Sunday, December 04, 2005
Democracy? Hardly.
I want to ask a big favour of everyone. I know you've heard this a dozen times from me already, but please bear with me. This is something I feel exceedingly strongly about.
(IF YOU DON"T WANT TO READ ALL OF THIS PLEASE CLICK HERE to sign a petition asking that the Green Party be included in the televised election debates)
As you all know, there's an upcoming election. As you all know, a major focus of our election campaigns are the nationally televised leaders debates leading up to the vote. These play a pivotal role in how people evaluate the parties and in how they choose to vote.
I always thought that these debates were somehow government/elections canada sanctioned. They aren't. They're run entirely by 5 tv/radio stations - CBC, Global, CTV, TVA and Radio Canada. The decision making process is entirely in the hands of 5 people, one from each station. This in and of itself I think is very, very bad.
As an example of why this is such a bad setup, and to see where there's room for bias, one of the five decision makers last year was Peter Kent, representing Global. Well, it just so happens that Peter Kent is RUNNING for the Conservatives this year. Hard to imagine he was making purely unbiased decisions when he voted to exclude the Green Party from the debate last year.
Well, this year nothing has changed. Although the Green Party received almost 600,000 votes(roughly 4.5% of the vote), ran a candidate in every riding in the country, and reached the 2% criteria set by Elections Canada in order to receive federal funding(all parties receive $1.75 per vote, meaning the Greens get roughly $1M), they are ONCE AGAIN BEING EXCLUDED FROM THE DEBATE. Polls during the last election showed that 76% of Canadians wanted to see the Green Party as part of the national debates.
I could go on for hours about this issue. However, what it boils down to is that I feel strongly that the "old" parties no longer truly represent the political aspirations of all canadians. I think our electoral system is profoundly broken. I think we need to start looking for serious alternatives. I think it's important that people that are tired of the Liberals and Conservatives have the ability to choose to cast their vote for another party. I think it's important that ALL Canadians are educated about every option equally. I think we as Canadians need to demand that the media doesn't mangle and twist the election to make "the best tv" but rather that they present the information in the clearest possible way. In particular, I think that the rules surrounding the televised debates need to be clear, fair, and reflect the needs and democratic rights of canadians. I believe that all truly national parties should be given an equal opportunity to present their platforms.
If you agree, or if you atleast want to placate me and help me out please take 20 seconds to sign this petition. Don't you atleast want the chance to hear what the Green Party is all about? Don't you want to be able to see ALL the leaders side by side?
CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION ASKING THAT THE GREEN PARTY BE INCLUDED IN THE TELEVISED DEBATES.
(IF YOU DON"T WANT TO READ ALL OF THIS PLEASE CLICK HERE to sign a petition asking that the Green Party be included in the televised election debates)
As you all know, there's an upcoming election. As you all know, a major focus of our election campaigns are the nationally televised leaders debates leading up to the vote. These play a pivotal role in how people evaluate the parties and in how they choose to vote.
I always thought that these debates were somehow government/elections canada sanctioned. They aren't. They're run entirely by 5 tv/radio stations - CBC, Global, CTV, TVA and Radio Canada. The decision making process is entirely in the hands of 5 people, one from each station. This in and of itself I think is very, very bad.
As an example of why this is such a bad setup, and to see where there's room for bias, one of the five decision makers last year was Peter Kent, representing Global. Well, it just so happens that Peter Kent is RUNNING for the Conservatives this year. Hard to imagine he was making purely unbiased decisions when he voted to exclude the Green Party from the debate last year.
Well, this year nothing has changed. Although the Green Party received almost 600,000 votes(roughly 4.5% of the vote), ran a candidate in every riding in the country, and reached the 2% criteria set by Elections Canada in order to receive federal funding(all parties receive $1.75 per vote, meaning the Greens get roughly $1M), they are ONCE AGAIN BEING EXCLUDED FROM THE DEBATE. Polls during the last election showed that 76% of Canadians wanted to see the Green Party as part of the national debates.
I could go on for hours about this issue. However, what it boils down to is that I feel strongly that the "old" parties no longer truly represent the political aspirations of all canadians. I think our electoral system is profoundly broken. I think we need to start looking for serious alternatives. I think it's important that people that are tired of the Liberals and Conservatives have the ability to choose to cast their vote for another party. I think it's important that ALL Canadians are educated about every option equally. I think we as Canadians need to demand that the media doesn't mangle and twist the election to make "the best tv" but rather that they present the information in the clearest possible way. In particular, I think that the rules surrounding the televised debates need to be clear, fair, and reflect the needs and democratic rights of canadians. I believe that all truly national parties should be given an equal opportunity to present their platforms.
