The Young Liberals of Canada have come-up with what I think is just a great idea, particularly in light of the lead-balloon Conservative attack ads, and that's to launch a "Positive Politics" video challenge that invites Canadians to create and submit videos that put forward a positive message, for the Liberal Party and for Canada.
While I may still look 19 I actually ceased being a Young Liberal a few (yeah, let's say a few) years ago. I'm told however that the YLC contest is open to kids of all ages, and so while I'm better on the messaging side than I am on the video editing side, here's my crack at a positive message and my submission for the video contest.
I hope you'll consider entering the contest yourself, and help to spread the positive message I think Canadians are hungering for. Entries must be received by May 27th. As they're received, all entries will also be added to the YLC YouTube playlist, so be sure to check out the other entries.
Here's my entry, which I call "Is this your Canada?" I hope you enjoy it.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
My entry in the YLC's "Positive Politics" video challenge
Friday, May 01, 2009
Video: YLC presidential speaches
This morning the two presidential candidates for the Young Liberals of Canada, John Lennard and Sam Lavoie, spoke to delegates at the YLC biennial.
Live from the YLC Biennial
9:15 am: Hello from Vancouver, I've fired up the netbook, connected to the WiFi and I'm going to try a little live-blogging from the Young Liberals of Canada biennial. It's a packed room with little elbow room, so we'll see if I can manage to do some typing without annoying my neighbours too much.
And I just got kicked out of my chair, they're taking some chairs out to make more standing-room as we're expecting an even bigger crowd with the imminent arrival of Michael Ignatieff, and also a possible Paul Martin appearance.
We've just had the YLC executive candidate speeches, most of which wee acclaimed. But as I've blogged previously there is a good race for president between Sam Lavoie and John Lennard. At this point I'll admit I'm pulling for John. Sam looks to have a lot of backing from the YL establishment types, but John I'm hoping has the members-at-large on his side.
John gave a helluva speech, with a lot of fire and passion about the youth no longer being junior partners in the party, but making sure their voice is heard through hard work, determination, and a doubling of the membership. It really galvanized the room, and I think earned him some support. I got some video of both speeches, I'll post them later.
9:25 am: Meeting chairs desperately trying to move the crowd away from the door to make way for Michael Ignatieff, who is due in the room in about 15 minutes. He's speaking to the Aboriginal Peoples Commission curently.
9:30am: Meeting chairs trying to stall and keep the crowd entertained while we wait for Michael.
9:40am: And Michael enters the room to a loud standing ovation and chants of Michael, Michael! He says mondieux, what a welcome that warms his heart. He's impressed by the turnout for the conventionm more people than we expected, and he says the feeling is similar to him to the 1968 convention that elected Pierre Trudeau as our leader, a convention where he was 21 that he'll never forget. It was the first time in his life that he felt as a young person that he wasn't a bystander but that he was there, in a small way, helping make the history of Canada, and that's what the Liberal Party is all about.
But he can't do it without us. It's no coronation, there's no robe of office, it's about the members and its about the team. It is not me that makes you possible, he says, its you that makes me possible.
9:45am:Bbecause we represent every corner of the country, because we're anchored on the lives of the people of this county, we're fit to lead and govern this country.
Ome member one vote is extremly important, we've got to get this through. He wants every member with that red card in their wallet to be able to say I joined the LPC so I, not a delegate, can choose the next leader of our party. We can't be a party of change without change ourselves, and this OMOV is crucial to the future of our party, crucial to our ability to say to people join us and tell them you, not a delegate, can choose the leader of this party.
And so, if your leader can make one request of you, I can't demand but I can request, I can pasionately ask that you pass this OMOV.
We' ve been through the rain, we've been through the snow, look at this sunshine! He finishes to applause. Geat speach by Michael, and great to see him pushing hard on OMOV. He was silent, however, in the YLC quota ammendment.
And he ends by donning a Canucks jersey with Ignatieff on the back. Sweet, wish I'd gotten a pic or video but I'm sure many others did.
9:50am: Room clears out a little with Michael gone and now Navdeep Bains, Liberal MP and youth caucus liason, is speaking to the YLC delegates. Nav also talks about OMOV, sidestepping the quota issue but supporting OMOV itself. Nav also gives a shout-out to Adam Miron, a great guy and the outgoing YLC national director. Adam has also been crucial with blogger outreach. He's retiring from the position and will be replaced by Keith Torrie, a great Young Liberal who is no stranger to blogging as well.
