Sunday, April 5, 2009

Liberal Youth Threaten to Topple One Member One Vote

As many have commented. Jeff has an excellent thread going on the issue.

It's already a challenge getting One Member One Vote to fly at the Vancouver convention. 66% of the voters must vote for the constitutional amendment to get it passed. Now, the youth want to complicate the measure even further by demanding a quota of 25% of the riding votes. This is an actual amendment to the amendment.

My suggestion is that the youth reconsider and withdraw their amendment. The idea behind One Member One Vote is that NOBODY gets left out in selecting the leader of the party. If you're a member, you get a vote. Whether you're a youth, senior, aboriginal, female or fat middle-aged white guy, YOU GET A VOTE!

The youth, on a good day may represent up to 14% of the party, including those between the age of 14 and 18 that aren't able to vote in a general election. So why on earth are they DEMANDING a 25% quota? Show me a year in this party's history where the youth ever had 25% control of the membership.

One commenter on Jeff's thread suggests there should also be a 50% quota for women. That's a good idea. Now we're up to 75% of the riding's vote being controlled by the youth and the women. Why not take it a step further. 25% for the seniors as they are under represented, yet form a HUGE part of the population in Canada (read baby boomers). While we're at it, let's ensure that the true original Canadians have a say because our Aboriginal Peoples are the most under represented in the entire system. We'll give them a 25% quota too.

Now let's do the math. 25+50+25+25= 125%. I guess if every riding gets 200% of their votes, regular non-female, non-youth, non-Aboriginal, non-seniors might get a say in the party.

The same fellow also suggests that the age limit of youth members should be extended to include all youth up to the age of 30. 30!!! I'm sorry, but if someone suggested to me that I was a youth at 30, I would have laughed in their general direction. If anything, I think youth membership should end the day before your 22nd birthday. In a lot of jurisdictions, 21 is considered the age of majority. NOT 25!

Sorry. I took a detour on this one. Moral of the story is, I will not support the youth quota amendment, nor will I support any other quota amendments. You want more say? Go get a membership and your say shall be equal to everyone else's in the party.


Photobucket

42 comments:

Woman at Mile 0 said...

I agree, the concept put us right back where we were...without OMOV.

Mike said...

Jim since you didn't adress this at Jeff's I post here hoping you'll respond. It's long I know, but this is an important issue worth having a REAL debate on. I think you would agree.

It's just a fact that individuals 25 and under have less time, money and resources at their disposal to sign up members than do older individuals.

What's the average income of someone 25 and under Jeff and Jim?
How many are earning over $50,000K a year?

The YLC only has one paid staffer in the party, whereas leadership campaigns have dozens you shouldn't be surprised to know that leadership campaigns have a MUCH greater power to sign up members during a campaign than would the YLC.

So if the youth quota is gone WHY IN THE WORLD would leadership campaign have ANY incentive to sign up or listen to youth? Or Women or Aboriginals?

I agree with Jason here - I would like to see something on gender and maybe a few extra points for Aboriginals. But I'm not sure those amendments are going but I will support the youth amendment (as a convention delegate myself)regardless for the reasons above.

But Jeff your math is faulty on how too many quotas would add up to 100%. Polling companies use weights all the time where women and minorities get "double or triple counted" it's not that difficult:

So the vote could apportioned the following way:
7% Aboriginals
12.5% for male youth, 12.5% for female youth
That leaves 68% which is the SAME for adults as in the 2006 leadership race.


So let's say in a riding there are 400 voters:
85 are youth, within that 38 are female, 47 are male
15 are Aboriginal (right now I don't believe they classify Aboriginal delegates by age or gender)
300 are non-youth - within them 135are female, 165 are male

So that would translate exactly to:
12.5 points for female youth
12.5 points for male youth
34 points for non-youth women
34 points for non-youth men
7 points for Aboriginals (regardless of their gender or age)

Is that really so horrible given the REAL barriers that do exist to youth and women's participation (you know women are the primary child care givers and all might just leave them with less time to go join a party like men)? Especially since you want to give QUOTAS to ridings with memberships under 100 that could have their votes counted 10 TIMES more than riding is Toronto?

