Greens Should Be In Debate (all things considered)
Calgary Grit has started an interesting discussion on possible objective criteria for being allowed in the televised debates. I think the Greens should be in, for the reasons I repeat below"
CG: "Maybe there should be some more defined criteria. Say you meet any 2 or 3 of the following and you get in:
-Have elected an MP in past election or since then
-5% of the vote in the previous election
-Running candidates in at least half of all Canadian ridings
-Averaged polling number of at least 10% over the past year"
Interesting criteria. Since we're just spitballing, I agree with 5% limit, given German MMP precedent (one big problem with Ont. MMP proposal was 3% cutoff). I'd like to agree with an MP elected under party banner - Gilles Duceppe was a special case - was running as Bloc although technically Ind -don't know if you can legislate for that kind of thing ("hard cases make bad law").
10% in polling?
candidates in 50% ridings?
Both seem too subjective - Bloc has official party status - had it when NDP lost it. British parliamentary democracy being what it is, it's about citizens in given riding(s) choosing MP(s). Enough MPs ensures status of party: government or official opposition or official party status. Or not.
It is conceivable a party could have a plurality in parliament by running in just 49% or less of seats - think of Chretien's Ontario sweeps. So 50% rule can't work and given traditions, don't think any requirement to run in given number of ridings can.
10% rule: polls are like tides, etc.. Plus, whose polls, etc.. Unworkable.
Since in our tradition it's all about the MPs, could require only parties with official party status in parliament to debate - but NDP & PC were in debates in 1997, quite apart from Bloc & Reform in 1993. Instinctively feels wrong to ban party with support like NDP or PC, percentage of vote in previous election similar to regional parties Reform & Bloc, and with MPs, but no official status.
So, at end of day, most restrictive possibility is 5% minimum and MP elected under party banner. Both can be debated - 5% can be objected to on same grounds as 50% - what if party targeted and won the 12 smallest ridings in Canada? Given multiparty races, not even necessary to pass 5% cutoff. Official party status but not 5% so not in debate? And Burkean objection to elected under banner rule: "owe electors my conscience", etc.. Who cares how became MP for party, what's important is MP, etc.. Philosophically fine point.
Conclusion: need at least one MP (since official party status deemed too strict in past). And need to be more than fringe - have some sense party represents genuinely significant portion of public.
I'd support 5% in last election & at least 1 MP. I said hard cases make bad law, so that smallest ridings thing is clearly ridiculous, however theoretically plausible. Only question then: does it matter if elected under banner or not? Undecided myself. Tend to think irrelevant - Burke by his words and Churchill by his actions clearly thought so. What do you think?
Anyway, given Canadian precedent, no reason to keep Greens out of debates this time. And if do, should be on basis of 5% and possibly "elected under banner" criteria, and should make that explicit new rule. But since that's unlikely, Greens should be in. But probably won't, as consortium probably won't stare down combined CP-NDP-Bloc front. May be blessing in disguise for we Liberals - get credit from Green-leaning voters for backing Green inclusion without them actually getting in and avoid precedent which could bite us in long run - who knows what Green party will do to Canadian politics in long run, and who among established parties will win or lose?
Final note: knowing Dion, he was/is completely sincere in wanting Greens in. Not just for short-term reasons of natural justice and political calculation but because he genuinely believes environment is issue of 21st century and as poli sci prof knows that best long-term guarantee of continued action is establishment of permanent Green electoral beachhead, pushing parties green whatever power equilibrium between them. See post-war Germany. Or Canada post-CCF: whoever thought conservative parties would support socialised medicare, election after election, back in the day?
CG: "Maybe there should be some more defined criteria. Say you meet any 2 or 3 of the following and you get in:
-Have elected an MP in past election or since then
-5% of the vote in the previous election
-Running candidates in at least half of all Canadian ridings
-Averaged polling number of at least 10% over the past year"
Interesting criteria. Since we're just spitballing, I agree with 5% limit, given German MMP precedent (one big problem with Ont. MMP proposal was 3% cutoff). I'd like to agree with an MP elected under party banner - Gilles Duceppe was a special case - was running as Bloc although technically Ind -don't know if you can legislate for that kind of thing ("hard cases make bad law").
10% in polling?
candidates in 50% ridings?
Both seem too subjective - Bloc has official party status - had it when NDP lost it. British parliamentary democracy being what it is, it's about citizens in given riding(s) choosing MP(s). Enough MPs ensures status of party: government or official opposition or official party status. Or not.
It is conceivable a party could have a plurality in parliament by running in just 49% or less of seats - think of Chretien's Ontario sweeps. So 50% rule can't work and given traditions, don't think any requirement to run in given number of ridings can.
10% rule: polls are like tides, etc.. Plus, whose polls, etc.. Unworkable.
Since in our tradition it's all about the MPs, could require only parties with official party status in parliament to debate - but NDP & PC were in debates in 1997, quite apart from Bloc & Reform in 1993. Instinctively feels wrong to ban party with support like NDP or PC, percentage of vote in previous election similar to regional parties Reform & Bloc, and with MPs, but no official status.
So, at end of day, most restrictive possibility is 5% minimum and MP elected under party banner. Both can be debated - 5% can be objected to on same grounds as 50% - what if party targeted and won the 12 smallest ridings in Canada? Given multiparty races, not even necessary to pass 5% cutoff. Official party status but not 5% so not in debate? And Burkean objection to elected under banner rule: "owe electors my conscience", etc.. Who cares how became MP for party, what's important is MP, etc.. Philosophically fine point.
Conclusion: need at least one MP (since official party status deemed too strict in past). And need to be more than fringe - have some sense party represents genuinely significant portion of public.
I'd support 5% in last election & at least 1 MP. I said hard cases make bad law, so that smallest ridings thing is clearly ridiculous, however theoretically plausible. Only question then: does it matter if elected under banner or not? Undecided myself. Tend to think irrelevant - Burke by his words and Churchill by his actions clearly thought so. What do you think?
Anyway, given Canadian precedent, no reason to keep Greens out of debates this time. And if do, should be on basis of 5% and possibly "elected under banner" criteria, and should make that explicit new rule. But since that's unlikely, Greens should be in. But probably won't, as consortium probably won't stare down combined CP-NDP-Bloc front. May be blessing in disguise for we Liberals - get credit from Green-leaning voters for backing Green inclusion without them actually getting in and avoid precedent which could bite us in long run - who knows what Green party will do to Canadian politics in long run, and who among established parties will win or lose?
Final note: knowing Dion, he was/is completely sincere in wanting Greens in. Not just for short-term reasons of natural justice and political calculation but because he genuinely believes environment is issue of 21st century and as poli sci prof knows that best long-term guarantee of continued action is establishment of permanent Green electoral beachhead, pushing parties green whatever power equilibrium between them. See post-war Germany. Or Canada post-CCF: whoever thought conservative parties would support socialised medicare, election after election, back in the day?
posted by Eugene Forsey Liberal @ 10:29 PM
3 comments
