As promised, here's some video of a speech Conservative Senator and former party president Don Plett gave at a hospitality suite Thursday night sponsored by MP Scott Reid, who is leading the movement to do reform the system of riding weighting for leadership voting that the party adopted when it was formed through the merer of the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives.
Former PC leader Peter MacKay had been leading the charge against Reid's proposal, and when Plett refers to a letter that's been circulating, he's referring to MacKay...
As I mentioned earlier, an attempt led by MP Scott Reid to change the equal ridings one member, one vote method of leadership selection is generating buzz at the Conservative convention. I'll have a fiery speech on the topic shortly, but here are BC MP Mark Strahl (son of Chuck) and BC Minister James Moore trying to avoid definitive statements on the topic.
Probably the biggest reason I decided to spring for the delegate accreditation for the recent Liberal convention rather than go the free route as blogger/media was so I could have a voting card and cast my vote for One-Member, One-Vote during the constitutional plenary. It seemed like a small price to pay to help ensure no Liberal would need to pay such a price again just to have a vote for party leader.
I actually even left our group interview with Senator David Smith a few minutes early to make sure I was at the plenary in time and I was able to grab a front-row centre seat for the proceedings. And first up was OMOV, and the YLC amendment.
OMOV and the YLC amendment
As I took my seat I saw a youth friend who has been a fierce, and fair, advocate for the YLC amendment; he was passing out literature advocating its passage. I asked him if he felt it would pass or not, and he indicated he felt the No side had done an effective job and he was predicting the youth amendment would fail. I was a little surprised, frankly, and wondered if he was joking with me a little.
As the proceedings got underway though, I looked behind me at the microphones to see who was lining-up to speak for and against the YLC amendment which, along with OMV, was first on the agenda. I recognized YLC communications director Braeden Caley at the yes mic, but at the no mic waiting to speak was Justin Trudeau and YLC presidential candidate John Lennard. As soon as I saw Justin, someone seen as a strong advocate for youth, at the mic I was very excited for our chances of defeating the amendment and I hurriedly grabbed my Blackberry to tweet the news.
Braeden made a good pitch for the amendment, but I thought the other speakers on the yes side could have made a stronger case. Justin however was very persuasive and eloquent, as was John with his statement that youth “don’t need a booster seat” to make their voices heard. In the end, as I raised my voting card to oppose the amendment I looked behind be and was surprised to see it wasn’t even close, and the YLC amendment was handily defeated. It was surprising given the unanimity of youth opinion that we had seen during this debate on the blogs, Facebook and En Famille. I think, in the end, everyone just considered the arguments on their merits, and came to the conclusion this amendment just wasn’t compatible with what OMOV is supposed to be about. I think John’s arguments, and also Justin’s intervention from the podium, were also persuasive.
We then moved on to OMOV, and at this point I was fairly confident of its passage. It seemed like something that had begun with more interest from the wider party membership had come to be embraced by the party leadership coming into convention. MP Navdeep Bains introduced the OMOV amendment as renewal chair and has been advocating for it for some time, as has LPC executive director Rocco Rossi. Michael Ignatieff also used his address to the YLC biennial on Friday to urge passage of OMOV.
At the plenary, Belinda Stronach and Bob Rae also made strong pitches for its passage. And in the end, once again as I raised my voting card and looked back at the hall behind me, the vote was pretty overwhelming in favour.
Being in that room it felt good to be part of bringing such a profound democratic change to the Liberal Party. And I was proud of our delegates, especially our youth delegates.
I always felt this would be a hard change to get through because, well, conventions are fun, and if there’s anyone that’s likely to be persuaded by that argument its those able to be delegates. They put what’s best for the party as a whole first, though, and that was great.
And the youth, who could have taken their ball and went home after their amendment failed, also put what’s best for the party as a whole first by largely supporting OMOV. Even one of the youth who spoke for the YLC amendment urged his fellow youth to support OMOV either way. It was great to see such maturity and vision.
Now, OMOV is by no means the end of party reform. It is just the beginning, and that will be the topic for another post. But it is a strong and meaningful start, and one I am happy to have been a part of.
Reducing riding slates
Another amendment from the national executive proposed reducing the number of delegates each riding can send to convention from 20 to 14, essentially reversing the decision to increase the # that was made at the Montreal convention.