So a member in rural Quebec or Alberta matters much more than in Toronto, I'm still not getting why rural Quebec or Alberta matters more than women or youth or Aboriginals Jeff. There are WELL OVER 100 RIDINGS where their votes will count much more than others, that's just a fact. I'm ok with that and so are you, so I'm not getting why you don't admit that's also a pretty big quota for rural ridings.

This party has long established constituencies that OMOV would diminish, if you really want OMOV to pass shouldn't you COMPROMISE with those constituencies to ensure it does?

And Jeff it's INSULTING to hear you say the youth and women didn't EARN their representation! They fought hard to have it established by getting a constitutional amendment passed over 20 years ago that gave them enshrined representation in the delegated system. Now you want to take away their representation that they FOUGHT HARD for!

For instance, the Women's Commission's mandate is to exist until gender equality is established in the party and in candidates, the delegate system was set up for the same way. We're a long way from gender equality I think we'd all agree (well Stephen Harper wouldn't but I don't think any Liberal agrees with him...)

It's just a simple fact that fewer youth will vote for the overall package if the amendment doesn't pass (especially since it passed last time youth would have cause to be upset it didn't this time when it's the same amendment to the same proposal), there's no way you could argue otherwise.

It's a long way to 2/3 especially since it didn't even get 50% last time - ALL OMOV SUPPORTERS might want to think about that more.

Ok so this was like a blog post rather than a comment, sorry, but this a complex issue that can't be dealt with in anywhere near 2-3 line responses.

Mike said...

Sorry that should say "Jim your math is faulty" rather than Jeff, but Jeff made the same mistake. This is proposing to keep representation of the various groups roughly where it is now, in fact it's actually an 8% decline in youth representation from where it is now.

Mike said...

I also had this post. Address all these points and then maybe you can convince me and others that this amendment is the horrible injustice you make it out to be, but from my view I just don't get how you can be PERFECTLY OK with rural Alberta getting 10x the vote of Toronto, but youth, women and Aboriginals LOSING THEIR HARD FOUGHT REPRESENTATION.
--------------------------

The fee for youth to join the party just doubled from $5 per member to $10 per member as of April 1st. Is that not another barrier that will make it harder for youth to increase their membership?

$10 may be nothing to you, but again what's the average income of individuals 25 and under, many of whom have lots of student debt?

I still am waiting to hear from James Curran how it's somehow easier for youth to sign up members with less money and less resources than it is for lawyers to sign up their all their colleagues (who many lawyers are 25and under James?)

There's a good reason why I think if you looked at all 308 MPs you'd find lawyer is the most common occupation, they have the easiest time signing up members and winning nominations.

If the youth membership doubled which perhaps it will, I'm sure other groups with more resources at their disposal will triple, so then they are actually at less than the 13% they are now. When you have less resources at your disposal how can you keep up? It's like expecting someone running a campaign with $1000 to beat the person who has $1 million. Doesn't matter how energetic you are, money and time matters.

James Curran said...

1. the average income in Canada for a single male is 37K. So, nobody is making over 50k as you claim.

2. Aborignals will get 7%. interesting. My two ridings don't have more than 4 Aboriginal members combined. So, those 4 people will get 7%? I see.

3. With the exception of maybe Trinity Spadina, and a nomination race witin a riding, you will never ever see the youth with 25% of a riding total. Even the example you use is slightly over 20%. I can also guarantee that those 85 youth members are not Victory, Chequemate or Laurier members. Most wouldn't donate a dime. Thereby, 0-5% of the money the riding raised. Yet you insist they should recieve 25%.

3. this primary caregiver shit has to stop. I was a single father for 9 years, raising 2 children fulltime. It never hindered me from being active in the party.

