Hopefully the May meeting goes forward in a different guise, and the party passes a series of democratic reforms like no more delegated conventions and one Member one Vote for the next leadership campaign.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
When The Choice is Between Liver And Meatloaf
...your best option is to choose quickly and eat fast. Bob Rae did the right thing today.
Hopefully the May meeting goes forward in a different guise, and the party passes a series of democratic reforms like no more delegated conventions and one Member one Vote for the next leadership campaign.
Hopefully the May meeting goes forward in a different guise, and the party passes a series of democratic reforms like no more delegated conventions and one Member one Vote for the next leadership campaign.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
But I like meatloaf. Especially meatloaf sandwitches. And liver, done right, can be tastey too.
And I'm not over 60.
Do you really think this was our choice to begin with? I've been watching the mystifying ascension of Ignatieff for years now, and I can only conclude that the decision was made long ago and is out of our hands.
I've yet to figure out why Ignatieff ever wanted to be PM in the first place.
Honestly, I think Andrew Steele made a pretty good case against OMOV, since the url is impossibly long I'll just post it here...
"There is a bit of chattering among Liberal members about bringing in a one-member, one-vote system to select the new leader.
While it would be impossible under the current Liberal constitution, and so almost definitely will not proceed, there are better reasons than that to be highly skeptical of such a method.
One-member, one-vote (OMOV) is probably the simplest election system for selecting a leader. Basically, all the campaigns sign up as many people as possible, regardless of riding, before the membership cut-off.
After the cut-off, they organize those people to turn out on voting day.
All of the Liberal members vote for their choice of leader, either by preferential ballot or in a series of ballots, until someone gets 50% + 1 of the votes.
The primary argument for OMOV is that more people will be able to participate, expanding the franchise and bettering democracy.
However, taking the current Liberal leadership model, all Liberal members do get a direct vote for the leader. Delegates are then selected proportionally based on the vote in each riding. Those delegates are trustees, in that they must vote as instructed by the members who elected them. This is much the same model as used in the American convention system, where turnout is in the millions, rather than in the thousands as it is here.
The Conservative model is similar. Every member of the party votes, but those votes then win points, with each riding having a maximum of, say, 1,000 points. If 10,000 people vote in Calgary Southwest and 10 people vote in Joliette, each vote in Calgary is worth a tenth of a point, and each vote in Joliette is worth 100 points. The winner has to get 50% + 1 points, not votes. So you can lose the popular vote, but still win the leadership.
Under the current systems in place, each member does get a vote. It's just weighted for the number of people in that riding. Giving up this process would have huge consequences for each party, and for Canadian democracy.
First of all, if all members across the country have equal weight, parties tend to get bigger where they are already big, while getting smaller where they are weak.
If the Conservatives went to OMOV, the huge membership rolls in Alberta and rural B.C. would control the leadership selection process, choosing leaders to the right of the party. These leaders would be popular in these areas of strength, but likely have little attraction where the party is weak: francophone Quebec and urban Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. Memberships would drop in these areas, while growing in the base.
If the Liberals went to OMOV, the large membership numbers in Toronto – and to a lesser extent Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa and other urban centres – would dominate the party. Rural Quebec and rural Western Canada would become deserts to the Liberals as leaders became more and more urban in focus to appeal to the members who controlled the party.
To go to OMOV is to abandon the commitment to 308 ridings, a commitment that is the first step in party renewal.
For the Liberals, OMOV would mean the death of riding associations in rural Quebec and rural Alberta.
For the Conservatives, OMOV would mean the end of their Progressive Conservative faction.
For the NDP, OMOV would mean sparks of growth in Quebec would never flare into flame.
OMOV does not renew a party; it speeds its withering away into a regional rump.
Canada already has enough forces of provincialism and decentralization. The national political parties are one of the few institutions that bind the country together.
Moving to OMOV would change our national parties from forces of national unity to another slipping bond in our perilously loose confederation."
...I really don't want us to slip further into becoming just an urban political party sitting in some echo chamber where we only hear our own voices. I agree that there has to be a more inclusive way to choose the leader but I also want to make sure that it doesn't reinforce negative trends. Although I hate to compliment them The Conservative model seems like a good method to look into.
Both meatloaf and liver are horrible on the tongue, but both have lots of protein so the end result is healthy and good for you.
That whole OMOV post was too long to read so I just ignored it.
As for the "next" leadership race. Don't we, as members, get to vote on whether or not Ignatieff is acceptable as a leader? I'm still not sure of the process. Acclamation? What happens if actual voting members, who were denied a say now and are angry about it, vote against Ignatieff?
It seems to me, that for the past 2 years, Ignatieff has been setting up his machine to get a boost at first opportunity.
The optics of his being declared leader of our party without a say by members is very bad.
There very well may be blowback if this reaches delegates on the floor and I'd be inclined to support them.
I don't know who members of the party are regarding the "backroom" but I think they've now overstayed their welcome. Maybe the party needs to be burnt to the ground to rebuild at a more grassroots level.
I've been thinking we need a one stop blog shop, much like huffington post, or daily kos, that supports a grassroots voice based on ideals and searches for and supports progressive candidates who believe in country first.
This whole thing just stinks and I'm re-considering my support of this party.
FYI, I wasn't a Rae supporter. I was actually hoping Kennedy, Dryden or Hall-Findlay would run. But as for Rae, why was the call for him to step aside and not Ignatieff? I think, given time and a national debate, Rae could have won over Ontario.
Ignatieff can no longer win me over. And I've been getting calls from people who I pushed to vote Liberal the last election now questioning my judgement and loyalty to this party.
Whooee! I ain't been much of a fan of Iggy but from what I'm hearin', he's got a better cahnce to pull votes than Bobby Rae. There's gonna be some like Tania who'll jump from the Grits with such a right-winger in the driver's seat.
I figger the Dippers an' us Greenies are gonna get a few disgruntled Grits. C'mon over!
I reckon it remains to be seen if ol' Iggy's still leanin' hard right after bein' back here in Canada fer a few years now. The negative effects of livin' in Merka might be wearin' off.
I figger the egghead Iggy is a bigger egghead than the egghead Harper and they both got egos. Iggy can look a bit sinister with them dark eyebrows. The cartoon boys'll have some fun there, I betcha.
JB
If'n I was one of you lot, with this meatloaf - liver choice, I'd become a vegetarian.
Fred, that is so gay.
Speaking of meatloaf, Paul Fromm's appeal was rejected today. He now has to pay $10,000 in court costs in addition to the $30,000 originally awarded to Mr. Warman.
Life is good.
Well, my husband commutes to Toronto by VIA - and tonight most of the people on his car (approx 100) are excited about it.
Most dreaded another Liberal race (been too too many) and most hate Harper (except one really very conservative nerd that has no personality).
Post a Comment