According to the current rules for selecting the next leader of the Liberal Party, each riding is to be weighted equally. Regardless of the number of members a riding has, it will be given 100 points. How those points are distributed will be based on the votes cast by all riding members using a preferential ballot.
One of the significant drawbacks of the weighted one member, one vote system is it leaves open the possibility that a candidate could win a majority of points without receiving a majority of the votes. The results of the 2004 Conservative leadership vote can help illustrate this point.
Notice the disparity between Stephen Harper's vote percentage as compared to his points percentage. Also notice that with only 22.9% of the vote Belinda Stronach received 34.5% of the points. In both cases, there's a roughly 12 percentage point difference.
The proposal by the National Board for phased open primaries to select the next Liberal leader also calls for ridings to be weighted equally. Under their proposal, a preferential ballot would be used to determine how the president of a riding would vote at a meeting of the Council of the Presidents. This meeting would constitute an electoral college vote: the 308 riding presidents would cast votes to determine the winner. In this leader selection process there are no points to distribute, it's winner take all at the riding level.
For both the current and proposed systems for selecting the next Liberal leader, equally weighted ridings are going to present a problem.
According Alfred Apps, at least 80 of the 308 riding association are dormant. As rebuilding moves forward, many of these ridings will continue to lag behind those that have a more robust operation. In fact, it's reasonable to assume that ridings with large pools of human resources may improve their membership (and supporter) numbers quite easily. On the other hand, dormant riding will have much more difficult time rebuilding. In other words, even with dormant ridings reawakened, the disparity between them and the remaining 228 ridings will persist. Since all ridings will be weighted equally, this disparity further increases the chances that a candidate could win the leadership on points but not attain a majority of the votes cast. Or even worse, a candidate could win a majority of the votes and still lose the leadership.
Any of these outcomes could seriously damage the Liberal Party: questions of legitimacy would hound the new leader; divisions within the party would be more difficult to overcome; and many members (and supporters) would feel cheated and disillusioned.
The Liberal Party of Canada should not retain or institute a leadership selection process that represents such a significant risk to its rebuilding efforts. Therefore, the use of a weighted one member, one vote system for the selection of the next Liberal leader is not advisable.
Related
From Calgary Grit on the current WOMOV system:
Rule 5: Rural ridings rule. In this leadership race, each riding gets 100 points. And as mentioned above, you don't even have to find live bodies from the riding to fly to the convention. What that means is that signing up 10 Liberals in Crowfoot might very well be as good as signing up 400 Liberals in Toronto Centre.
Sure, you need Toronto Liberals for fundraising, but if I were running a leadership campaign, I'd have my candidate spend the bulk of his or her time barnstorming rural ridings. That's where this thing is going to be won.
5 comments:
"One of the significant drawbacks of the weighted one member, one vote system is it leaves open the possibility that a candidate could win a majority of points without receiving a majority of the votes."
Significant drawbacks? Isn't that pretty much the same way we determine who forms government? Not who wins the most votes but who wins the most ridings?
Also if it isn't advisable, why did Liberals adopt it in 2009? Why did Conservatives adopt it in 2003 and fight to keep it at every major convention?
The weighted voting system is more conducive to rebuilding the party just without even going into the nitty gritty debates. Apps and others have argued for a primary system citing excitement and media attention compared to a weighted system; well we don't need excitement, we had that in 2006. What we need is a substantive method for selecting a quality leader and a weighted system is that method.
"Significant drawbacks? Isn't that pretty much the same way we determine who forms government? Not who wins the most votes but who wins the most ridings?"
Are you saying that electing a LIberal leader with less 50% of the vote is acceptable to you? And yes, it is a drawback of our current electoral system the 60% of Canadians voted against Harper and yet he controls majority.
Also keep in mind that after a general election party divisions continue, but after a leadership vote we need people to come together. What are the chances Liberals will rally around a leader who loses the popular vote but wins on points.
"Also if it isn't advisable, why did Liberals adopt it in 2009? Why did Conservatives adopt it in 2003 and fight to keep it at every major convention?"
We are in very unique situation. At least 80 ridings are basically non-existent. I doubt Liberals were aware of these dire circumstances in 2009.