If you agree, or if you atleast want to placate me and help me out please take 20 seconds to sign this petition. Don't you atleast want the chance to hear what the Green Party is all about? Don't you want to be able to see ALL the leaders side by side?
CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION ASKING THAT THE GREEN PARTY BE INCLUDED IN THE TELEVISED DEBATES.
# posted by Greg @ 11:28 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Sorry to tell you this, Greg, but the Green Party is just as corrupt and as flawed as any other party. Jim Harris is just as dictatorial as Stephen Harper and Paul Martin -- if not moreso, since he does all his stuff without the glare of the media on the party. How do you feel, for example, about the fact he unilaterally had two elected party councillors suspended (Kate Holloway and Elio Di Orio)? I don't think the Liberals or the Conservatives would do something like that...
Anyway, the Greens were told before the last election that the only criteria to be in the debates was having an elected member. They didn't achieve that. Because of that, it doesn't seem too outrageous to me that they were excluded.
Anyway, the Greens were told before the last election that the only criteria to be in the debates was having an elected member. They didn't achieve that. Because of that, it doesn't seem too outrageous to me that they were excluded.
# posted by 
: 7:34 AM
: 7:34 AM 
Matt,
You certainly have a very unique perspective on things, and I'm by no means saying "everyone should vote green." Heck, I'm very much of the mind that if the Greens were to by some means happen to win a landslide majority in this election that we'd be in a WORLD of trouble.
The point is that I take MAJOR issue with the way that the debates are run. I don't think that they should be in the hands of television executives, particularly when there is not, nor has there even been any clear set of 'requirements' that have been abided by. The "must have a seat" criteria doesn't hold. The "we can only have 4 leaders" criteria doesn't hold.
I think that Elections Canada should in some capacity oversee the decision making process, and I think that there should be a set of rules in place that allow for every voice to be heard. I do however understand a limitation to the practicalities involved(ex. that having 20 leaders involved in one debate may not be plausible). Perhaps a 5 minute prepared comment would be one possible "work around".
However, the 2% requirement set forth with regards to funding seems like a very reasonable benchmark to me. If 6 parties met that requirement, or 8, or 12, I think that there should be an equal opportunity afforded to them(and their supporters, and in fact all canadians) to hear their platform, and compare them against the other leaders.
The issue ISN'T really about the green party, or whether they're good bad or indifferent. It just happens that they're the only party that's currently anywhere near that 2% requirement without being included.
I'm of the belief that a bit of "variety" in Parliament would be a good thing. I'd love to see a member or two of the communist party, the marijuana party, etc in Parliament. The problem however is one of "the chicken before the egg" - how do you GET a seat, when in order to get any kind of respect you already NEED a seat. We need to ensure that the "system" affords a reasonable degree of accommodation to new parties that receive a considerable degree of public support.
I certainly welcome your opinions and am glad that you took the time to add your comments
Post a Comment
You certainly have a very unique perspective on things, and I'm by no means saying "everyone should vote green." Heck, I'm very much of the mind that if the Greens were to by some means happen to win a landslide majority in this election that we'd be in a WORLD of trouble.
The point is that I take MAJOR issue with the way that the debates are run. I don't think that they should be in the hands of television executives, particularly when there is not, nor has there even been any clear set of 'requirements' that have been abided by. The "must have a seat" criteria doesn't hold. The "we can only have 4 leaders" criteria doesn't hold.
I think that Elections Canada should in some capacity oversee the decision making process, and I think that there should be a set of rules in place that allow for every voice to be heard. I do however understand a limitation to the practicalities involved(ex. that having 20 leaders involved in one debate may not be plausible). Perhaps a 5 minute prepared comment would be one possible "work around".
However, the 2% requirement set forth with regards to funding seems like a very reasonable benchmark to me. If 6 parties met that requirement, or 8, or 12, I think that there should be an equal opportunity afforded to them(and their supporters, and in fact all canadians) to hear their platform, and compare them against the other leaders.
The issue ISN'T really about the green party, or whether they're good bad or indifferent. It just happens that they're the only party that's currently anywhere near that 2% requirement without being included.
I'm of the belief that a bit of "variety" in Parliament would be a good thing. I'd love to see a member or two of the communist party, the marijuana party, etc in Parliament. The problem however is one of "the chicken before the egg" - how do you GET a seat, when in order to get any kind of respect you already NEED a seat. We need to ensure that the "system" affords a reasonable degree of accommodation to new parties that receive a considerable degree of public support.
I certainly welcome your opinions and am glad that you took the time to add your comments
<< Home
