Sand in the Shorts: "An odd "all-candidates" debate" - Silliness Flies Courtesy Local Housing Group

By James Phieffer


Is the definition of an "All-Candidates" meeting that complex? In light of it being apparently beyond the ken of the Affordable Housing Action Network (AFAN), and after the Canadian Association of Retired People managed to screw up the concept in the last election, maybe it is beyond the abilities of some to understand. Interestingly, in both cases the poor grasp of democratic concepts was a problem for left-wing, or at least anti-conservative, organizations.

Here's the pertinent part of the article from the Intelligencer:

One candidate did more debating off stage than on leading up to what was advertised as an all candidates meeting.

Trueman Tuck, candidate for the People First Republic Party of Ontario, argued while the Affordable Housing Action Network called Wednesday's session an "all-candidates" meeting they had misled the public as only four candidates — those representing the Liberal, New Democratic, Progressive Conservative and Green parties — had been invited to participate in the actual debate.
"They won't let me on the stage. They won't let me speak," Tuck said minutes after arriving at the event and speaking with Gina Cockburn of the network, the hosting agency for the debate at Eastminster United Church.
Cockburn explained the agency had invited only the four candidates due to a systematic approach to the evening.
"We deliberately looked at statistics from the last provincial election and invited those candidates representing the parties that had received the most percentage of the votes," she said. "Unfortunately, only the NDP and Liberal candidates are participating."
Organizers did, in an effort to appease Tuck, permit him to present a three minute introduction but he was not permitted to remain on the stage and could not answer any questions.
Ontario PC candidate Todd Smith, when reached at home Wednesday evening, said while he had decided not to participate because he had learned only two of the seven candidates were planning on participating it was not the main factor in his absence.
"Basically what it came down to is it's a matter of time. We've got two weeks left in this campaign and, no offence to those people who showed up, but there's a lot of work to be done in those next two weeks and I had a lot of things that I needed to do to get caught up," Smith said.
Green candidate Treat Hull, the crowd of roughly 120 people were told, had "sent his regrets" as he was unable to attend the session.

In the comments section I posted the following (it should be made clear that the majority of comments targetted PC candidate Todd Smith's absence):

It seems that there was the same problem as there was with the CARP "All-Candidates" meeting. If you are going to call it an all candidates meeting, make it one. The Affordable Housing Action Network needs to apologize to those candidates who weren't invited, and to the public at large, for deliberately misleading both groups as to the nature of the meeting.
Democracy is messy, and the idea that a candidate can be arbitrarily excluded when they've filed their papers for whatever reason is execrable. I hope the organizers of all other such meetings will ensure such idiocy is not repeated.
As to the presence of Todd Smith, or lack thereof, it is noteworthy that the above comments excoriating his lack of participation didn't:
a) mention the simultaneous absence of Green Party invitee Treat Hull (notably, Mr. McVicar seemed to leave the matter alone as well...), or subject him to the same level of criticism, implying these comments are indicative more of a dislike of the Tories or their candidate, rather than an objective criticism.
b) attack the deliberate exclusion of the other 3 candidates. If said commentators are indeed concerned about ensuring the continuation of a healthy democratic system, and not simply a political oligarchy, this is a significant oversight.
I am no fan of Truman Tuck or his political ideas, but my belief in the importance of a healthy democratic system forces me to stand up for his, and all other candidates, presence if something is to be presented as an all candidates meeting.
Unfortunately, when the Affordable Housing Action Network put this forward as such a gathering, they lied.

In light of the difficulty some interest groups have in understanding the concept of an All-Candidates meeting, I thought it might be worthwhile to re-post an excerpt from the column which resulted from the CARP debacle. Here it is:

On Wednesday night, the second “All-Candidates” meeting in the riding took place at Loyalist College. You may have noted I put quotation marks around All-Candidates. I put these in quite deliberately, as the machinations of the lobby group Canadian Association of Retired Persons led to it being a “Some-Candidates” meeting, and an ambush attempt at questioning the candidates by organizer Mary Robertson ended the night poorly.
All-candidates events are often hosted by interested groups of voters, sometimes with distinct opinions or agendas, and who seek answers to specific questions. So the idea that the questions asked at such an event might hit harder at one party or candidate is not surprising or unexpected. But what happened last night was altogether different.
While there were some ignoramus' hollering from the crowd at Daryl Kramp, the machinations of CARP stood out as marking an odd nadir in the recent history of local politics, because this group deliberately sought to exclude two candidates from an all-candidates meeting. When Tim Hickey, an independent candidate, called Tuesday to confirm his participation with Ken Prue of the Brighton-Belleville-Quinte West chapter of CARP, all seemed fine. But on the day of the event itself, he was told only the major parties (NDP, Conservative, Liberal, and, in a significant promotion, Green) would be involved. Only with some argument was Hickey able to participate.
Maybe it's an old-fashioned idea, but it seems to me that if one is going to call an event an “all-candidates meeting”, all the candidates for the riding should be invited and allowed to participate. But with the attempt to exclude Hickey, and the lack of an invitation to Progressive Canadian Party candidate Andrew Skinner, this was anything but an all-candidates forum, which was a disservice to those who came hoping to hear all of the candidates comment on how they see, and would attempt to deal with, the issues facing seniors and other Canadians today.

An odd "all-candidates" debate UPDATED - Belleville Intelligencer - Ontario, CA:


'via Blog this'