4. Your argument does not even ever, on any blog, mention seniors and their contribution. The babyboomers are the largest segment and demographic in Canada. They also give the most money to the party. Yet you give them absolutely zero in you quota scenario.

5. You KNOW why the rural areas have to be weighted. Geographically, they make up most of Canada. And NO, we don't need to be identified as the Liberal Party of TVM.

6. Yes women and youth fought hard to get their voices heard. Now, they have the opportunity to join up and vote with a push of a button or a mail in ballot instead of missing a delegate selection meeting because of family obligations and whatever other fact of life that tends to come along. Nobody will be able to sifle their voices because their membership carries the SAME weight as everyone elses.

7. So the youth will hold the entire party up as hostages if we don't pass their amendment? I say bring it on. You'll never get a dime from me for a single solitary youth event or election. Period.

8. It's a longer way to 2/3s with the youth amendment than it is without it my friend.

James Curran said...

The fee for youth to join the party just doubled from $5 per member to $10 per member as of April 1st. Is that not another barrier that will make it harder for youth to increase their membership?

-I don't know Mike. Maybe they can have the youth give up a month of their Ipod downloads, blackberrys, cell phones and Iphones and they could get the 10 bucks. They all seem to have one. If those that have graduated and are between 21 and 25 can't find a job and cough up 10 bucks, they're in trouble.



$10 may be nothing to you, but again what's the average income of individuals 25 and under, many of whom have lots of student debt?

-I'm gonna bet they can afford a pint though.

I still am waiting to hear from James Curran how it's somehow easier for youth to sign up members with less money and less resources than it is for lawyers to sign up their all their colleagues (who many lawyers are 25and under James?)

-Um, i still have no clue why you are harping on this. I don't know many lawyers in this party that are capable of organizing memberships. They find organizers to do it for them. They can, however raise a shitload of cash to help support the hundreds of youth functions they sponsor.

There's a good reason why I think if you looked at all 308 MPs you'd find lawyer is the most common occupation, they have the easiest time signing up members and winning nominations.

-REally? How about because an MP's job is to make laws. Therefore, being a lawyer may be an asset on Parliament Hill. If it makes you feel any better though, the Conservatives don't have hardly any sitting MPs that are lawyers. Don't believe me? Look it up. Look up the Bloc too. Oh, and the NDP. The Liberals have the most amount of lawyers per capita.

If the youth membership doubled which perhaps it will, I'm sure other groups with more resources at their disposal will triple, so then they are actually at less than the 13% they are now. When you have less resources at your disposal how can you keep up? It's like expecting someone running a campaign with $1000 to beat the person who has $1 million. Doesn't matter how energetic you are, money and time matters.

- I see, so the members that grow the party, donate the most money to the party and help the youth at every turn are the bad guys. Nice.

Justin Tetreault said...

"8. It's a longer way to 2/3s with the youth amendment than it is without it my friend."

I'm wondering how you came up with this. In 2006, over 50% of delegates supported the YLC amendment, but OMOV did not receive the 67% necessary. If more than half of the delegates supported the amendment, how do you think it would have been easier for OMOV to pass without it?

Also, Young Liberals make up about 30% of the delegates in Vancouver. Let's say the YLC amendment fails. If all 30% vote against OMOV, you then need 95% of the rest of the delegates to support it (67% of the remaining 70%).

Even if half of the youth voted against OMOV, you would still need 79% of the remaining delegates to vote for it (67% of the remaining 85%).

It seems a lot easier to pass OMOV if you have the YLC on board.

James Curran said...

So, again, you fully intend to hold the rest of the party hostage and take your ball home if you don't get your own way? That's very mature of all of you.

Justin Tetreault said...

Also, your post on the side about people who have donated the max to the Liberal Party paying for your fee under the table through Pay Pal looks like a violation of the Elections Act to me.

It's considered a political donation to pay for someone else's fee. You can't accept the money under the table and use it for that purpose if they are already at the limit and unable to donate to the Party directly for you.