I opposed this amendment. The more delegates the merrier, particularly given the large number of ex-officios given automatic spots. As well, more delegates sharing those fixed overhead costs means lower convention fees.
I’m not unsympathetic to the counter-arguments we heard during debate. Primarily, that small ridings can’t afford to subsidize that many delegates and/or send full slates, compounding rural under-representation when their unused spots are back-filled with overflow delegates from urban ridings. But as I said I think higher attendance means lower fees which can help more people attend. And we should look at other ways to make conventions more accessible. But stopping active and committed Liberals that want to attend from attending isn’t the way to address these concerns.
In the end, most agreed and this amendment was defeated.
Suspension of memberships
I had to step out of the hall for a bit, and as I came back inside the debate over the amendment to creates rules to allow the national executive to suspend or revoke memberships was just ending.
As I mentioned a few weeks ago, while I agreed with the need for bringing some formality and process to this, I had concerns about vesting so much power around the decision to allow someone’s later return with the membership secretary.
In the end, it seemed many people had concerns around just what would constitute behaviour that would lead to suspension or membership termination, and this amendment failed.
I still believe there needs to be some formality here, to avoid repeats of Paul Martin’s meaningless “suspensions for life” and the media kerfuffle created when such folks reapply for membership. Hopefully membership secretary Rob Jamieson and his team can consider the objections of the delegates and return to the next biennial with a revised proposal.
LPC not ready for cybertime
An amendment that may have seemed routine became quite contentious during the plenary. It dealt with candidate and delegate selection meetings, and who was eligible to vote at such meetings. After the words “in present at person at the meeting” the amendment sought to add “or is deemed under a Party Bylaw to be present” so as to not exclude the possibility of advance polls, main-in ballots, or Web or phone voting.
This motion was seized-upon by people who have, in my view, legitimate concerns about the feasibility of electronic voting, as opening the door to such a system without a fulsome debate.
While the constitutional advisors pointed-out other rule changes would still be required to bring in e-voting, opponents countered this motion would open the door to that change by making it a decision of the party executive, rather than the membership.
As I said, I share some of the concerns that have been raised about e-voting. You can buy memberships online without ever having to show ID. And with e-voting you could be e-mailed a PIN top vote online too, all without every having proven identity. How do we know that person even exists? What’s to stop someone from buying 100s of fake memberships and voting them all? These are some of the issues that would have to be addressed before we’d ever consider e-voting.
All that said, while in-person voting makes great sense for a densely-populated urban riding, in our rural ridings it’s much more challenging. And there did seem to be a rural-urban divide.
Many of those concerned about e-voting were from urban ridings. But those from rural ridings were concerned defeating this amendment could shut the door to mail-in ballots, which were used extensively in BC, for example, during the 2006 leadership delegate selection voting.
The alternative is to run multiple concurrent polls, and during our 2004 nomination selection we did just that in Vancouver Island North, running polls in Port Hardy, Gold River, Campbell River and Comox. But that was a significant logistical and volunteer challenge I don’t think could be duplicated today.
In the end, this amendment was defeated, which was unfortunate. While as I said I share the e-voting concerns, we need to recognize that one-size does not fit all and we do need some flexibility for rural ridings.
The other YLC amendments
It wasn’t a good constitutional plenary for the YLC. I didn’t support their OMOV amendment, but I did support some of their others. Their amendments regarding caucus members serving on the national executive were withdrawn (I’m not sure why) which left three others for debate.
The first dealt with ex-officio delegates, who receive automatic delegate status at conventions. Essentially this motion, which I supported, sought to remove ex-officio status from former MPs and Senators, while maintaining it for sitting caucus members and privy councilors. In essence, its about reducing the influence of ex-officio party elites vs. the elected grassroots delegates.
The debate became quite forceful, and I have to say former Glengaary-Prescott-Russell MP Don Boudria really pissed me off with his comments against this proposal. Seeming visibly offended and aghast, Boudria termed the amendment insulting to him and all the past MPs and Senators who have worked very hard for the LPC, almost saying how dare we propose taking away automatic representation from people who have worked so hard for the party.