9:53am: Adam Miorn thanks everyone for all their support and brings up Keith Torrie to say hello to the crowd. He promises eveyone he'll work had for them and with them, a lot of exciting things coming up in the next little while and a lot of energy and momentum coming out of this convention. Keith brings up outgoing YLC president Corey Pike.
9:55am: Its been a grueling few days but Corey thinks he has run a successful campaign for past-pesident. He thinks it says a lot about our country that a guy like him can come from a small community in Newfiundland and a non-political family to become the president of a national youth organizaton.
People like to say the youth are the future, but in the Liberal Party the youth are now, we're leading now and we're changing Canada now. He lauds the diversity in the room: that's Canada. Canada is ready to be bigger than it is, and take on that next great national challenge. And the YLs are ready to help.
10:00am: Paul Martin is next after a five minute break.
10:08am: I just shot a quick video with LPC executive director Rocco Rossi on why we need to pass OMOV. I'll head back to the blogger room to get that online after Paul Martin speaks to the youth. Paul has always been very supportive of the youth, and they of him, so it should be a good one.
10:34am: Still waiting on Paul, I hope he comes before the battery on my netbook dies. I'd also like to video the speech, but its hard to liveblog and video at the same time. I may tape it, and then add my comments to the blog right after.
10:40am: Justin Trudeau in the house, posing for many photos. I'm assured Paul is less than five minutes away.
10:43am: Paul is here. CPAC is blocking my shot so no video. It's a joint address to both the Aboriginal People's Commission and the YLC.
Paul says in his career he has always relied on the Young Liberals, and m'any of the strong friendships he has forged in the party were with people who were Young Liberals, although they don't look so young today.
Speaking of the past, he said early settlers told out First Nations that we were right and they were wrong in ways of doing things, and if you're told that enough it seeps your spitit. But throughout history they have refused to accept that, to work with the newcomers to forge a future that adapts the best of the new says while maintaining their identity. Still, after confederation, the push to assimilate was there. It took awhile to get better.
It wasn't until the 1950s that a status Indian could go to university. Brian Mulroney's royal commission was important, as was Jean Chretien' healing commission. Then the Liberal government started the process leading to the residential schools apology. It didn't matter who was in power, the GOVERMENT OF CANADA apologized.
But how a government can apologize for the residetial schools and then reneg on the Kelowna Accord is beyond him. It was a monumental accord between the feds, prov and native groups that made promises, set goals and targets, and really moved beyond assimilation to a partnership. But the Conservatives said no,w e're going back to a policy that has failed for 500 years, we're going to assimilate. But Canada is not going to accept that.
This is a moral and ethical question for Paul. But it's also an economic question. We're 33 million people in a competition with 400m Americans and 1B Chineese. Young Aboriginals are the youngest and fastest growing segment of our popultion, and we can't afford to waste one iota of talent if we're going to compete.
10:52am: 50% of aboriginals ae under the age of 25. That would make a heckuva YL club. There's now an oppotunity as never before for the APC to come together with the YLC to pick up that challenge, to make this country better, and harness the incredible contribution our young aboriginals can make if they're only given the chance.
On-reserve schooling needs to be improved. The stories about monbey being wasted by aboriginal bands just aren't true. They're given less for education and less for health care per capita than provincial schools and medical centres.
Paul challenges the YL to work with the APC and pick up this challenge. Michael Ignatieff is going to win the next election, and Kelowna is going to come back, but it's not enough. We're all now Canadians, let's respect our diversity and traditions, and there's no one to better do that then the YLC.
And I'll signoff on life blogging from here, back to the blogger room to do some video.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
A conversation with YLC presidential candidate Sam Lavoie
The YLC race cetaintly looks to be one of the more interesting ones on tap for this convention. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.
Also, be sure to check-out Calgary Grit's interviews with John and Sam, and Scott Tribe's with John.
Jeff: Could you outline your position on the One-Member-One-Vote constitutional ammendment, and the ammendment to that ammendment proposed by the YLC?
Sam: I firmly believe that the YLC amendment is an improvement of the OMOV amendment. I think it enables the party to continue to have a strong, dynamic youth voice. No system is perfect certainly, OMOV is a step in the right direction for the party.
We've heard some people say that the YLC amendment won't do anything for recruitment. I think that misses the point - this is about retainment of our members - it keeps them engaged and active, because they know they have a say in the party.
