Quote:
Originally Posted by octothorp
I agree on this approach; it's far more fair than whether or not a party has a seat; consider the election where the conservatives got shut out, I don't think anyone seriously talked about banning them from the debates next time around.
On the other hand, if you allow only parties who received 5% of the vote in the previous election, Preston Manning would have never been allowed to participate in the 1993 leaders debates, despite the fact that everyone knew that the Reform Party was going to be a major factor.
I think the ideal situation would be to allow three different options for the party to participate in leaders debates; A party must a) Have at least five seats in the House of Commons at dissolution; or b) Have received 10 percent of the popular vote in the previous election; or c) Field candidates in at least half (or some other percentage) of the federal ridings (154, currently).
|
Even after 92? The PC still had seats and a considerable vote %
I think the % of national vote is the only fair way for who goes on National Leadership debates - I wold say 5-8. It allows a fringe party who dominates one of the major provinces to be included but not say if you only run seats in the Yukon or whatever.
If you do it by candidates run or something else then the Bloc likely gets excluded and even though everyone outside Quebec should despise and detest them - they are still important to have in a national debate because their core issue is one of national importance.
I just dont think if some whackjob from Lethbridge or whatever who wants to run an Alberta Independence Federal party and gets 1 seat that somehow that whaco should have a debate and essentially free advertising nationally.