Justin Tetreault said...

How would we be holding the party hostage? A majority of delegates supported the resolution in 2006. Using your reasoning, didn't the people who voted no to OMOV hold the party hostage?

James Curran said...

What are ya trying to be a smartass now!

Lot's of people have fundraiser's to cover their expenses. Maybe you're not familiar with the concept. Has nothing to do with the fees. Mahy delegates have paypal accounts for donations.

James Curran said...

You're now suggesting the youth will run from OMOV if their amendment doesn't pass. Your suggestion not mine. Have fun with that. I'm ceratin the grassroots will be really happy if OMOV fails again.

Mike said...

James I'll give you credit for one thing: You are honest about what you want to see - You WANT to see the influence the youth and women CURRENTLY have DRAMATICALLY DIMINISHED.

You think they both have too much influence as it is. At least you are consistent, I'll give you that bc OMOV without the YLC amendment would achieve just what you want.

Others dance around it and say "oh the young Liberals and women will still be just as strong, it will be lollipopos for everyone if we just pass OMOV vote!" No one will come out and say they to decrease the role of the YLC and NWLC but you will so kudos to you for that.

The YLC won't vote as a bloc if the amendment doesn't pass but far fewer will vote for it than if the amendment passed, that's just a fact and Justin proved that you were flat out wrong in saying that the overall package is easier to pass without the YLC amendment.

Honestly if you KNEW IN YOUR HEART somehting would DESTROY a group you hold dear, would you vote for it James? Honestly?

So why do you expect ANY youth to do different? Who votes for their own extinction, especially when they believe (I think justifiably so) their organization has been instrumental in getting previous leaders to take progressive stands on issues such as anti-ballistic missile defence, same-sex marriage and aid to Africa?

Justin Tetreault said...

I'm not suggesting it. It is a hypothetical. But why would it be running from OMOV? Obviously the YLC is not happy with it as it is propsed, which is why they proposed an amendment to it.

I was just asking you for clarification about why you think it would be harder to pass OMOV with the YLC amendment given those numbers, including the fact that over 50% of people supported the amendment in 2006 (which you didn't answer).

As well, you're the one who made it about Liberal Party donation limits. You basically said if you're at the limit and can't donate on my donation page to my delegate fee, then pay me the money under the table to my Pay Pal. If it was just for normal expenses, then what does it matter if people are at their donation limit or not?

Mike said...

And if there are no barriers to youth, women and Aboriginal representation to go out to sign why are they so DRAMATICALLY UNDERREPRESENTED in the party relative to their population numbers right now?

You know very well their representation will decline even further with OMOV as it becomes easier to sign up members of other groups (if it's NOT easier to sign up members of other groups, why are other groups OVER REPRESENTED relative to the population in our party) but that's what you want I guess you said.

I guess you don't mind if you end up sending youth and women in droves to the NDP instead, who needs them right?

That certainly doesn't apply to me, but you can count on it happening in droves as they start to notice they don't have the voice they once had. But I guess we didn't have a problem with our party losing our share of BOTH the women's and youth vote to the NDP in the last election.

James Curran said...

Nobody's diminishing anything. If anyone wanted to do that, they'd disband the Women's Commissions and Youth Clubs.

OMOV allows anyone in the country to vote from anywhere that happen to be regardles of age, gender and race. ALL MEMBERS VOTE. Instead the youth, that currently represent a mere 13% of the membership want to influence 25% of the vote. Well that's grand.

Fine. We would like 33% of the votes in all youth events since none of the party over 25 can vote on a damn thing youth does.

Funny that we are all good enough to fundraise and organize for the youth, but god forbid we disagree with them.

I learned long ago not to bite the hand that feeds you. But hey, what do I know anyway.

James Curran said...

Well that's the lawyer in you alright Justin. Twist a fundraising tool into an election violation. Nice.

As for the OMOV part. Don't you get the feeling that there are a lot more people that think the youth amendment is a deal killer? I mean, I'm no genius, but when the some of the biggest bloggers in the party are all on the same page, well....

