Archives

A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

Friday fritters

– Wow. Did Finance Minister Jim Flaherty really say that ‚ÄúRelatively speaking this is a mild economic recession”?? Even after seeing terrible statistics like these, he has the audacity to claim that? I believe you’ve just seen Gritgirl’s next bit of Youtube material.

– Speaking of Gritgirl, I can categorically deny I am her. She’s much better creatively then I ever could be.

– There has been some discussion amongst the Young Liberals about the One Member One Vote constitutional proposal that will be voted on at the Liberal Convention in May. One of the YLC Presidential candidates, John Lennard, supports the weighted OMOV concept without reservation. The other candidate, Samauel Lavoie, supports it, but apparently prefers that the 25% quota of candidates reserved for youth delegates that is currently in place for the current system of delegates be somehow preserved in any weighted OMOV system, though there is no explanation (yet) from Sam of how that would exactly be compatible/work with a weighted OMOV system. It would appear from his statement at his website that Sam would not support OMOV if it did not include that requirement, though I’ve had indications from chatting with him that he still would support weighted OMOV if it came down to it – but he needs to publicly affirm that.

I would say to the youth delegates – and to Sam and his supporters – that while I’m not exactly up in arms over whether the quota gets kept or not, I would urge them to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, if your proposed amendment (if indeed there is a amendment asking for retention of the quota in a weighted OMOV setup) does not get accepted. Do not cut off your nose to spite your face. The youth of the Liberal Party can be a strong voice in this party, even without a quota. I believe the weighted OMOV proposal -with or without a quota for young Liberals – is a better and more democratic system setup then the delegate system we currently have in place for the Liberal Party.

1 comment to Friday fritters

  • Without some sort of assured representation of groups, leadership candidates would just look at the membership list and run an SPSS data analysis or similar program, to see what more “like voter groups” (e.g., wealthy males would score highest) are within the membership, and then cater to those groups predominantly for their support. I know enough of our numbers that women (far far less than 50% of the membership), youth (13% of the membership), Aboriginals would not make the big categories found in a program for most leadership candidates to include their issues within a platform. That is why we have commissions. And if OMOV is to remove the “wine and dine” aspect from leadership races, for my reason stated above, it will just be replaced by other more-well-to-do groups found within our lists that maybe don’t need as much promoting and protecting across Canadian culture as a whole.

    I also hear rumour that an amendment to OMOV will be proposed very shortly, along the lines that members within the last 6 months can’t vote in OMOV leadership races. If that fails, should I still vote then
    for OMOV, when its a perfectly sensible, fair amendment that should be accepted with no qualms?

    Another issue is why is it so much more important to weight by riding and give overrepresentation to small ridings, than to guarantee certain representation for youth or other underrepresented groups? This a
    great topic of debate and I know Jeff Jedras (BC’er in Toronto, (see here) ) said he wouldn’t support OMOV unless it was weighted by riding (which I agree with him on), so I’d be curious to hear from people with that pov why they support weighting by riding but not any other kind of weighting? Finally, I’d add this amendment DID pass in 2006 and was supported by many MPs including the biggest OMOV advocate Belinda Stronach. Youth shoudln’t be asked to give up their leverage here and say “this is a just token amendment, if you vote it down, we’ll support what you want for OMOV anyway”. The commissions play a very important role in getting out the vote and bringing in new members to the party via their clubs, they shouldn’t be taken for granted. Most clubs fundraise for their own operations and the youth make a profit for the party, and the NWLC raise thousands of dollars a year for women candidates.

    I like the idea OMOV and including more ppl, and changes are certainly needed in our present system. We just have to make sure it’s the right change for EVERYONE in the membership. I don’t want to do anything drastic,
    find just as many (different) issues with the new system, and then having it be difficult to change again in the future. It’s important to compromise here or else it will be very difficult to get the 2/3 support needed for the overall OMOV package whether people like me vote for it or not. So advocates of OMOV should be supporting something like this to ensure the bulk of youth are on board.

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.