" Apps and others have argued for a primary system citing excitement and media attention compared to a weighted system;"
The Apps proposal is for a weighted vote as well.
Yes because I think our party system and our electoral system is one of the best in the world.
If you want proportional representation fine, but arguing against a weighted system because it isn't proportional representation is not the best way to go about it.
"What are the chances Liberals will rally around a leader who loses the popular vote but wins on points."
I don't know, the same chances Trudeau had when he had less delegate support going into the convention but won anyway and became perhaps the greatest leader and prime minister this country ever had.
Prime Ministers have won with low popular votes but went on to drastically improve their numbers, the same can be said for a leader chosen with a low initial popular vote.
"We are in very unique situation. At least 80 ridings are basically non-existent. I doubt Liberals were aware of these dire circumstances in 2009."
Conservatives were in a comparative state in 2003. With leadership campaigns fighting it out, the first areas they'll set up shop are those with the lowest hanging fruit.
This is what Christy Clark did in BC with our weighted system, I know, I was a regional organizer. And sure enough, all the other campaigns followed suit. The lowest riding went from 50 members to 350 members in four weeks.
I'd like to see a preferential ballot as part of a "one-member-one-vote" process, but I do see the benefits of having each riding weighted equally (as Scott indicates, getting the smaller ridings involved). I'm thinking that having the leadership hopefuls GO to Boonieville will encourage growth in Boonieville.
Having said that, I fear what we've done to neglect our base will continue if we forget where the votes are. Rather than fighting for every square inch of Canada, as a rebuilding party, we should accentuate the urban - distant-rural divide, while we talk up "urban-rural synergy" in a focus on the "buy-local/eat-local one-hundred mile diet" votes (which ties in nicely with our Safe Food policies).
The votes (by far) sit in Canada's Metros, and our Metros are the most UNDER-represented areas of Canada. My vote counts far less than when I lived in rural Sask. That is a serious concern. Conservative philosophy TENDS to favor rural and less-modern thinking areas. Liberalism (in the true sense) tends to live in the cities. We can't let the NDP absorb our urban ground.
We are a pan-national party, but we MUST have a focus, and that focus should be urbane, worldly, cosmopolitan, and intellectual. All those things that our heroes (like Pierre Trudeau) were.
We should focus on transit infrastructure, clean energy, real crime measures, the homeless, jobs in urban areas (over the past 15yrs, we pumped money into rural AB and SK - with very little voter return - vs. money into Metro Toronto, Van, Winnipeg, or Montreal. Job creation through research, education, and harnessing new green tech should be our focus. Reminding Canadians that OUR resources are indeed OURS (and not the property of BP, Shell, Amoco, Exxon-Mobil, etc.) should be high on the list. Our Ag policy should be strongly bent towards organic producers, local farms feeding local populations, agricultural diversification and research, and NOT the giant factory farms common in rural AB and SK. Cargill, ConAgra, Agrium, ADM, and UGG don't need our help. We should actually fight to keep these foreign giants from wrapping their tentacles around our most precious lands... rather supporting the small farms and farmers, the market gardeners, and farmers interested in fixing national diets while keeping production (and profits) local.
So where do I stand on the leadership vote structure? I have my thoughts, but would like to hear more such discussion.
I think we need:
1) A good stab at being uber-Democratic
2) A purpose... WHO do we stand for the most? Let's embrace that, rather than try being all things to all people. The WHO, is clearly the vast majority of Canada's middle and working class, and small business owners. Let's ensure they all understand we stand with them
3) A process that gives us a chance to grow the party. We are polling/trending ahead of the NDP now. As their leadership contest nears, they'll see a boost in the polls. We must have an invigorating race that gives us a post-convention boost in the polls... and emerge with a leader that carries the swagger of that new Liberal Party...
Scott,
Well, if you're OK with electing the next Liberal leader with less than 50% support from the membership, we have nothing left to discuss.
Western Grit,
The likelihood that candidates will pay less attention to rural ridings is a real concern. I am considering some possible solutions to this issue but it's going to tough.
There will be a preferential ballot under the current or new leader selection process but that still doesn't get us around the 50% popular vote problem.
Post a Comment