Election debate should only include the two parties that have a shot at leadership

The general consensus is that nobody really wanted an election. I beg to differ. How else do you explain a series of deadlocks masqueraded as minority governments? We need a majority to make this process work and then we can really say that nobody wanted an election.

The general consensus is that nobody really wanted an election. I beg to differ.

How else do you explain a series of deadlocks masqueraded as minority governments? We need a majority to make this process work and then we can really say that nobody wanted an election.

This is really a two horse race between the Liberals and Conservatives.

All other parties are, on their best days, fringe parties-lunatic fringe in some cases.

This brings me to a few changes I would make if I ran the show.

The first change would be a legitimate debate between the Liberal candidate and the Conservative candidate with no fringers allowed.

Sure the fringers would factor into a minority government because, sadly, they have enough political clout and seats to influence policy.

But none of them will be the PM-ever.

The realistic choice for Prime Minister of Canada boils down to two men from the mainstream parties.

They will assume the throne of power in this country, with all due respect to the tree-huggers, socialists and separatists.

The fringe parties simply get in the way of a legitimate debate.

I would also make a major change to the definition of a federal party in Canada, and one of the first casualties would be the fringe parties.

I would require federal parties to field candidates in more than half the ridings in Canada.

A party incorporated as an entity with Ottawa in the mix should be federal in scope and ambition.

The Bloc Quebecois Party would have to field candidates in every region, including the very generous hand that feeds their region from the West.

One trick pony Gilles Duceppe would find himself on the campaign trail in Olds, Alberta and Trail, B.C. instead of just Quebec.

Now that would be well worth the price of admission.

A new federal election regional policy would force the separatists to concentrate on provincial politics in Quebec because a regional federal party with a Quebec secessionist agenda is radioactive to non-Quebec voters.

The case for Elizabeth May’s inclusion in the debate is laughable at best.

She would be better served by possession of an actual seat to make even a remotely compelling case for her cause.

The fact that she doesn’t have a seat places her in the same lofty company as the Rhinoceros Party and Pot Party.

May has moved her traveling road show from the East Coast to Vancouver Island where an abundance of tree-huggers may help her Green Party cause.

Her chances are better than a shot at the Fort McMurray seat, but this gypsy political opportunist has no legitimate case for a role in the debate.

The NDP Party has never made a secret of their socialist leanings, and they do have enough elected members to have a stake in federal politics.

But they will never-ever be elected as a governing party in Canada.

The very thought of the NDP as a majority government is enough to make leaders in the Canadian business world wake up screaming in the night.

The NDP would have a scorched earth policy for business and too many rational voters would stand in their way.

So a leaders’ debate should only include the candidates with a real shot at the political steering wheel-all others need not apply.

Jim Sutherland may be reached at mystarcollectorcar.com