So now she wants to be included in the debates again. I defended her last time around, but in retrospect, it was an emotional decision on my part. She appealed to my sense of fairness. The underdog and all that.
I put my personal feelings aside this week and started feeling the same way this time until I caught myself and decided to listen to other arguments and her own reasoning. Media says it opens the debates to parties holding seats. May says she had over a million votes for Green and that should be enough. Problem is, there is no set criteria for parties like hers, so how fair is it that Green should get to debate, but another party having no seats would not?
May's arguments are almost entirely appeals to emotion: references to "old boys club," claims that "they" (the media?) are just trying to shut down democracy, saying she should be included because she's the only female leader. Sorry, but no, Liz. You should be included on your own merits, not because you are a woman. That argument simply defeats the notion of equality in a country where women can be elected.
Green should get to debate in ridings where they run, in my opinion, but not Nationally. Campaigns are too short and debates should be open only to those who hold a seat or more. Sorry, Liz, but earn it like everyone else and quit trying to appeal to our emotions to get your way when no one else can. Women should be treated equally in such matters. Lowering criteria - that your party needs a seat - partly because you are a woman implies that women can't win on their own merits.
update: (as I eat some crow) this from an anonymous poster -
In the 2008 debates the Green party had a seat in Parliament. The consortium told her that whether she had a seat or not was not the issue. They didn't see the party as a major player. This time around they are saying it's because she doesn't have a seat and the party is not a National player.
If you look at the history of the debates in Canada, you will see that neither of these reasons hold true. They don't have a set of rules so they appear to make arbritrary decisions each time. Exceptions have been made to allow parties with less than half the popular support or votes to participate in the leaders debates before. Manning was allowed to participate in the English language debates for the Reform party when he only had 2.5% of the popular vote and he didn't have a seat. He didn't participate in the French because he couldn't speak French. Exceptions are made for parties that aren't a National player ( the Bloc ). May got almost a million votes but didn't get any seats because of our first past the post system. In contrast, the Bloc got 1.3 million votes and got 49 seats. The Green party is definately large enough to be included. Large enough for polling companies to record them.
If you look at the history of the debates in Canada, you will see that neither of these reasons hold true. They don't have a set of rules so they appear to make arbritrary decisions each time. Exceptions have been made to allow parties with less than half the popular support or votes to participate in the leaders debates before. Manning was allowed to participate in the English language debates for the Reform party when he only had 2.5% of the popular vote and he didn't have a seat. He didn't participate in the French because he couldn't speak French. Exceptions are made for parties that aren't a National player ( the Bloc ). May got almost a million votes but didn't get any seats because of our first past the post system. In contrast, the Bloc got 1.3 million votes and got 49 seats. The Green party is definately large enough to be included. Large enough for polling companies to record them.
ok, those are good points.