Oh well. Whatever. As I said, go ahead and make your point at the convention.

James Curran said...

Well Mike. Perhaps they can't break into the party apparatus like those who are entitled to their entitlements. Maybe they can't break into the clique of the clubs as they exist. You think? I do.

Actually we didn't lose the votes to the NDP Mike. We lost them to the Greens and to those that sat on their hands at home and didn't vote. All 900,000 of them. By the way, there's only 68000 Liberal members. A far cry form the 900000 that we lost. Also a far cry form the 200000 we had in the last days of Chretien.

But, like I said, you can go ahead and make your point.

Mike said...

"We would like 33% of the votes in all youth events since none of the party over 25 can vote on a damn thing youth does."
LOL! James you're not a member of the Young Liberals, you may be joking but since when do NON-MEMBERS of a group get to vote for anything? The LPC Constitution defined quite some time ago who was to be Young Liberals, it's pretty well established, virtually no one debates it, but it's a pretty iron clad rule that you have to be a member of a group to be able to vote for its leadership. You know I'd like a say in the U.S. President, hell even the British PM too, but I'm not a citizen, those are the rules.
The leader of the LPC should be made to have to care about youth, women, and Aboriginal Liberal party members (I don't mention seniors because if I'm not mistaken they are actually OVERREPRESENTED in the party relative to their population numbers) and that's what the quota system you want to abolish accomplishes. As you say it's just just the leader of Toronto, they should represent the whole country, but they should also represent the major constituencies in the party as well.

"when the some of the biggest bloggers in the party are all on the same page"

James c'mon! How many of those people are actually going to be voting delegates at the convention? Yourself and Jeff Jedras I'm guessing are the only ones!

Ok so you are saying "no one is calling to diminish anything", except you know taht voting for OMOV without the YLC amendment would do just that, how convenient.

Do you really believe there will NO negative side effects of passing OMOV or that our share of youth and women members (not to mention our election vote share from those groups) won't actually decline as a result?

Mike said...

James I'd also challenge you to find me a SINGLE youth who has said CLEARLY (not implied, but said "I don't support the YLC amendment" they will vote AGAINST this amendment? Just one will suffice.

So if you can't find one you can assume then that there's 30% base to start for this amendment they only need to win over 20% of the other 70% to pass this thing. So what will you do if it passes, if OMOV is so important aren't you the one killing it?

Right now we have quotas AND you have to go to the convention to vote.

Is it not still an improvement to have quotas but allow EVERYONE to vote?

If you don't see the latter as an improvement you are really holding out for the ideal here, an ideal that is very hard to pass when you need 2/3 of convention delegates, and 1/3 are youth.

James Curran said...

So what if I'm not a YLC member. I'm a Liberal. I want a say in who the youth reps are. Oh, I see, you don't like that. It's a closed club is it. Kind of like all the yoth that have been intimidated to quit over the last 4 years because they just can't break into that clique.

Again, if the party wanted to diminish these groups, they'd get rid of all the commissions.

Lastly, I will repeat this, the largest group in the population is the baby boomers, yet you and Justin don't care is seniors get a quota too. The largest donors to the party. Why not give everyone a 25% quota. YOuth, Seniors, women, aboriginals. Heck then the rest of us don't even have to vote. Perfect.

Mike said...

The constitution of the NWLC says their commission gets abolished when gender equality is achieved, I think seniors are represented beyond their quota now so it no longer becomes necessary, women are ocnstitutionally mandated to give up their entire commission when gender equality in the party is achieved so seems fair to say seniors no longer need a quota.
You'll note Ontario doesn't recognize the senior's commission either.

But James seriously is it not an improvement to KEEP the quotas as they are (and I'm already shown matehically how men like you would keep 34% of the vote AS YOU HAVE NOW and have had for over two decades), but give the votes to the entire membership instead of just convention goeers?

