This is a sad day for Canadian democracy: Greens can't participate in leaders' debates, networks rule.
What I don't understand is why the networks gave the other leaders a choice in this -- of course none of them want competition for votes, but that shouldn't be relevant to who is included in the debates. If the other leaders didn't want to show up, then that would be their loss not ours.
Update: CBC: Green leader allowed into debates, networks confirm
It is still sad that the other leaders were consulted at all, given they all (Especially Dion, the only other leader supporting democracy) have a reason to want her excluded.
According to former CBC News chief Tony Burman, the current unaccountable process really does allow veto power to the sitting government.
Tell the consortium!
This is what I sent in response to that. As well as the usual letters to the editor a good person to receive comments on this issue would be Jason MacDonald, Director, Public Relations and Operations, who spoke to the media about this decisions on behalf of the broadcast consortium. Email him at jason_macdonald@cbc.ca
--------------------
I am deeply disappointed that the Greens are being excluded from the televised debate. The NDP claims they are a one issue party and the Conservatives claim their platform is the same as the Liberals. Both parties are either willfully ignorant or deliberately deceptive as neither statement is remotely true.
The fact is that over 600000 Canadians voted for the Greens in the last election and there is every reason to believe that it will be even more this time. Canadians have a right to see Ms May debate the other main stream leaders as much as to see the other leaders against each other.
If the other leaders are not willing to enter a televised debate with her and boycott as a result, then that would be their decision. Perhaps there would be no debate, but at least that would better serve democracy then relegating a proven and worthy contender to the fringes.
Following the money
I had a vague thought about where the financial incentives were, which I haven't really tried to follow anywhere yet. But I wonder how much advertising revenue is generated through election coverage generally, and the debate(s) in particular, vs. other programming.
I'm not suggesting that the consortium would go along with this just to generate controversy that they can then cover. But I suspect they all have a non-trivial interest in making sure the debate at least takes place.
Controvecy is there anyway..
Here is an interesting question on that: Is there more controversy if they include or exclude Ms. May?
I remember during the Ontario referendum for MMP (I prefer BC's STV system, but whatever) that there were a lot of people who believe that we should "upgrade" to the USA system and only have 2 parties allowed in debates (Or even further in that direction to Cuba with only 1 party). The other fringe parties might be legally allowed to exist, but we shouldn't waste our airwaves/time/money/etc on them.
I strongly disagree with that, and believe that we should join with countries who have productive coalition governments rather than our wasteful pendulum politics (money/energy wasted by current government simply changing the policies put in place by the previous -- lather, rinse, repeat).
I suspect that with Ms. May included those people who think there should only be 2 people in the debates (those two who can realistically become the PM) will continue to be up at arms, and the ongoing controversy will continue to sell papers and fill the comments sections of online forums.
It's also not like the Conservatives or any of the other parties would not show up or pull their advertisements if May was included. That was as thick a straw man as I have ever heard uttered out loud. The reality is that the parties need the media more than the media needs the parties.
Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) consultant.
Let's call the whole thing off
"It's also not like the Conservatives or any of the other parties would not show up or pull their advertisements if May was included. That was as thick a straw man as I have ever heard uttered out loud. The reality is that the parties need the media more than the media needs the parties."
Of course I agree; I said as much in my own blog post about the situation. If you wanted to get even more conspiracy-minded, one might wonder how much money the private broadcasters donate to the major parties, and whether they might see the rise of another party as a nuisance they'd like to postpone (or avoid). (Not meaning to suggest that I believe this.)
As to your question about the relative level of controversy in the two scenarios, I think there's probably more froth generated by the clearly obnoxious exclusion. And it comes at a time early in the campaign when there's not so much else to cover, yet.
But you raise an interesting tangent. What's the effect on viewership if Ms. May is included or excluded? How many people would tune out because things got too confusing (or whatever the rationale might be) with an "extra" participant, and what is the net effect on public participation in the electoral process? In Figueroa v. Canada, although the court did strike down the 50-candidate rule, Iacobucci speaks pretty strongly in defense of a "big parties rule the roost" model:
There is an argument there that the public interest really may be served by marginalizing "fringe" parties.
Objective definition of "fringe"
The problem really comes down to an objective definition of a "fringe" party. While I'm officially non-partisan, and have pretty much decided who I believe the best choice is in my riding (based on the types of things we talk about here), I've also been involved with the Greens in the past. The issue of the debates has been there for years, with the consortium changing the rules each year. First it was you had to run candidates in a majority of ridings (except, the Bloc didn't do this given there was only 75 seats in Quebec). Then it was near full slate in at least one region (not full slate, as even the two major parties haven't been able to do that every election), then it was full slate plus the threshold of 5% of the vote from the previous election that is used for public funding, and then it was having a member in the previous parliament. As the Greens passed each hurtle, the cartel/consortium changed the rules again.