Well, I’m sorry Don, but WE ALL work very hard for the party. And we all also work very hard so that you and your colleagues can get elected to the House of Commons. We, however, don’t get a salary or a tidy pension. Now, I don’t minimize the effort that MPs and Senators make, politics is a grueling and demanding profession. But, the point is, WE ALL work hard, and WE’RE ALL Liberals. And I doubt a past MP would have much trouble earning a delegate spot.
Being elected to the HoC or “called” to the Senate doesn’t make you more privileged than anyone else. I absolutely agree with ex-officio status for current caucus members, that makes obvious perfect sense. But “Status for Life” is inappropriate, and it’s un-Canadian. We’re all Liberals, Don. And while you claim a lack of respect shown for MPs, I thought your intervention showed an insulting lack of respect for the Liberal workers without which MPs couldn’t get elected.
In the end, I’m very sorry to say this motion failed. But I’d like to see it back, with a more forceful and active campaign behind it next time.
The next YLC amendment sought to require all policy resolutions sent to a biennial convention to be considered by delegates at the convention before going to the floor. In essence, this amendment sought to restore the policy workshop process that was stripped from this convention in favour of a prioritization vote by riding presidents-only following a non-binding debate and vote on En Famille.
I was very much in favour of this motion. Ironically, it seemed to be flying under the radar. As regular readers will know, I was a strong critic of the way the policy process was handled this round. On Friday I ran into the current (and re-elected) policy chair, Joan Bourassa. She was asking for my vote and, after I introduced myself, she recognized my name and was aware of the criticisms I had raised. Ironically, two minutes earlier I had just put on a button to support one of her competitors, LPC(O) policy chair, Maryanne Kampouris.
We proceeded to have a spirited discussion of the policy process, as she laid-out where she was coming from, the constitutional limitations she was working within, and where she desired to take the process, which is to broaden it as much as possible through tools like En Famille. I told her I shared that desire to broaden the process, but I felt restricting the vote to riding presidents was a significant step backward to desire, and I’d prefer the convention workshops to that, as it offers a broader pool of voters. I also stressed any revised voting process should require constitutional change, and MUST respect the weightings given to youth, women, seniors and aboriginals through the constitutional policy convention process. She indicated the switch of the convention from policy to leadership to policy had created complications there. Anyway, while I did support Maryanne I do believe Joan does want to broaden the process, and I hope that lessons have been learned from the firestorm over how the process was handled this year. Policy was the most hotly contested party office election, after the coin-flip YLC presidency of course.
But I began this digression because I learned, during our discussion, that Joan was unaware of the YLC policy amendment, something I found very surprising.
At the plenary, I was also surprised, and disappointed, by the intervention of the on-stage constitutional advisers. Their role is to offer non-partisan technical advice, but I felt they swayed the debate by telling voters they didn’t understand what the amendment would do. That seemed to be to cross the line into advocacy/campaigning, and it seemed like that to many others as well.
And in the end I think it poisoned the well against a well-intentioned and well-meaning amendment, with many speakers saying they supported the principle and intention of the amendment but felt it needed to be re-written, so in the end the amendment was defeated.
The final YLC amendment dealt with the creation of a new national executive position in charge of outreach. I didn’t support this amendment, I feel all executive members should be focusing on out reach, and we have enough of a bureaucracy without creating another position. Indeed, the size of the executive was reduced at the Montreal convention. In the end, the voters agreed and this amendment was defeated as well.
So, a tough constitutional plenary for the YLC, despite a few good amendments. I think though they could have done a better job putting up speakers to make the case for their amendments. A much better case could have been made for the policy amendment for sure.
Shortly after the passage by the Liberal delegates of One Member, One Vote I spotted Liberal MP and renewal commission chair Navdeep Bains. I grrabbed Nav for a quick video interview to get his thoughts on the passage of OMOV and the renewal road forward for the Liberal Party.
I'm back at the convention centre for the final full day of the Liberal biennial convention in Vancouver. And for a convention the media keep insisting we're saying is about nothing (I haven't met one Liberal that has said that, nor would they have came all the way here if they did) we've been pretty darned busy. I know my feet are killing me, from all the walking around.
Last night was a good night, but time management always seems to be a challenge for Liberal convention oganizers. I remember in Montreal in 2006, one of the keynote speakers (maybe Howard Dean, I forget) was running late and so the hosts had to fill, having one of the musical groups play song after song.
This time, it was the opposite problem: things went way too long. Particularly given that many delegates had just arrives in town and were still in Eastern time. The convention really should be a day longer, they just tried to pack too much into last night's program.
The opening by the Coast Salish chief and the later dancing by the Nisgha was great, the drumming stayed in my head for awhile. Paul Martin gave a great speech and Jean Chretien rocked the house, making me wish I could go back and write his name in in my leadership ballot.
And, of course, Stephane Dion spoke. I covered off my feelings on the content of his speech and his legacy last night. I'm told he spoke for some 40 minutes, and went over his time. Honestly, it didn't feel like he was up there that long to me. Not that he's a spellbinding orator or anything. It just didn't feel that long to me.
And, frankly, I don't think it would have been appropriate to rush him off the stage or make him just give a quick au revoir. With all he has done for the Liberal Party and for Canada, and, frankly, with the way the Liberal Party has treated him, he deserved to not be rushed but to leave on his own terms having said his peace and making the case for the ideals and principles that have driven him throughout his career.
I am very sorry though for the later speakers and particularly two great Canadians, Louise Arbour and Eric Hoskins. And I apologize to those who were hoping I'd be blogging about their speeches, which I really did want to see. I'm disapointed I didn't. But it was just so late in the evening at that point, my energy was fading, and I needed to seek nourishment and a beverage before heading to bed. As I said earlier, even if Stephane went long, it was waaaay to much to try to pack into one evening.
Today is a new day though, and potentially a big day for the renewal of the Liberal Party. The policy plenary is currently ongoing, but later this morning and in the afternoon is what for me is the main event, and one of the primary reasons I dropped a large chunk of cash I should have saved to be a votiing delegate rather than a non-voting blogger: One Member, One Vote.
I really think OMOV is going to pass. When I speak to delegates about it, I'd say easily 90 per cent are onboard. There is an organized yes to OMOV campaign, with nifty buttons. Nothing similar on the No side.
The question is the YLC ammendment. It's up in the air, but I wouldn't bet against it passing. The youth really know how to organize. Something is interesting though. When I speak to some delegates about it who aren't really familiar with the issue, they say sure, let's support the youth. But when we dive into it, that with OMOV anyone who takes out a $10 membership can vote, they see it really isn't fair to just reserve 25% of the riding points for youth, particularly when that's more than double their membership and much more than their % of the population. So, if enough people consider the issue, I think the ammendment might be defeated. But if it's just a reflexive "let's support the youth" without thinking further, it will pass. I don't want to call it at this point.
I will say though, for the record, that I will be supporting OMOV even if the ammendment passes. I think OMOV is a crucial reform. I think the YLC ammendment goes against the very spirit of OMOV, and has more to do with protecting influence then franchising youth. I think it's a bad ammendment. I think it will lead to problems down the road with other groups having a now legitimized argument for their own over-weighted quotas.
But let's not let perfection get in the way of progress. With that attitude, we'll never move forward. Let's pass OMOV.
"It's a convention about constitutional reform for the party. We're making an important series of constitutional changes including a weighted one-person-one-vote to select a leader. That's a very important change in a party. It's not a detail, it's not housecleaning; it changes the way the party works. It says to everybody who want s to join our party, 'If you join our party you get to vote for the man or woman who may be the prime minister of your country—so join the party.' That's why one-man-one-vote is so important and why it means an end to delegated conventions," Mr. Ignatieff (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Ont.) told The Hill Times last week.
The rules under which constitutional amendments will be debated at the upcoming Liberal convention have been released, and in the rules there is one significant change that could either imperil or improve one-member, one-vote’s (OMOV) chances of passing.
This is the rule:
6.10 Amendment Proposals. If a Constitutional Proposal (the “Amendment Proposal”) is an amendment of another Constitutional Proposal (the “Main Proposal”), then the Amendment Proposal will be considered and debated only if the Main Proposal is passed by a two-thirds majority. The Amendment Proposal also requires a two-thirds majority in order to be passed.
If you’re a procedure wonk or a Robert’s Rules of Order fan, you know this is a fairly extraordinary change that runs contrary to past Liberal procedure, and the rules of governance employed by every other organization I’ve been involved in.
What does this mean specifically for OMOV, and for the YLC amendment to secure a guaranteed 25% of the share for youth? In essence, it sets the bar higher for passing the YLC motion, and means they need to make a decision on OMOV without knowing if they have their quota or not.
The standard practice for amendments, and this is how it worked in Montreal in 2006, would be as follows. The motion to amend the constitution (to bring in OMOV, for example) is introduced, moved and seconded, questions to the mover, and then to debate. During debate, amendments to the main motion can be introduced. Like the YLC amendment to insert a youth quota. As an amendment to the main motion, it would require a simple majority of 50% +1 to pass. If it gets it, debate then resumes on the main motion as amended. If not, debate resumes on the original motion. Either way, as a constitutional amendment the main motion requires a 2/3s vote to pass.
This rule for the Vancouver convention changes that. Under these rules, the main OMOV motion will be debated and voted on first, before the YLC amendment. If it fails, the delegated system is retained and the YLC amendment is moot. If it passes, only then will the YLC motion be debated and voted. But instead of being treated as an amendment to the amendment requiring 50% to pass, it will be treated as a constitutional amendment in its own right, requiring 2/3s to pass.
So, in essence, this rule change does two things: Young Liberals will need to decide to pass or not OMOV without knowing if they’ll get their quota yet. And they’ll need to get 67% instead of 50% to get their quota.
I’m on the record as opposing the YLC motion, and my opinion on that hasn’t changed. But I don’t like these rule changes from LPC, which as I’ve said run contrary to established democratic procedure. And, interestingly, can’t be modified from the floor without a ridiculous 90% majority vote.
I don’t know the timing or history of these changes, or the motivation behind them. I would like to hear from whomever set these rules just why they felt they were necessary, and what their intentions were. This is a significant change; transparency demands it be explained. (UPDATE: See comments at the bottom from LPC president Doug Ferguson)
That said, the rules are now the rules and they do put the YLC in a difficult situation. Some in the YLC have been unclear as to whether or not they’d support OMOV without their amendment. Now, in essence, they’re going to have to put their cards on the table.
I do think that the YLC risks significant blowback if they now decide to outright oppose OMOV, the unfairness of the procedural changes aside, just because they’re not sure of getting their 25%. While I understand their position, the optics of it would be quite bad and could well undermine the very influence they seek to protect.
The YLC seemed fairly confident, at least publicly, of getting to 50%. I guess the question is, how confident are they of getting to 67%? And, if they’re not, do they pull-up stakes or is there room for compromise in their position to get them to a level of support that will pass their motion?
I’ve been talking with some YLC friends about their motion, and while I remain unconvinced as to the need or desirability for a quota for any demographic group under OMOV, I did tell them that what sticks in my craw the most about their motion is that the 25% figure is unsupported by any firm rationale, either in relationship to their percentage of the membership or their percentage of the population. The artificially high number makes it seem more like protecting a political power base than ensuring a voice for youth.
I’m not sure what percentage of the Canadian population is aged 14-25. I’m guessing somewhere between the 10% YLC membership of the LPC and the 25% they’re asking for. But if the YLC were to reduce their quota figure to something closer to their percentage of the population, they might find more traction for their argument and might get closer to getting their motion passed.
I’m not sure if that’s a compromise they’re willing to entertain or not. And I’d still need convincing to support it myself. But if we want OMOV, some compromise may be necessary.
At this point, though, the ball seems to be in the YLC’s court. If they don’t really want OMOV, and their motion was just a precautionary measure, they can just call it a day and oppose OMV. If they do want OMOV though, and feel some youth protection is important, some flexibility may be in order.
UPDATE: Outgoing Liberal president Doug Ferguson comments on the procedural change at En Famille:
I hope you will allow me to deal with this issue and why the Rules of Order are set up in the way they are.
The Rules of Order were approved by National Management Committee as per the party constitution. We felt that the general principle of OMOV (and any other major amendment) should be voted on first. If it passed, then the convention could consider a substantive amendment to it, such as that of the YLC. If OMOV does not pass, then the YLC amendment is moot. Personally I support OMOV and I believe it will pass.
