tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post8673429561645848465..comments2024-02-07T16:22:39.625-05:00Comments on Jeff Jedras: My problems with Chong’s Reform Act and my own preferences for reform Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-37862323031875710562013-12-11T17:59:24.617-05:002013-12-11T17:59:24.617-05:00I'm going to play a bit if devil's advocat...I'm going to play a bit if devil's advocate since I've already posted a hybrid membership/ caucus sharing of the right to call for a LR, with members getting the final say at liberal.ca firsties)<br />But as I read you, you've completely missed the point of Chong's proposal. It's not just to loosen the grip of the leadership , it's to bind the caucus mp more closely to their constituents rather then the party ; the other voters here if you remember.<br />Still, I support our compromise since members now choose leaders and constituents play no part in that. They can however become members.kcmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13374369034101640095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-66435496103738437042013-12-09T01:43:14.697-05:002013-12-09T01:43:14.697-05:00I think the problems with the expunging caucus mem...I think the problems with the expunging caucus members is actually the worst of the three (I agree with your criticism on ejecting the leader, and think the electoral reform changes are largely irrelevant). What I worry about is pressures towards homogeneity and suppression of dissenting voices. Already I think that the top (particularly for the Cons) basically imposes the views and everyone else is expected to follow along. Because of the thresholds (15% to trigger, 50% to expel) it makes it very easy to get rid of someone - or threaten to, which is almost as effective - unless they fall in line with the majority of the party. This is particularly important because parties change their views on issues (such as, say, gay rights) over time first by a small number of members supporting it and then it grows. But if someone has to fear that their lone support of a position that is against the party orthodoxy and only takes 15% of the hardcore stalwarts on this issue to trigger a politically risky move against them, perhaps they just don't bother. The party would then tend towards homogeneity. <br /><br />I also think that while many parties do have various sets of views that are sort of litmus test issues, there are many such litmus tests in the make up of any given party, and one can be lock step with the party on all but one. People should be able to violate a central party tenet without fear that this can mean expulsion. baziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11554808178484135529noreply@blogger.com