This is what is unfair -- not that any specific party has been excluded from the debates, but that a bunch of back-room boys get to sit there and unaccountably and non-transparently change the rules about what needs to be done in order to qualify to enter. They may claim they have an excuse, and they even throw up one of the most embarrassing straw-men arguments I've ever heard, but it is well past time for a simple set of rules to be defined that would be illegal for them to change the next time a political party qualifies.
I guess I consider the Bloc to be a fringe one-issue (if barely that) party, but don't consider the Greens to be one. The difference is that the Bloc's one-issue is tied to a narrow geographic region and thus the Bloc benefits from the oddities of the first past the post electoral system.
Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) consultant.
Fairness requirement
(Note it was Lebel, on behalf of the minority, that I quoted above, not Iacobucci who wrote the majority decision.)
Of course it is unfair. The question (or one of them, anyway) is whether there is any legal requirement for it to be fair. The Broadcasting Act does declare a policy objective to "provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to be exposed to the expression of differing views on matters of public concern," [s 3.(1)(i)(iv)] but that's not really a prescriptive statement. The Television Broadcasting Regulations say "During an election period, a licensee shall allocate time for the broadcasting of programs, advertisements or announcements of a partisan political character on an equitable basis to all accredited political parties and rival candidates represented in the election or referendum." But the courts have deferred to the CRTC's jurisdiction to interpret and apply the regulation.
And the CRTC's interpretation is this:
[Broadcasting Circular CRTC 2005-467, Dec. 2, 2005]
The notice referenced there goes into more detail. This policy change was a direct consequence of the Green Party's earlier challenge after the 1988 election. They lost; the court stated that debates weren't partisan broadcasts, so the equitable allocation regulation doesn't apply.
I think, on balance, that it is a pretty good thing that the courts are reluctant to force broadcasters to make particular editorial decisions, beyond what the legislation explicitly requires. The implications for press freedom, if they did, would be rather worrisome. So, I think if you wanted a legal foundation for fixed rules, this would have to be added by the legislature. It doesn't exist at the moment.
Which leaves as an option persuading the consortium to stop moving the goalposts on other grounds. We could just stop taking them seriously--and stop watching/listening--until they do, for example. (The debates seem to be getting less entertaining with each passing election, anyway. They're really little more that a sequence of prepared speeches, now, it seems.)
As an aside, the one-issue accusation strikes me as a red herring. Even if it were true of either the Bloc or the Greens (and I don't believe it is), this would have little bearing on whether they deserved to be part of the debate.
Don Martin: Elizabeth May has received a blessing in disguise
Reading a blog article by Don Martin says something I've been wondering about as well. Do the leaders debates actually change peoples minds? Will Ms. May's unfair exclusion from the debates by old-media actually benefit her more than being in the debates?
Now the question for me is -- where is the GPC YouTube channel and identi.ca microblog to simply bypass old-media? I'm going to ask as I believe some candidates are doing that already.
See also: Liberals losing ground in key ridings, poll shows which says:
Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) consultant.
Enough of clown-car democracy (Sept. 9, 2008)
The following is a press release from Fair Vote Canada
September 9, 2008
Fair Vote Canada
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
TORONTO -- The crude attempt by four of Canada’s political parties to exclude a fifth from the national leaders television debate “reveals the clown-car aspect of Canadian democracy,” says the president of Fair Vote Canada.
“It’s obvious why the politicians fear fair competition on television,” said Barbara Odenwald. “Canada’s voting system is so wonky that shifting a few votes in a few ridings could drastically change the national election result.”
If Canada had fair voting the media consortium would not even consider excluding Green Party leader Elizabeth May from the debate, said Odenwald. The Green Party would already have the dozen or more seats in Parliament its supporters deserve based on the votes they cast in 2006.
“Personally I’m tired of politicians pretending that 37 or 36 or 35 per cent of the vote justifies a majority government, and I don’t think I’m alone in that,” Odenwald said. “They try to fluke into a phony majority, call it a mandate, and lord it over the country for four years. What’s democratic about that? Nothing.”
“It must be a mandate from God they’ll be claiming, because it’s sure not a mandate from the majority of a democratic people.”
“The voting system is a continuing national embarrassment,” Odenwald said. “The sooner we insist that Parliament make it fair and democratic – allow every Canadian an equal vote and equal representation – the sooner the politicians will be able to stop making fools of themselves and of us.”
“It’s time to put aside the ridiculous partisan gamesmanship and make Canada a democracy of which we can all be proud, “ Odenwald said. “Democratic voting is what we need more than anything now on offer.”
-30-
CRTC submission
I sent the following to the CRTC
----
From the Broadcast act, section 10(1)(e) the CRTC has the power to force broadcasters to give equal consideration to all political candidates.
A consortium of broadcasters who are in control of the parameters of the upcoming national leaders debate have seen fit to bar only one of the parties which is big enough to qualify for federal election funding and has sufficient popular support to significantly affect the election outcome in many ridings.
In the interest of fairness and democracy I implore the CRTC to exercise its power in this regard and insist that the broadcasters either include ALL major parties as defined by the elections act or cancel the debate entirely.