Monday, December 12, 2005

Green Party Petition - Leaders' Debate

The Green Party of Canada has started its own petition to have leader Jim Harris included in the Leaders' Debate. I encourage everyone to sign this.

Why sign?

While I'm not a Green Party supporter, I do believe that the Green Party has a rational platform on national policy that deserves open debate with the other leaders.

Tags: , ,


Anonymous said...

Unless they have an elected seat, I see no reason for them to be included.

Currently, with 4 leaders, its already to crowded. Perhaps they could do several 1 on 1 debates rotated throughout the election.

Jim (Progressive Right) said...

I don't know if elected seats should count for inclusion in the leaders' debates. In that case, there should be a spot for independents, ie Bev Desjarlais.

Inclusion should be based upon having a realistic, national platform.

Andrew said...

The Canadian Action Party has a rational platform on national policy. Should we include them too? What about the Communist party? Their policy is rational (though repusive).

I agree with anonymous - we need to set a standard for inclusion, and possessing a seat seems to make the most sense.

Anonymous said...

Using the argument "having a seat shouldn't matter" then we should also be inviting the Marxists, the Communists and the Marijuana party. The debate would be a disaster.

It should be obvious that there is a threshold somewhere. Being an actor in a student movie doesn't grant you a ticket to the Oscars. Not because that actor is poor, but because people will expect some measure of success in their resume before they get to participate in the main event. I think *a* seat in the house is a wholly fair minimum threshold.

My advice to the Greens is to be mindful of the negative press they're attracting to themselves. Further, if it is their goal to get on TV, sinking their efforts into getting elected would be a far more efficient use of their time.

Jim (Progressive Right) said...

The Green Party, without major media exposure, garners 5-6% support nationally - without a seat, without participation in debates.

That's more than any of the other parties listed as "should we also includes..." combined.

The fact that they garner that level of support and plus run a full slate of candidates merits their inclusion, IMHO.

Blogger said...

I'm shamelessly promoting my own blog, but I also think you might be interested: