Raise the Hammer

It’s not fashionable to say it but I support our first past the post system. Our political system has many serious flaws but I don’t think that first past the post is one of them. A significant minority of Canadians seem to believe that is undemocratic for parties to be denied representation in the House when their support is spread too thinly to win a seat but I believe that to have representation in the Commons your candidates should have to lead the vote in their ridings.

That doesn’t mean that I support the decision of the networks. As Mr. Geoghegan suggests, representation at the debates could be based upon electoral support in the previous election, like federal funding. The threshold might be higher than 6.8%, however. A single seat shouldn’t be enough either. What’s objectionable about the networks’ decision is that it is not based upon established rules known in advance of the election call. The decision is made ad hoc and behind closed doors.

I do wonder how people would regard the issue of access to the debate if, instead of the Greens, the party seeking to speak at the debates was a right-wing nationalist or anti-immigrant party like the ones that are a feature of European politics. The Greens arguably have an attractive brand and some appealing ideas in their platform. They have a smart and articulate leader and few people quarrel with their commitment to the environment. The question is whether no seats and 6.8% vote share qualifies them as a significant national party.

I hope that Elizabeth May wins her seat and has the opportunity to advance her party’s vision in the House. One of the things May could do from a position in House is bring forward a critique of the operation of the Commons, itself, especially the rules and practices that diminish the role and independence of MPs and give so much power to the Prime Minister’s office and those of the other party leaders.

I must confess that I was not unhappy when May was not permitted to participate in this round of debates. It would only have strengthened Stephen Harper’s hand to be opposed by a fourth opposition leader in the debates. One party bent upon defunding the state versus four parties four more or less committed to sustaining the powers of the federal government works for the Conservatives.

Whether the Greens deserved to be in the debate this year or in 2008, for that matter, can be debated but there ought to be established rules for participation. It shouldn’t be decided in private by the networks and it shouldn’t be a matter decided by lobbying either.