As mentioned in an earlier post the GPC has started an online petition for Canadians who want to try to ensure that Elizabeth May is included in the Leaders' debate in the next federal election.  A couple of days ago I read the first editorial I've seen supporting Elizabeth's inclusion in the Winnipeg Sun.  I'm sure there will be more, but here is the comment that caught my eye:

It is no longer fair, or even rational, to keep treating the Greens as a fringe party.

The point I wanted to make is that rationality is often in the eye of the beholder.  If the criteria for making a rational decision on who gets included in the debate is an objective answer to the question "What is best for Canada and Canadians?", then clearly the Sun's analysis of the issue makes sense.  The Greens should be included in the debate.

However, the individuals on the broadcast consortium that have decided to exclude the Greens from the last two debates have done so on "editorial" grounds.  This is because the question they are trying to answer is not the one being asked by the Sun.  Rather, they are asking "What is best for the interests I represent?"  So, to understand the reasoning behind the exclusion of the Greens, one needs to understand the point of view of the individuals making the decision.  When the decision is examined from that point of view it starts to become more clear.

The first reason that could explain the decision is that the individuals representing the consortium members (e.g. the CBC, Global, CTV, Radio Canada, and TVA) support other parties.  Consider the following:  In 2004 Peter Kent was the consortium representative for Global.  In the 2006 election he ran as a candidate for the Conservative Party in Toronto.  If Peter Kent supported the Conservatives in 2004, then a rational decision for Mr. Kent would have been to exclude the Greens.  It is almost certain that including us would be to the detriment of the other parties in both the short term and in the long term.

A second, and more subtle reason to exclude the Greens is what is referred to in the technology industry as a "disruption" of the status quo.  Here is the first sentence in the Wikipedia definition on disruptive technologies:

A disruptive technology or disruptive innovation is a technological innovation, product, or service that eventually overturns the existing dominant technology or product in the market.

I believe that same concept can be applied to the rising influence of the Green Party on the Canadian federal political scene.  We are a disruptive "product," and I think it is entirely possible that we will overturn the existing dominant "products" by winning Parliament at some point in the not-too-distant future. 

The problem with this disruption is that the dynamics of the existing political marketplace are well understood by the media, business, the non-political parts of government and so on.  Once we start electing MPs we are going to change this dynamic in ways that are unpredictable.  The individuals who are making the consortium decisions have risen to a level of seniority based on their understanding of the existing political model.  Successful media and business organizations have become successful within the existing model.  As such, it is rational for them to try to minimize the potential disruptive force to this model that the Greens represent.  One way to do this is to try to slow us down by minimizing public understanding of our "product".

Needless to say, I think that the best interests of Canadians should come ahead of the best interest of media organizations when it comes to our federal elections. But so long as the decision about who to include in the debate is based on subjectively rational grounds rather than, say, objective and measurable grounds, then there will be no guarantee that the Greens or other new parties will ever be included in a Leaders' debate.  It may take a change in Canada's Elections Act to fix the problem.