Jim Harris Against the World

Jim Harris, The leader of the Green Party of Canada is upset. Being the leader of a party that the media refuses to take seriously can have that effect on people (Paul Hellyer and Preston Manning both understand this problem) In the last election, The Green Party received about 582 247 votes which works out to about 4.3 percent of the votes cast. This little statistic ensures that the Green Party of Canada has the dubious honour of being the most popular party without representation in the house of Commons.

A key part of every election campaign is the performance of the party leaders in the televised debates (This time out there will be 4) The details of these debates are negotiated between Canadian Television networks and the Canadian political parties WITH CURRENT SEATS IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. Ok so the argument can be made that this is an unfair standard and that it is undemocratic. Here's my thing: if there is no standard, you end up with a 17 way debate. Any standard is going to be unfair to the people who get excluded. The idea that if a party has enough support to get someone elected then they should get to participate is in line with the principles of representative democracy and our parliamentary tradition and just as important it is reasonable.

This little situation causes a problem for guys like Jim Harris, the kind of problem every university graduate faces when looking for a job. (I can't hire you because you don't have experience ; how can I get experience if no one will hire me) For the Green party the conversation goes something like this:

THE ESTABLISHMENT: We can't let you into the debates until your party is able to get someone elected.

JIM HARRIS: Support for my party is not concentrated in any one place and so I need the broad public exposure of the debates before I'll be able to get anyone elected.

THE ESTABLISHMENT: There isn't anything we can do about it. These are the rules, we can't just let anyone into the debates; it would be like a circus

JIM HARRIS: That's it then, I'm going to prove that you and all your corporate share holders and the Oil Tycoons in Texas and Alberta are subverting democracy. I'm going to launch a petition. Then I might tell your daddy on you.

Another Blogger I know was a step ahead of his party, he's been encouraging everyone he knows to file protests with the networks here and he was doing this before the party got going. Let me repost my comment on his efforts (at the risk of shameless self-promotion):

Hey Phil,

Since I've been reading your blog for a while now, I thought I'd finally post a comment since its election time and politics has once again become my life.

Leaders debates can be the tipping points of campaigns and elections can be won or lost in them. If I were supporting the Green Party, I would certainly do everything that I could to get my leader into the debates but I wouldn't expect to be successful. The reason is that debates are open to the leaders of parties currently represented in the parliament. Whether or not this is a fair standard,it has been a consistent one and I wouldn't expect it to change. As a Green supporter (who I'm sure would love to make changes to the electoral system) I'm sure you recognise this as one more way in which our parliamentary system of government favors incumbents over newcomers (the reason why smaller parties are the strongest advocates of electoral reform)

The good news is that with the remarkable voter turnout for the greens in the last election and the new election financing bill, the Greens are able to put a lot more money into their campaign this time around and there is at least one or two ridings where the Greens have a better than ever chance of electing their first MP. If this happens, this will be the first time a Green party candidate has ever won an election higher than the municipal level anywhere in North America. It will also mean that Jim can be in the debates for the next election.

Please take advantage of the comments to tell me why I'm wrong...