Part 3: Broken Delegate Election System: Where is our credibiltiy in this Liberal leadership race?

Even though we Liberals have ignored the critisism on the blogs and behind the scenes so far about the integrity of our leadership selection process, as Liberals we need to ask ourselves serious questions about the fairness of the process being used to elect our new Liberal leader - and the legitimacy of this leader. What are we actually voting for?

The candidate with the biggest machine? The candidate who is able to raise honestly or dishonestly the most money in spite of stringent and unfamiliar fundraising rules? The candidate who can get early endorsements from elected Liberals and ex-officios? What does this race really measure and how credible will be the next leader given the "kangaroo" nature that some leadership candidates have earned their delegates who are voting at our convention.

These delegates will represent the candidates they were elected to endorse in the first ballot of the leadership convention. After that, it is the leadership candidate who captures the hearts and minds of Liberals at convention who will win, right?

That depends on to what extent Liberal membership and in particular those voting at convention believe there remains any credibility in this leadership race following the blatantly undemocratic election of 10 Rae delegates in Abitibi-St James yada yada yada with only 2 votes cast. What does that measure apart from process manipulation and a severely flawed leadership process?

Furthermore, the extent certain frontrunners are embarrassing the Liberal party by making odd comments about Israel or by forging signatures on membership forms further reduces the legitimacy of the leadership election. Who is going to take seriously the results at convention after all this taint, these flaws and scandals? How is this going to help us beat Harper?

Is this why Liberals (from Belinda to bloggers) are talking like 2006 is the last leadership contest that will involve delegate elections? Why? The mainstream now knows in part due to the (Rae 10 delegates with only 2 votes) leak that these elections were manipulated. Canadians, not just Liberals, now know that those who are represented by machines, not those who have the most integrity, will do better in the current format of the Liberal leadership process, than they would if the process rated integrity higher than resources and organisation.

Short term embarrassment might arise if Liberals hypothetically agree to abort the current leadership election process. We could blame the need to abort on tainted election processes that emerged along the way (even though many political parties in other countries have election processes that are far more tainted than the Liberal leadership) and our need as Canadian Liberals to be the very best at democracy. Let's rid ourselves of the taint created by the sponsorship scandal and also by the tactics used by some leadership candidates and their machines.

Would this taint, this "ring around the collar" be mitigated by Liberals admitting now, not in January, that a one vote per Liberal member would be most appropriate in this leadership process? If a one vote per Liberal member would bring about a more positive and representative outcome to this process, why would Liberals concerned about beating the Conservatives in one election rather than two not try to recover by admitting this and choosing a democratic format now?

This would show a movement by the majority of Liberals (clean Liberals) to overcome the corruption that has been following the party since Gomery. This would send a strong statement to those campaigns who might because of habit seek to fix/manipulate the outcome of the leadership process.

Let's win our Canada back by pointing the "way" rather than the "finger" and the extent to which we as Liberals truly stand up for a just party and "a just society".