Liberals Defeat One-member One-vote

I'm very disappointed that the amendment for one member, one vote was defeated and am struck by the irony with respect to how the vote took place. Two percent of the Liberal membership - the 2% that were able to get to the convention - were given the opportunity to have their say. The rest, the other 98%, had no such opportunity. How 'special interest' is that?

Its dissappointing to see this motion defeated. As a party member I feel that the delegates are only committed to first ballot voting and I cant be assured that my voice will be represented on ballots after that. I find the vote itself is case in point... I, as a party member didnt get a vote on this resolution. Perhaps if we had a system of one member one vote, then constitutional amendments and resolutions such as this should have the input from all and I stress ALL party members.

They aren't ready to share power as the other parties have but it will take a sound defeat at the next election to drill this home.

Well as a member of the party and the local vice president of the riding association I am very disappointed that we are not going to have one member one vote. I guess in some ways it shows me that the party is not serious about renewal.

It means the party remains under the ownership of the backroom - and not by Canadians. It will certainly help Jack Leyton and the NDP - and if possible - the only thing that helps Stephen Harper attract the center and right of center Liberals.
It will be a case of "It's my Party and I'll cry if I want to".
Bravo - to the delegates - who chose themselves not Canada. It shows they still have the arrogance they developed after the long Liberal rule - and still believe they are in power.

Same old, Same old Liberal way of doing things, they had a golden chance to show the party can streamline and keep intouch with the delagates, well they voted it down, thus showing their insashable appetite for spending money on a long gone era of delegate conventions such as this.We shall see how this plays out in the next election when they have no money to fund it. The surplus they tout about today, is, in my mind all smoke and mirrors. Shameful and a tasteles. Typical Liberals, like I said same old ways!!!

Nik this shows to me, maybe not others this defeated vote tells me once again that is not a National Party, they may have offices in other parts of Canada. But this vote shows they want to keep the power of the Party in Central Canada that is the bottomline, remember to send me a e-mail or instant message to ym canada562001 to tell when Chretien is coming on so I can change the channel off CPAC then come back later.

There are both pro's and cons when considering the question:

Pros: Its true grass roots representation that no one can deny. The obvious pro is that democracy wins and in such a climate, when the ordinary voter is impowered to choose their own leader, one of three things happen. More memberships. More funds for the Liberal coffers. A breakaway from 5,000 delegates speaking for 300,000 members, of which close to 2,000 might not show up due to expenses and inconvienience, a breakaway from ex-officio's and party "machines" fixing the numbers on the first ballot...

Its obvious that the numbers delegates were committed to vote to on the first ballot are written in stone, but out of touch with the popular vote. Delegates are chosen, not solely by their best ability to represent Liberals in their area and riding, but by who they support. This is insider politics at its worst. A vote for the same system indicates a same old same "o". People wanted a change in the liberal party.

Cons: It could be more expensive than people think to hold voting for 300,000 plus people. There's also the reality that conventions do alot for building alliances, policy, familiarity of who's in the party and what they support, an open public "rejuvination" that bolsters the polls...

Nothing quite replaces the excitement of a convention and all that goes with it, the eyes and heartbeats of the public that follows. Conventions also openly float the alliances and who supports who... there simply is nothing quite like a leadership convention to which, most who've participated will agree.

Summary:
In the end, one member, one vote is the most democratic way to go to chose a leader. It empowers the grass roots over the status quo and with this, it offers people a chance to pursue leadership that would not otherwise win. The one I speak of, the one that insiders won't touch, but the public will? The one who supported it most. Belinda Stromach. But she's not alone in her support of one member, one vote. It was a close vote, and there will be more than Stromach and the premier of Ontario supporting it this next time round, especially if the Libs lose another election.

Sometimes, when you live in a representative democracy, you have to believe representative democracy works (i.e. that informed intelligent people from across the country interacting with one another can make intelligent choices). Otherwise, we wouldn't need a parliament for instance and instead we could rely on a"Canadian Idol" decision system. Democracy and plebisites are not synonymous.

Here in Alberta, we are going through the process of one vote for each member in the PC leadership & premiership. It's unsettling. There are starkly different visions in the two frontrunners. It's more ideology than personality. You would never know the contenders are in the same party. If the leader was chosen at a delegate convention, this would never happen.

There was an article in today’s National Post about Alberta Liberals joining the provincial conservative party in order to have some influence on who becomes its leader. Allowing each member a vote could create a situation where one political party could unethically influence who become leader of an opposing party. A much safer way is to elect voting delegates who are empowered to elect a candidate.

I am very disappointed when I watch the type of dealing and horse trading going on right now at this leadership convention in order to get delegates to commit to alternatives after the first vote. This is precisely why so many Canadians are turned off politics. This system of electing a leader sets a precedent for our whole political system. If you have participated in delegate election or selection, as I have, at the local level you know that its not always the brightest bulb in the room who gets to go to the convention. I feel the horse trading and bullshit promises are exactly what keeps many of our very best people out of politics. Why in the world would you want to put yourself through this, be insulted and disrespected by the press, have your family hasseled and take a pay cut for the privilege? Much of the bargaining would be reduced by one-member-one-vote.

alfeee (01 Dec 13:49)

Nik; I have read with interest the vote on one-member-one-vote system. I agree with the comments on the defeat of the motion but if you have 6,000 delegates and 617 vote on the motion that represents roughly 10%, where were all the other delegates. A LOUSY turnout if you ask me, Someone did not do the ground work to accomplish the turnout.
Great idea, who fluffed the responsibility??????

The Bigcanoe
Fergus

Only 500 out of 5,000 delegates voted on what could have even more impact to this country than their choice of a current leader. Its mindblowing that the Liberal party wasn't better organized than this, to have put such a critical vote for reform so early in the convention before anyone really showed up! Inept. Its the only word to describe it.
This party needs to renew and rebuild. It will take an expanding membership base and more revenue. One member, one vote, would have automatically placed democracy into the hands of the members and out of the hands of the party insiders and hacks.

How critical was it for the party to renew itself from the same old same O? Try guys like Ken Dryden who would have placed second or third instead of fifth, having a real chance to win. Out of all of the candidates, Ken was the most popular. He was a winner, a bonifide possibility to form a majority government perhaps moreso than anyone else. One member one vote would have given the Ken Drydens of the world a major chance to succeed in changing the party from the bottom up. And who else? Try Belinda Stromach. (mind you, Belinda along with McGinty were pushing hard for this, always the angle eh?) The bottom line is, democracy took a setback in the Liberal party and it will cost them down the road... all because of disorganized ineptitude.