The national Canadian election debates will take place on April 12 (in English) and April 14 (in French). See this story. The Broadcasting Consortium is still excluding the Green Party on the grounds that the party has never elected a member of Parliament, although the party has candidates in all districts in the May 2 election.
The logic of excluding parties that have not yet elected any representatives would have meant that the Republican Party would have been excluded in any 1854 debates. However, the party (which was only formed on July 6, 1854) went on to win more seats in the U.S. House in the autumn 1854 elections than any other party.
You’ve made this claim before, and I don’t think it is accurate.
“However, the [Republican] party (which was only formed on July 6, 1854) went on to win more seats in the U.S. House in the autumn 1854 elections than any other party.”
How many representatives do you count as having been elected by each party?
The party hacks in the gerrymander Congress thought that the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act would be one more business as usual law.
Result – the R Party.
Any special color for the 1854 Elephant ballots — setting the stage for the 1860-1861 Civil WAR — the horrific cost to get the 13th, 14th and 15th Amdts — i.e. the about 620,000 DEAD Americans on both sides – with multi-thousands maimed mentally and physically for life – no eyes, hands, arms and legs in the slaughterhouse short range battles ???
#2 Wasn’t the American Party the largest party in the 34th Congress?
According to Ken Martis’ Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the US Congress, there were 100 Republicans, 83 Democrats, and 51 American Party members in the US House, after the autumn 1854 elections. Because Republicans wouldn’t vote for a Democrat for Speaker, and vice versa, the House elected Nathaniel Banks speaker. He was an American Party member. Later he switched to the Republicans.
The Republican Party would not have been excluded under these rules. The Republican Party had many many seats going into the election of 1854 from people who had switched.
Last Canadian election, a person had switched so the Greens did have one seat and their leader was allowed to debate. Even then they couldn’t elect a single member though.
The government gave them a shot, they couldn’t make it. The government should treat them fairly (which it has) but it’s ridiculous to think it should keep them artificially alive.
#6, you are factually correct. Many northern Whig members of the U.S. House had switched parties to the Republican Party during 1854, before the election.
#4 A footnote to United States Congressional Elections 1788-1997 The Official Results, Michael J Dubin says:
—–
Author Kenneth Martis approaches the matter somewhat differently. He groups 100 together 100 members as “Opposition,” all but 6 from the states. The largest component of this group consists of 55 elected as Whigs, 44 under three anti-Nebraska labels and one American. The other two categories are: Democrats (83) from both free and slave states, and Americans (51) from both sections.
—–
Congress did not meet until December 1855, where the House spent the next several months before Banks was elected. Roughly 1/3 of representatives were elected in 1855, in which there were zero Whig or Republican candidates.
I don’t think that because of the total collapse of the Whig Party that you can characterize those candidates as being Republicans.
Gee – what happened in the timebomb election in 1860 after the 1854-1856-1858 pre-timebomb elections ???
P.R. and App.V.
Democracy NOW – let the EVIL rotted ANTI-Democracy past rest in peace — or perhaps just rot.