that just makes your cut-off a bit longer than others. The Greens are not a contender for government at this point, not even really a contender to play a major spoiler role except in a few ridings; if the Conservatives and NDP, two parties that actually are major contenders, are threatening their participation and support over the Green’s inclusion, then guess who the consortium, not to mention the people, are going to decide needs to be heard from more.

        It isn’t that I agree with the consortium’s decision to keep May out of the debates either, if indeed that is what is to come; I actually think that, with the broad national support and representation in the House of Commons that they have, May deserves to be in the debates. I also don’t pretend that they’re on the same level as the other three national parties, however.

      • That’s not a good view Kyle. Not only have you missed my earlier writings on this topic, you’ve forgotten the Greens are already part of government in that they’ve two MPs in the House. That’s as many as the PCs had in 1995, only 20 years ago.
        Should there be a minority Parliament as there was 4 years ago, even 1 seat makes a big difference.
        Yes, other registered parties should be included if willing to participate. Democracy demands it.

      • Well, I take it back then; you are consistent for the other parties. I can respect that, though I disagree.

        To me, unless a party has shown itself to have broad appeal without the free advertising that comes from being invited to these debates, you’re going to take up valuable time spent with parties and leaders who actually will make a severe impact. Because let’s be honest: televised debates already have poor ratings, and many are not going to care what Sinclair Stevens, leader of a party that didn’t even run 10 candidates in 2011, has to say. I argue that those people who already lacked interest in the debates are going to likely find even more reason to skip them as we go down the line of leaders of a dozen parties that the majority of people watching can’t even vote for. What is the point?

        That’s a cynical viewpoint, you may say, but it is reality. Did you ever watch the GOP presidential debates, with the long line of a dozen or so candidates running for the position, their points often cut short for time so all we got was little 30-second blurbs, or went on for hours to the point of ridiculousness? Is that really going to serve the democratic process, turning people off these debates more than they already are?

        Again, I agree that May should be in the debates. I agree all local debates should feature the candidates running. You could also propose some more equitable standards for being in the debates. For example, having a seat in the legislature, or running candidates in 60% of ridings. You could even make the case that CBC, the public broadcaster, should host a debate open to all parties and operate at a loss if necessary. I’d support that.

        But I will not blame the consortium for picking and choosing, they’re the ones putting this on after all, and they aren’t doing it out of the kindness of their hearts – it is about ratings, sad as it is to say.

      • Don’t get conspiratorial on me, now. They had May in the debates already, if it was a grand attempt to keep May and her party down, its failed spectacularly.

        Its entirely about ratings and viewership, and note that ratings aren’t just about selling ad time – well it is, but you don’t have to directly sell ads to do so, its like a promotion. It also confers favoured status on those members of the consortium that get this opportunity, and also play ball with the parties; i.e. if CTV agrees to a party’s request to limit the debaters, that party is likely to direct more interviews and such its way, thereby driving up viewership, so on and so forth. Its a cyclical relationship, like the water cycle or a parasite.

      • “Don’t get conspiratorial on me, now. They had May in the debates already, if it was a grand attempt to keep May and her party down, its failed spectacularly. ”

        It’s not just a theory when it’s happened. They kept her out of the last debates, despite her 2008 appearance. The party’s national vote dropped, even though May managed to punch through in the S-GI riding. Who can say where Greens would be today if the Consortium hadn’t worked with major parties to leave the Greens out.

  2. Pingback: CBC Wrecks Another Debate #elxn42 | Saskboy's Abandoned Stuff

  3. Pingback: CBC, Change the Debate | Saskboy's Abandoned Stuff

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s