It sounds like actually you are the one being more stubborn here because you will accept rural Alberta getting 10x the vote of you, but not youth getting 1.5 times the vote or whatever.

Youth honestly believe OMOV without the amendment will destroy their organization, why do you REFUSE to compromise with them when they know what the likely consequences would be for the YLC of OMOV better than you do?

Justin Tetreault said...

"So what if I'm not a YLC member. I'm a Liberal. I want a say in who the youth reps are."

Senior Liberals are not Young Liberals. Young Liberals are still members of the Young Liberals. That argument is such a stretch and makes you look pretty desperate.

If the YLC amendment passes are you going to "take your ball and go home" as you say?

Justin Tetreault said...

That should say that Young Liberals are still Liberals. It doesn't work both ways. Didn't you ever take philosphy?

All Young Liberals are Liberals.
Not all Liberals are Young Liberals.

James Curran said...

While the two of you are fighting this great injustice, can you share with us, other than Elyse Banham, how many female youth are running for the president and various vice president positions at YLC? Let's see if the female equality thing matters at YLC. I'll start you off. Two males are running for president. A male is acclaimed at the VP-Communication spot.

In looking at your existing executive http://www.ylc-jlc.ca/executive_e.aspx, it wouldn't appear that the youth wing is all that female friendly. Oh the old double standard.

A BCer in Toronto said...

Something that no one has explained to me yet is how the YLC arrived at the figure of 25%? What metrics and background is that number based on?

While I'm on the record as opposing quotas for any group, if you were to argue for a, say, 50% quota for women you would at least have some grounds to base that argument on: their percentage of the Canadian population.

As for the youth amendment, however, where do they get 25% from? It seems like an arbitrary number to me, unless you can tell me that people aged 14-25 (the YL age group) make up 25% of the Canadian population. I'd stand to be corrected if I'm wrong, but I really don't think they do.

Someone earlier here mentioned people being entitled to their entitlements. Well, I ask the YLC that is asking delegates to support their amendment, why 25%? Why a figure that is not only roughly double their membership in the party, but substantially more than their percentage of the Canadian population.

And when you ask for more votes than you would get based on sheer numbers or population, that means you're taking votes away from other groups. I'd like to understand why it's a good idea to disadvantage some groups in favour of others, rather than having a level playing field: one member, one vote, with the only barrier to entry a $10 membership fee.

roblaw said...

Welcome to the inherent problem with the leftish side of the Liberal party.

People are all equal.. except when they are not.

We have one member one vote in the PC party in Alberta.. and have significant involvement of our youth, of women and of visible minorities.. not because we set quotas, and not even because we are completely altruistic.. but because as a party, we understand that we have to speak to all members of our population.

I suspect, if left well enough alone, a OMOV move would still result in a significant effort in the Liberal party to assure than women, youth, seniors, aboriginal people.. and other interst groups are all represented.

The problem isn't solve by setting a quota on votes. The problem is solved by making the constituencies friendly to those groups. If your constituency is dominated by closed-minded white guys, well, voting by quota isn't going to encourage youth, women and visible minorities to step up and get involved..

What about homosexuals?
What about the physically handicapped?
What about atheists?
What about transexuals?
What about quotas for visible minorities generally - why limit quotas to aboriginals, youth and women? In fact, I think there should be a quota for Hungarian-Canadians..


James - keep up the good fight, the Liberal party needs you and others like you to keep them grounded in reality. In the (small) chance that Iggy actually wins, I'd prefer to have my country controlled by the sensible rather than the senseless.

Justin said...

How many females ran for LPC President James? That is not even the issue here. Nice distraction (what does female involvement in LPC have to do with Youth influence within the senior party) but once again you are wrong.

There was a women who threw her hat in the ring for YLC President:

Danielle Keenan of Manitoba (who recently dropped out) to support Sam Lavoie

Justin said...

"Something that no one has explained to me yet is how the YLC arrived at the figure of 25%? What metrics and background is that number based on?"