Regular readers will know I've long been an advocate of the Liberal Party moving to a weighted one-member, one-vote (OMOV) system for leadership selection. I'm happy to see there seems to now be real momentum behind this change, which was recommended by the Special Committee on Party Renewal, endorsed by the LPC executive, and will be voted-on by delegates at the LPC convention in Vancouver.
Apparently this proposal has caused some concern in the party's youth wing, leading to a proposed amendment from YLC that would guarantee 25% of the riding votes would go to youth delegates.
First, here's a primer on how a weighted OMOV system could work, from the report of the Renewal Committee:
In such a system, every riding association is assigned an equal amount of points (e.g. 100) that are allocated to a leadership contestant based on the percentage votes received from party members in that riding. The contestant who ultimately achieves over 50% of available points nationally becomes the Leader of the party.
As with the current system, it is likely that more often than not, an individual candidate would not secure more than 50% on the first ballot. Under an OMOV system, in order to avoid prolonged periods (or rounds) of voting, a single transferable ballot could be used. Such a ballot would allow members to rank their selections. As the votes are counted, the last place candidate is dropped out of the race in each round and the ballots of those who supported the candidate who is dropped from the contest are redistributed according to the next most preferred candidate indicated by their supporters. In this manner, a transferable ballot ensures that a majority of support is achieved. This eliminates concerns of regional dominance and gives an incentive for leadership contestants to mount a truly national campaign.
My primary reason for supporting such a system is that it would be a much fairer, and more democratic, method of selecting a leader. Going to convention as a delegate can cost as much as $3000, an astronomical sum that ensures only a certain strata of the party membership has a say in such important decisions as electing a leader. With OMOV, ALL members will have a say.
Now, under the current delegated system, in each riding a certain number of delegate spots are reserved for different demographics. Youth Male, Youth Female, Adult Male, Adult Female. Campus clubs also elect delegates, as does the aboriginal commission. And possibly seniors groups, I'm not sure.
It's not clear to me whether the commission clubs would be allocated their own points under OMOV. I haven't seen any mention of them in the recommendations or proposed amendments, so I'd assume they won't be. But it seems clear that, at the riding level at least, there will be no demographic quotas.
This has the YLC concerned about a loss of influence over the leadership selection process, and is behind the push for the 25% youth quota. My friend Braeden Caley, who I'm happy to congratulate for being acclaimed as the YLC's VP Communications (he'll continue doing a great job) has posted the text of the OMOV amendment, and the proposed YLC amendment. Here's the preamble from the YLC explaining their concern, and proposed solution:
History: The Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) has historically recognized the under-representation of young people in the political process, which manifests itself in the establishment of the Young Liberals of Canada (YLC) Commission. The Young Liberals are the heart of the Party; its strength, its energy, and its manpower. Approximately, one third, or 33% of all delegate spots are reserved for youth delegates under the current leadership system of LPC.
Problem: At the upcoming 2009 Leadership and Biennial Convention in Vancouver, there is a constitutional amendment being presented by the National Executive of the Liberal Party to reform the leadership selection method. The proposed change is a one member one vote (OMOV) system. Under the new system, each riding would be allocated 100 points which would be distributed by percentage of the vote per leadership candidate (i.e. if Candidate X gets 50% of the votes in a riding, he will be allocated 50 points). As the amendment currently stands, there is no provision to account for the under-representation of youth in the Party. This proposal is problematic for both the Young Liberals organization and the Liberal Party as a whole.
While some may argue that this defeats the whole purpose of OMOV, we argue that OMOV defeats the purpose of having YLC to preserve and protect the youth voice in LPC—a voice that continues to be heard, respected, and fights for what matters most to young, progressive Liberals. We owe this to all Young Liberals of the past, present, and future. Young Liberals of yesterday and today have worked and fought hard for our commission and the presence we have in LPC and we owe nothing less to those of tomorrow so that they may have a home in the Party, just as we have had for years and years.
Solution: The YLC is proposing an amendment to the amendment to allot a minimum of 25 points to youth voters in each federal riding in order to maintain our representation in LPC. This amendment would translate to having separate youth ballot boxes at a leadership vote in every riding, and the votes would be tallied separately and given a minimum of 25/100 points in that riding. However, if the percentage of youth exceeds 25%, the larger number will be counted.
