Thursday, November 30, 2006

One member, one vote defeated

WHU HOO!

I was strongly against this measure. This convention is a perfect example of why.

We've all seen the way people win in one member one vote races - Stockwell Day eclipsing Preston Manning with massive church sign ups, Bernard Lord beating Norm Betts with a few kegs at U de M and so on. It is a bad way to choose a leader.

In this sort of race in particular, when it requires a lot of deliberation and people moving to their 2nd, 3rd and even 4th choices by the time the balloting leads up. Some deride deals on the floor but it is more than that.

I have encountered delegates here in Montreal who have said, of all the big four candidates, that they were impressed or disappointed to get to see them up close. These delegates are going to make informed decisions that could never be made under OMOV and the party will have a better leader for it.

6 comments:

scott said...

I completely agree, nbpolitico. I'm not a big fan of OMOV system even though it is probably the most fair and equitable one of all. It just isn't the same as having the delegated convention system where there are exciting last minute negotiation on the floor [couldn't think of any other way to say backroom deals!! lol].

Moreover, how can you like something [OMVO] that was first implemented, during the early '90s, by a political party in Canada that wants out of Canada. Not to mention, Belinda can't buy the leadership next time around.

Gavin Magrath said...

Good point: I don't see why anyone would want to give up last minute, closed dorr, backroom deals in favour of an actual democracy.

Scott: let's reject everything the bloc has ever done in principle, including winning seats in Quebec!

G

scott said...

Scott: let's reject everything the bloc has ever done in principle, including winning seats in Quebec!

Sounds like a plan only a Dal law grad could endorse. Go Tigers!

harrap said...

Completely agreed Scott and NBPolitico!

I have encountered delegates here in Montreal who have said, of all the big four candidates, that they were impressed or disappointed to get to see them up close. These delegates are going to make informed decisions that could never be made under OMOV and the party will have a better leader for it.

This is a great point -- I've found in my experience my opinion of some politicians has changed when I met them in person.

One example that comes to mind, Joe Clark - he comes off as awkward on televisioon but meeting him in person I was very impressed - he's friendly and down to Earth. Even if you'd never vote for him, you have to respect the man.

harrap said...

Also, I don't see why the Liberals should feel compelled to climb on the OMOV bandwagon -- "If everyone jumped off a bridge would you do it too?"

Though the current delegate system has room for reform - most notably in terms of making easier for delegates to make it to the convention -- like having a fund set aside for travel expenses?

JL said...

What did you think would happen when you ask delegates to vote on making themselves irrelevant?

Seems to me like to the Liberal Party disenfranchised the majority of party members instead.

Liberal Party whipper-snips the grassroots