Given the fact that Young Liberals make up about 30% of delegates to conventions currently, I don't think 25% is an unreasonable number. It's actually a bit of a step back from our current position in the party.

James Curran said...

Justin, go back the BCers blog and answer his question there, not here.

The Big Boy PARTY is well represented by women on the executive. And if Senator Poulin didn't take ill, she'd still be president.

http://www.liberal.ca/executive_e.aspx

As I said. Go ahead and make your bed. You already have my vote to your amendment...NAY

Justin said...

You still haven't stated whether or not you would vote against OMOV if the YLC amendment was passed (like it was in 2006).

James Curran said...

Your amendment won't pass. And OMOV is the most important issue. See, we adults aren't as self-centred and insecure as the youth appear to be.

Don't Tase Me, Bro! said...

F@#k the amendment.

That's all I'm gonna say.

Mike said...

Kerry Nelson is running for YLC President as well James:
www.kerrynelson.ca

Not to make apologies for the bad record of the YLC in gender representation, just thought it was fair to point that out.

But don't just look at LPC James, LPC(O) is JUST AS BAD as the YLC, you can't just pick and choose what suits your argument.

James Curran said...

LPC(0)? What are you talking about. It has a female Executive Director and 3 of the 7 table officers are women. How's that for an argument.

David-Paul said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David-Paul said...

This has been an interesting read. What has struck me in particular here is the general tone. The ammendment being proposed by the Young Liberals is extremely self-serving and the objective here appears to be proven "right" rather than making membership relevant.

If we choose to continue focussing on our "differences" (aka weighting votes) then the inevitable outcome is division. The differences between us (whether they be race, religion, age, or sexual orientation) are truly irrelevant. Discussing our differences will not attract people to our party. Most people don't desire preferential treatment or to be more equal than anyone else. They just want to have a voice.

What this means right now is ensuring that every member has a voice so that we can attact Canadians to the party, not just to increase our potential base of donors, but so that Canadians will feel they can become influential in charting our country's course regardless of who they are, how they got here, or how old they are.

OUR party is faced with some very serious challenges but that challenge isn't Stephen Harper - it's ourselves. The party believes that the majority of Canadians do not support the Conservative vision of Canada and yet it can't manage to compete with the Conservative fundraising apparatus. Why is that?

It isn't Monsieur Dion's fault. It's because membership in the Liberal Party carries little, if any intrinsic value. The Vancouver Coronation is the only evidence the needs to be provided of this.

What I don't understand is how the Young Liberal ammendment is part of a solution that helps increase and broaden the appeal of the Liberal Party so that it can 1) build it's membership/donor base and 2) allow every member a voice that isn't limited to attendance at a convention?

Granted, our party is somewhat of a "slow learner". The "new" membership cards are a great example of this. They are an improvement to the previous process, but this was originally proposed at the LPCO AGM back in 2004 and its only taken 4 years to become a reality.

How long will it be before the players understand that a pure OMOV system will not only make membership relevant but allow the Party to sell itself and broaden it's donor base? Time may not be so kind if this party doesn't adapt and evolve soon and get out of its own way.

Mike said...

I count precisely 1 regional director on LPC(O) that is female, so you are being selective with your numbers. If you took the whole exec (which is what you did the YLC) that's 5 women on the entire executive out of 17.
(See here)

David-Paul:
Pure OMOV isn't going to the floor.
What you say sounds nice, but so would be a world with gender equality and where youth were actively involved in political parties.


James why do you think the amendment passed with a fair bit over 50% last time?

Why do you believe it won't this time?

If it does pass will you torpedo OMOV and encourage others to do the same?

Why are you ok with someone in rural Alberta getting 10x the voice you do, but it's such a travesy for youth to possible get 1.5x more?

Can you point to past posts made by yourself and other bloggers from more than a year ago that say that it's the quotas that are the problem in leadership selection and not the delegated aspect?

Why was there no outrage against the YLC amendment in 2006 which passed with flying colours?

