There's Democracy For You

I, too, am thoroughly disgusted with the leader of the NDP. This is enough. I'm voting Green this election (and I've never voted anything other than Orange). The NDP will receive my scathing letter of intent this week.

I'll say again that I would like to see the Greens in the debates. However complaining about a lack of democracy seems a bit hypocritical for a party whose sole seat-holding member was not elected by the people as a Green and did a bait-and-switch at the last minute.

That said, if other parties are permitted to get seats that way, the Greens should be no different, and despite my continued support for the NDP, I disagree wholeheartedly with their actions here (along with the actions of the other party leaders). Still, it'd be nice if the Green Party's ONE seat was won by more legitimate means, given the fact that their big complaint is that the decision was "anti-democratic". Well, so was the way that Green seat was gained. They should fight the decision, but there has been more than a little of the pot calling the kettle black, and I don't like it.

I pretty much agree with what Lara said. I will be asking as many questions about this as I can when I go in to volunteer for Olivia (assuming I can find the time since I'm traveling for the next few weeks). But I'm still voting NDP.

the rules for the debates are set up by a self-appointed group of 3 media types... the rules for being on the debate have never been set in stone and appear to change every time E.May tries to get on them.... the point being that Harper is a raging misogynistic narcissus, and is afraid of May, the other leaders missed an opportunity to call his bluff, and Layton who can't decide if he's an environmentalist or not doesn't want to have this pointed out in front for all to see.

Judging by the amount of discussion this issue has created though (over 50+ letters to the star in a couple of hours for example) it will probably do more for the greens than anything else.

I really think they should finally set out official rules for being allowed into the debate. It seems that having at least one elected member has been a pretty standard qualification for the last few decades, but they should have laid everything out from the beginning rather than throwing out a new hurdle every time a debate comes up.

I disagree with the claims that this is an act of sexism. Both the Conservatives and the NDP have had female leaders in the debates before, and the Greens weren't permitted into the debates when they had Jim Harris as leader. No, this is not about sexism, this is about self-interest. The Cons and the NDP stand to lose the most from the Greens participation in the debate, that's why they're the ones who are opposed to it. While Stephen Harper may very well be a sexist pig, I don't think that's the true reason he doesn't want May in the debate. So yeah, the reasons behind it may not be noble, but that doesn't make it a gender issue.

Also, perhaps I'm nitpicking I fail to see what their being white has to do with anything. I don't know if you noticed, but May is just as white as they are.

(Well OK .. no one in the world is whiter than Stephen Harper, but I digress. :P)

You're right about the "white" comment. I used it more as a common theme in these sorts of things. In other words, while it's true that both the Progressive-Conservatives and the NDP have had female leaders in the past who have been permitted into the debate, the control of the debates are still in the hands a powerful few, and more often than not, these people are old, white, and male.

As for rules for entering the debate, for every year the Greens have attempted to participate, there have been rules -- it's just that they've changed from year. I agree that a concrete ruleset would be beneficial, though simply having a seat should not be the only criteria. Percentage of popular vote and number of contested ridings should also play a part.