As the YLC says, some may argue this defeats the whole purpose of OMOV. Yes, I would argue exactly that. I'm not a fan of quotas. While I agreed with Stephane Dion's desire to increase our number of female candidates, I didn't agree with his setting an artificial quota. I think it's not going to accomplish what you want it to, and only leads to accusations of tokenism. I prefer identifying addressing the root causes of why more women don't get into politics, and breaking down those barriers so more women compete in and win open nomination races.
I also support an active and vocal youth wing within the Liberal Party. But a quota? If we accept that, how do we justify drawing the line at youth? How can we not give a percentage to women? We have a Seniors and an Aboriginal Commission, shouldn't they have quotas too? When Dion announced his quota for female candidates, one of the louder outcries was from multicultural communities within the LPC. Why not a quota for this ethnic community, or for that one? If you're going to open the door, where do you close it?
And, frankly, I'm far from convinced youth even need a quota. The youth wing of the LPC is strong and vibrant, energetic and active. Why do they need special protection? I don't think our young members would have any trouble getting their members out and making their voices heard within the riding votes without any artificial quota. They're the most successful organizers we have, I know they'll make their voices heard.
Having traveled the country and met with countless party members, I am convinced, now more than ever, that the best way to guarantee youth influence within the Party is to grow our active membership. On leadership selection, we could settle for an artificial quota, be it 25% (as suggested), or 30% (as we have now), or 33% (as we had when I first joined the Party ten years ago). But nothing beats a robust organization with an engaged and growing membership to back us up. Membership can have a real influence on the party at all levels, and as Young Liberals, we need to seriously punch above our weight.
Exactly. There's no reason why youth should settle for an artificial 25%. Work hard, organize, grow the membership, and not only will the Liberal Party benefit, and not only will the youth voice be heard, but they'll get more than 25% of the vote, and they'll have earned it. The way to gain and maintain influence is through organization and work, not quotas.
Look, no system is ever going to be perfect. There is always going to be comprise. A regionally-weighted system means that a vote in a small riding in Skeena carries more weight that a large riding in Toronto. That's a compromise we make now though, by allocating equal delegate slates by riding, because we recognize this is a necessary component of building a truly national party that seeks to represent all Canadians from coast to coast, whether we're popular there or not. Only appeal to our base and we'll never grow beyond it.
But, on the balance, OMOV is a much fairer system than we have today. Today, only those that can afford to go have a say. But with OMOV, no spots are reserved for different demographics. No automatic sports for riding presidents or MPs or past candidates or privy council members or party executives, like we have today.
One member, one vote. Rich or poor, young or old, male or female, member of parliament or member at large. Let's vote for equality. Not for quotas.
I can't find an online version, but in an article by John Geddes in the dead-tree edition of Maclean's, incoming Liberal national director Rocco Rossi indicates support for a one-member, one vote method of leadership selection:
"The most important part," he told Maclean's, "is to give meaning to party membership." For instance, he'd like to see the party eventually drop its old delegated convention system for picking leaders in favour of one member, one vote -- the method adopted in recent years by the Tories and NDP. That Rocco is willing to speak-out on such a contentious issue when there's no formal move afoot to change the party's leadership selection rules, and before more Liberals have even learned his name, is revealing.
An encouraging signal for those Liberals, such as myself, that favour OMOV and and end to a delageted convention system that weakens the grassroots voice.
I'll sound one note of caution though, as I always do when discussing OMOV. Pure OMOV would be a negative as Toronto ridings with large memberships would swamp rural ridings with small memberships. Weighted OMOV, where a point system is employed to ensure each riding is weighted equally, is the way to go.
Under such a system, each riding would be given, let's say, 100 leadership votes. Those votes would be broken down based on the vote of their members. So if 75 per cent of riding members vote for candidate A and 25 per cent for Candidate B, that riding would cast 75 votes for A and 25 for B. In that way, Scarborough-Centre and Skeena-Bulkley Valley would have an equal say.
With pure OMOV, the danger is rural ridings become powerless given their small membership numbers, and leadership candidates spend all their time campaigning and speaking to the issues of the large urban ridings in Toronto and Montreal.
Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