The point of commissions is to give voice to those groups within the party that are under-represented. I think that's an important principle to maintain. We have been on the forefront of some of the most pivotal issues - from Kyoto to Same Sex Marriage, and the fight against Missile Defence. A strong youth commission ensures leadership candidates and the party leadership focuses on issues that impact young Canadians.
I think the YLC amendment strengthens OMOV, and it was proposed with the best interests of the party at heart.
Jeff: If the YLC ammendment does not pass, will you be supporting OMOV?
Sam: I am confident that the YLC amendment will be successful and I have faith in the delegates making the best choice. I am very much looking forward to that debate on the convention floor. I have faith in the delegates to make the decision that they feel is best in whatever circumstance.
Jeff: Would you support a comprimise that would lower the YLC weighting percentage to a number closer to the percentage of 14-25 year olds in the Canadian population?
Sam: As you know, amendments from the floor are not going to be entertained (or at least the threshold for it is extremely high). I do not want to get into hypotheticals but I would say that the 25% proposal from the YLC is a compromise from where we stand today which is one-third of the delegates.
Jeff: Speaking more broadly and putting aside OMOV, how do you propose to grow the YLC's membership and make it more of a force within the LPC?
Sam: We will make a concerted effort on campuses across the country to bring in new members. We need to provide these clubs with more resources and a wider array of options including greater use of online recruitment opportunities (Facebook comes to mind as one such tool).
We also know that there are a tremendous amount of student organizations on campuses - from issue-focused groups to multicultural youth groups that we can build stronger relationships with and bring into our party.
The goal of the YLC should be to represent the Liberal Party to young Canadians but also the views of young Canadians to the Liberal Party. A greater harmony between these views will no doubt build a stronger party that is relevant to young Canadians and their concerns.
Jeff: The YLC represents Libeals aged 14-25, but much of the focus seems to be in the college and university demographic. How would you make the YLC more relevant to high school students, and university grads? Should the cutoff be lowered from age 25?
Sam: Similar to my above answer, I think ensuring that the issues we are advocating are relevant to young Canadians and the way we convey those issues is reaching our audience is a natural way of bringing in new people.
I mentioned a greater emphasis on online recruitment which I think would really help in that capacity to bring in more high school students. I am very proud to have high school students like Jeremiah Kopp and Wesley Cohen as supporters who continue to give me great ideas about what the YLC can do on this level.
In terms of the cut-off age - I have not heard any rumblings about this - I think the threshold it is at today is good and would not see a need to change it.
Jeff: The YLC president also sits on the national executive and has a voice and a say on a lot of the renewal decisions facing the LPC. What are your thoughts on some of the wide party reform issues, and particularly the push-pull between the centre and the PTAs?
Sam: As any member would, I will make the decisions that I feel are best for the party and advance the interests of the party. It is no secret that we need to make the Liberal party more efficient in it's operations. That means more universal rules and implementation in some instances where those decisions are best streamlined. But it also means recognizing when local decisions are best made at the local level and allowing them to do so.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
A conversation with YLC presidential candidate John Lennard
I've known John for a few years now, first meeting him on the campaign trail during the last leadership race, when he was supporting Bob Rae and I was supporting a long-shot by the name of Stephane Dion, and I enjoyed his blogging as well. He's a dedicated and passionate young Liberal.
I was typing notes so these won't be exact quotes, but rather a paraphrasing of his comments.
Also, I have reached-out to the campaign of the other YLC presidential candidate, Sam Lavoie, to offer the opportunity for a similar interview if he's interested.
Jeff: I read at Scott Tribe's blog about your decision to support One Member, One Vote (OMOV) and oppose the YLC amendment for a quota for youth, so I don't want to focus on that too much. But what would you say to those that say the youth influence needs to be protected under OMOV?
John: Under the delegate system only two to five per cent of Young Liberals get to become delegates. The beauty of OMOV is every member has their voices head. I think that's important to understand and maintain. The beauty of Liberalism is every single individual gets to have an opinion and a vote. I think that's an important democratic principle to uphold, and that's why I support OMOV. Young or old, black or white, everyone would get to have a vote.
(As for protecting the youth influence) I don't accept the premise of that. We can always make sure we have a strong voice in the party and that starts with recruitment. We should go out and recruit and say this is a party that listens to youth and gives you a voice. That appeals to young people more than anything else. I don't think we should be appealing to youth with a brawn mentality, but rather to their brains, and to what they want to achieve.
Jeff: What do you say to those that worry OMOV with no quota for youth will lead to the same for the policy development process?
