They could try something like the "demon sheep" ad that ran in California last year. That was pretty cool.

Agree – no nude politicians. Unless it's done for laughs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1blymg20dw

:-)

The parties decided who could be in the debate….it's all done by negotiation and deals.

The rest were going to exclude May, remember?

Cons and the NDP opposed it, until May made a fuss

However it was decided by the political parties…not TV execs…which was my point

LOL sorry, but TV execs don't get to decide who participates in our political debates.

Yeah, they set up the rules for a fair debate, and what order they speak in etc….but have to go by the parties decisions as to who they want participating

Kathryn's right, you're mistaken Emily, the T.V. consortium decides who's invited to the T.V. debates. Now, May was threatening to challenge their decision in court, but they reversed themselves before that happened when they realized that by not allowing her to participate the consortium would have been violating it's own guidelines for who gets to participate (because technically the Greens had an MP when the writ dropped).

There is no "objective third party that ensures everything is set up for the debate".

Would that there were!

No. It isn't (though I do like your idea that a consortium of private broadcasters is "objective"… that's rich).

If you mean to argue that the parties "decide" who participates in the debates in the sense that they can theoretically bring enough pressure to bear on the broadcasters that ultimately the broadcasters will do whatever the parties say, then in that sense I don't entirely disagree (certainly the threat by at least one of the parties to boycott the debates if May was included suggests that at least one party felt that they could effectively utilize said pressure on the broadcasters to make them reverse their decision, though it didn't work). However, the consortium themselves actually technically make the decision on who participates and who doesn't, because they're the one's producing and airing the debates. There is no statutory regime surrounding the debates. The broadcasters hold them because they want to hold them. They could very well, theoretically, just say "we're not going to host any televised national debates this year" (no, they probably wouldn't really ever do that, but they could, as they're under no legal obligation to host and broadcast debates at all. It's their party, they make the rules).

The most convincing evidence that the parties don't make the decision is the fact that several parties protested the broadcasters' decision, and at least one party threatened to boycott the debates if the decision weren't reversed. If the decision was made by the parties there would have been no reason to protest the broadcaster's decision, as said decision would have been moot, and frankly, if it had been up to the parties I'm pretty sure that May would have been excluded. The reason May got in to the debates is largely, imho, because the decision ISN'T up to the parties.

But they don't have final word. That falls to the networks.

Now, do the networks bow to the pressure of the big parties? Sure.. but the parties in and of themselves don't get to decide who's on the debates.. if they did, we would have seen Sa Tan at the table a few years ago.

The parties decide whether they'll participate…and how.

Well, now that's another point ENTIRELY, so if the goalposts are going to shift like that, there's little point continuing.

I do get now that you "don't intend to argue" though. You're pleased to just keep saying something that's not correct over and over again, so you're right that in that scenario there's no point in the rest of us arguing that you're wrong.

"LOL sorry, but TV execs don't get to decide who participates in our political debates. "

In my opinion, they ought not to, but yes the broadcast consortium does have final say. Where there was disagreement on Green Party inclusion (Liberals for it, Tories/NDP initially against it), it was the consortium who had to make the final decision. Granted, their decision is based on trying to accommodate as many party leaders as possible, but if the Tories/NDP didn't relent in their threatened boycott, the final decision rested with the consortium.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/09/…

"Traditionally, the consortium of Canada's largest English and French television networks — CBC/Radio-Canada, CTV, Global Television and TVA — has decided which party leaders would participate in the debates."

Of course it's not mandatory, stop reading what I didn't write. You're arguing a very narrow point, and you know full well what we're all getting at. The consortium extends invitations the party leaders. No invitation, no participation.

"but have to go by the parties decisions as to who they want participating "

And what happens when there's a disagreement among the parties as to who should participate? The consortium decides who gets an invitation.

"The networks don't run Canada….simple as that "

If that's what you want to believe, go ahead.

Anyways, I'm done for today. I'll let you get back flooding these boards (28 posts in the last 24 hours – seriously?) Write if you get work.

I can always tell when the poster is a Con….lose an argument, or even heaven forbid have someone question you on it….and suddenly the insults come out. LOL

LOL no, they call everybody a leftist, but only Cons insult people