Convention vs. One-Member-One-Vote
I see that one of the first things Liberal delegates accomplished at the convention was to crush a proposal to move to a one-member-one-vote system for electing their leader.
It is beyond me how the Liberals can be so against this reform. Perhaps I am speaking more from conviction than anything, but it just seems intuitively obvious that every member of your party should have a direct say in choosing the leader. Not just because of the usual correlation between democracy and legitimacy; but, also because grassroots party members are the ones who win elections for you. They put up signs. They donate money. They volunteer. Their views and values form the basis for party policy. And ultimately they need to vote for the party on election day. Electing a leader with the broadest base of support from your party membership is the best way to make sure you've got someone your people will stand behind when it counts.
Conventions are great fun for delegates. There's drinking, socializing, networking, gladhanding - essentially a big, memorable party. But, it is crucial to recognize that a convention is all of these things only to those people who attend it. By electing a leader in this way a party essentially disenfranchises 90% of its members from the process. Why is this a problem? Because as a party you want all of your members to feel a sense of ownership in the leader selection. Even if their candidate doesn't win, you want them to know they were still there - they were involved in their party's ultimate decision.
I have heard several Liberals argue that conventions are a better method because delegates can get together, exchange ideas and come to a more informed consensus. Not only is that argument rubbish because there is no reason to believe delegates are any better at rationalizing their choice of leader than "other members", it oozes a political elitism that is particularly unpalatable to any grassroots member who has to be told "there's no need for you to get involved, the party elite know best". Not to mention, who are we kidding about "informed consenses". Half the time (or more), votes at conventions are dealt in strategic backroom deals between candidates - not decided upon through independent reflection - and certainly not based on what candidate the broader party membership (and voter) is going to stand behind.
Choosing a leader at a convention is a terrible system for so many reasons. Especially for a party that is struggling to shed an arrogant and elitist image.
It is beyond me how the Liberals can be so against this reform. Perhaps I am speaking more from conviction than anything, but it just seems intuitively obvious that every member of your party should have a direct say in choosing the leader. Not just because of the usual correlation between democracy and legitimacy; but, also because grassroots party members are the ones who win elections for you. They put up signs. They donate money. They volunteer. Their views and values form the basis for party policy. And ultimately they need to vote for the party on election day. Electing a leader with the broadest base of support from your party membership is the best way to make sure you've got someone your people will stand behind when it counts.
Conventions are great fun for delegates. There's drinking, socializing, networking, gladhanding - essentially a big, memorable party. But, it is crucial to recognize that a convention is all of these things only to those people who attend it. By electing a leader in this way a party essentially disenfranchises 90% of its members from the process. Why is this a problem? Because as a party you want all of your members to feel a sense of ownership in the leader selection. Even if their candidate doesn't win, you want them to know they were still there - they were involved in their party's ultimate decision.
I have heard several Liberals argue that conventions are a better method because delegates can get together, exchange ideas and come to a more informed consensus. Not only is that argument rubbish because there is no reason to believe delegates are any better at rationalizing their choice of leader than "other members", it oozes a political elitism that is particularly unpalatable to any grassroots member who has to be told "there's no need for you to get involved, the party elite know best". Not to mention, who are we kidding about "informed consenses". Half the time (or more), votes at conventions are dealt in strategic backroom deals between candidates - not decided upon through independent reflection - and certainly not based on what candidate the broader party membership (and voter) is going to stand behind.
Choosing a leader at a convention is a terrible system for so many reasons. Especially for a party that is struggling to shed an arrogant and elitist image.
posted by Brad Nicpon at
12/01/2006 09:00:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home