John: At this time I'm in favour of continuing with the idea of policy conventions, it makes sense at this time. I haven't seen anything from the party what would change that at this point. We saw something briefly happen with En Famille but I'm not sure it worked that well. A few people seemed to dominate the process, and that's not what we want. It's important to maintain a broad policy process that will lead to a policy convention where people can have their say, and where Young Liberals can maintain the representation at convention we've always had.
We should be looking to engage more people in the policy process. If it means looking at ways to do online voting we need to start looking at that. And we need to engage outside people as well. Trade associations, campus groups. I think Young Liberals can take the lead in something like this, organizing policy conferences with people from broad and diverse backgrounds.
Jeff: The YLC pulls from ages 14-25, but the bulk of the activity seems to be around the college and university demographic. While there's obviously challenges around recruiting in high schools, how can you make the YLC more relevant to that 14-19 group, which is half of your age range? Also, is 25 too old for a cutoff?
John: The YLs represent all members, age 14-25. I see in that very broad groups of young people. High school we need to do better, university and college we do well there but we could do better, we need more active campus clubs across the country. And finally, 22-25, when people start to become young professionals and graduate from college.
High school is a difficult situation. We can't go into a high school like we can a university, there's rules around political discourse and involvement. We've got to respect that, but there's nothing stopping us from touching base with student council presidents and saying we'd like you to get involved, maybe put together a group of area student council members and use them as sounding board for ideas and to get people involved.
It's identifying what's really important to each group of Young Liberals. As a young professional, at this point in my life, it's the opportunity for networking, whether its finding a job or a summer position or meeting people in more professional positions, that would be interesting to me. We've seen movement toward starting a group of young professional Liberals in Ontario, and I think that's an initiative the YLC should be promoting. We need to engage these people as well.
The diversity of the YLC needs to be promoted. We need to make events more inclusive for all ages. Not every event will be appropriate for all, but I do think it's important to maintain that respect for their different issues.
Jeff: We've touched on some youth-specific issues, but the YLC president also sits on the national executive and has a voice and a say on a lot of the renewal decisions facing the LPC. What are your thoughts on some of the wide party reform issues, and particularly the push-pull between the centre and the PTAs?
John: I'd like to see most of the administration tasks centralized in Ottawa. I think that makes sense. We spend $3 million on maintaining PTA offices and most of that is duplication of stuff we could be doing in Ottawa.
But when it comes to outreach and field staff it's essential to have offices in each province and territory across the country, so people have a connection to the party. In Alberta, the party office is the only face of the Liberal Party in the province. We have no MPs, so there's no Liberal MP offices. You need to go to Edmonton. So having that very basic connection to the party in every province makes sense, it's important for the unity of the party.
I mentioned the policy development process and that's very important to me, we need to engage more people.
Fundraising is something we need to start doing more of. I'd like to see an initiative where the Young Liberals take the lead on fundraising, and every dollar a Young Liberal can raise is matched by the party itself so we automatically double our fundraising. It would increase our outreach activities and allow us to bring new people into the party.
I'd like to see more of a focus on accountability within the party in general. I'm concerned when I hear about decisions being made behind closed doors to change things that should be done in public.
Monday, April 13, 2009
The road to Vancouver: OMOV’s chances and weird rule changes
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.
FOR MORE: Scott's Diatribes and All Politics is Local.
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.Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
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.
Saturday, April 04, 2009
OMOV with quotas? I can't get behind it
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.
While another friend, YLC presidential candidate John Lennard, supports the quota, he also makes clear he'll be supporting OMOV with or without the quota, he also makes the argument that there's a better way than a quota for youth to 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.
UPDATE: You can read more at Far and Wide, The Progressive Right, All Politics is Local, What Do I Know Grit, Scott's Diatribes and Calgary Grit. Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
New Young Liberal Ads
After another round of negative attack ads from the Conservatives yesterday and a groan-inducing attempt at humour (if making fun of the French counts) with their Kyoto Dog Blog, these new viral ads launched today by the Young Liberals are a refreshing change.
The three ads borrow from the Mac vs. PC theme except, of course, it's Liberal vs. Conservative, and they're darned funny (without making fun of the French). Check them out, and consider making a donation to help get the ads on the air. You can also join the Facebook group. I hear they've already gotten free media play this morning on the CBC and Canada AM.
I've always believed that when it comes to bullying like that displayed by the Harper Conservatives, the best way to respond is with humour. And I've also always said Liberals can do humour well but Conservatives, not so much. Come to think of it, it's the same way with good governing actually...