Why don't you just admit that a side effect of OMOV is decreased women's and youth voice in the party? Stop tip-toeing around it, you KNOW it's true. And why don't you just say that you personally believe that it's necessary to give the rest of the party a bigger voice over those groups.

I really believe the quotas we've had for over 20 years aren't the problem it's the conventions that deny 99% of the party a voice in leadership, but I guess you want to have EVERYTHING you want and will settle for nothing less, damned the consequences for other groups that you don't belong to, how mature of YOU!

David-Paul said...

Within a delegate system the use of quotas are certainly appropriate, but continuing their use within OMOV is ill-conceived. Quotas exist to level the playing field and ensure that specific segments within the party's membership are represented AT CONVENTIONS.

Introducing quotas under OMOV would tip the scale in the favour of these under-represented segments resulting in an inequitable system where certain groups would yield more influence with fewer votes. We certainly would not advocate for implementing quotas in our electoral system because every eligible citizen is equal and has the right to vote for their preferred candidate. A vote is a vote, period!

OMOV is a significant change to how our party elects future leaders and is looooong overdue. In my opinion quotas are simply not applicable within this type of system where EVERY member has a DIRECT vote in the leadership.

Mike said...

David Paul are there are some common talking points being passed around?

What you posted seems pretty similar to what Scott Templeton posted elsewhere.

(see here)


Scott Templeton (Toronto, ON) wrote
at 8:44am
Within a delegate system the use of quotas are certainly appropriate, but continuing their use within OMOV is ill-conceived. Quotas exist to level the playing field and ensure that specific segments within the party's membership are represented AT CONVENTIONS.

Introducing quotas under OMOV would tip the scale in the favour of these under-represented segments resulting in an inequitable system where certain groups would yield more influence with fewer votes. We certainly would not advocate for implementing quotas in our electoral system because every eligible citizen is equal and has the right to vote for their preferred candidate. A vote is a vote, period!

OMOV is a significant change to how our party elects future leaders and is looooong overdue. In my opinion quotas are simply not applicable within this type of system where EVERY member has a DIRECT vote in the leadership.


Curious no?

Oh well this debate is going around in circles, James for whatever reason you don't want to admit that it's mathematically impossible for OMOV to pass without the YLC amendment (Justin already layed out the math for you but you ignored it).

And you make claims the YLC amendment will fail based on NO EVIDENCE (given that more than 50% supported it last time, have you found a SINGLE delegate who supported it last time who will vote AGAINST this time? I'm guessing not).

So I guess you'd rather keep the delegated conventions than deal with those awful quotas that would help retain the INFLUENCE of a youth bloc in YLC races.

And what you seem blind to is the quota does make it mandatory for leadership campaigns to recruit dramatically more youth (to supplement the increased recruitment efforts and published membership targets that VP Org Elyse Banham has promised), so the quota DOES help the YLC with RECRUITMENT (and can credibly say they have a strong influential voice in deciding leaderships).

There is NO QUESTION that the youth membership was MUCH MUCH higher than 10% of the party membership in 2006, it was a failure of both the LPC and YLC that it dropped back to 10% since. The LPC AND YLC must do better to RETAIN them next time (which is no different than saying we must do better in the next election, everyone learns from past mistakes), but you can bet neither the LPC nor leadership campaigns will have any intrinsic interest to sign up youth without the quota.

James, you know that OMOV is purely a numbers game, and neither you NOR ANYONE ELSE has presented ANY reason to believe leadership campaigns would make anything more than token efforts to recruit youth if there were no quota.

So that is precisely why OMOV can't succeed without the amendment.

David-Paul said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David-Paul said...

Talking points Mike? It appears to be more of a "screen scrape" which isn't difficult to do.

Mr. Templeton may be circulating my post as I noticed he did by sharing at least one other email I know of. FYI, I have submitted my post in numerous groups and will continue to do so but the conspiracy theory you're alluding to doesn't exist Mike.