Does an isolated sample of 2 votes speak on behalf of an entire riding? What does 22 votes cast in Beauce really measure?Throughout October I have written a series of blogs designed to report process flaws in our current leadership process. The purpose of this dialogue amongst Liberals has been to force us to face the fact that we will be evaluated moving forward by voters in part on the integrity of our processes. The magnifying glasses are out and Liberals are being watched.
Sadly, it seems to me we have learned nothing from our having been tagged with a scandal. The party did not anticipate that this leadership contest would have to be different, transparent and completely above-board in order for it to have credibility with the public. As such, several campaigns have used every organizational trick in the book in the book to gain an advantage. Are the people benefiting from this the people we really want leading the party when the next ballot box question in a federal election will likely revolve around trust and integrity?
The national media is reporting on it, such as yesterday’s article by Graeme Hamilton in the National Post. And, it will just get worse from here in spite of recent polls that show some hope for Liberals in the next election.
Here are some quotes from the National Post by some of the people who are authorized to speak on our behalf by the party:
“Tait Simpson, a national spokesman for the party, said the party considers the voter turnout an internal matter. "It's none of anybody's business. We don't have to release it and we're not going to," he said.
He denied that low turnout in some ridings undermined the system's validity. "This does not, in any way, call into question the legitimacy of the delegates," he said. "It was very clear that people could vote. It was up to members to vote."
"In spite of 17% Liberal member turnout at the polls, Fabrice Rivault, a spokesman for the party's Quebec wing, is holding on to the argument that this process till means something and carries legitimacy:
…Liberals are "very happy with the general participation" in the delegate elections. Asked about the riding with two voters, he replied: "Those things happen in all elections. There is no system that is perfect. We can't have a 60% participation rate in all the ridings in a province. That would be dreaming."
Times change and so do habits that involve manipulating process outcomes if they no longer sell with voters. Let’s market RENEWAL and maybe they will buy it.
I guess we are betting everything on the belief that sweeping everything under the rug is the honourable, ahem … I mean most effective and sustainable, approach.
In my opinion we should be acknowledging that we have made mistakes in the past and demonstrate by taking responsibility that Liberals care about honour and integrity of democratic process. This way our recent record will not be used against us.
Our adversaries are watching all of this very closely. It is naïve to think they will not notice if we simply shut up or deny it.
4 comments:
I love your view of the waters edge shots, I have some of my own beach I could share but not here and not right now.
About the broken DSM's. it is not surprising that the Liberal Leadership race is not on the radar screens of regular folk. I agree with your comments too about ignoring or denial of the low turnout even with a mail in ballot, my own riding had 57 members who bothered to vote and send in their ballot. The scope of the slates and out of riding names in multiple ridings just makes a total mockery of the process. If members are thinking it doesn't matter, it reflects on the voters as a whole who also think voting in a General Election doesn't matter.
We know there is a problem , it is the process of how do we go about fixing it that needs to be addressed and supported. Jason Cherniak has an interesting/ and for me a disturbing post about the Red Ribbon Report and an (omnibus my word not his) package going to this convention that will be voted on.
Then again the question is, Does any of this matter?
Thanks for the comment on the pictures. I have many "views" from around the world.
With repsect to the process flaws you mention, Liberals will need not be apathetic and will need to speak out to break the status quo and protect the Liberal brand.
I will check out what Jason says.
There is no system that I know of, in use now or before that could not be flawed or as you more intimate taken advantage of. The one-member, one-vote still would be a possible manipulated by massive sign-ups that some people are using now at Kennedy and Rae (as tho other campaigns didn't try to do it)... To balance regional and national voices is like the complaint about the senate -- it does not reflect the basic population base of Canada, yet it does reflect a balance in provincial states. I only found your blog -- as mentioned, great photos! -- so i am not certain what you propose. I only know that, at a nomination meeting the winner is usually the one who did their homework, played as close within the rules and signed up a lot of new members. After that election, whether their candidate won or lost the nomination, a good many of those people remove themselves from party functions. By signing up new members, those aggressive campaigns are helping to fill the party's coffers for the next battle. There are plus and minuses and i still don't know what works best.
I don't necessary think one vote per member is a "magic bullet". A fair process is the key to a fair outcome. Scrutinize the process and the outcome will be pure.
Good policy is one that serves to balance the needs and interests of those served and affected by it, whether it is fair and sustainable Liberal policy or good public policy.
There needs though to be a process that is transparent and that cannot be manipulated like this current process can. After all, democracy is the best of many bad forms of government.
Post a Comment