The Liberal Party's proposal for using staggered primaries to select its next leader is unprecedented in the history of Western democratic political parties. And there's a good reason for that: its version is inherently undemocratic.The constitutional amendments drafted by the National Board of the party call for a 21 week leadership contest, with the first regional vote taking place at roughly the halfway mark of the campaign. If the enabling amendments are passed at the biennial convention, some primary voters would cast a FINAL vote with 10 weeks still remaining in the leadership campaign. This necessarily creates unequal conditions for primary voters to make an informed choice, and is, therefore, undemocratic.
In fact, the authors of this proposal tacitly acknowledge that instituting staggered primaries has little to do with democratic reform. According to the National Board, the purpose of this reform is "to raise the interest of the public and build momentum while selecting a Leader." In other words, it's a publicity stunt. Liberals are being asked to sacrifice a cornerstone of democracy -- an informed electorate -- in exchange for a little extra media attention that will supposedly help build momentum for a federal election that is scheduled to take place more than two years after a new leader is selected. Does that seem like a fair and reasonable trade-off?
It's important to note that although I've used the word "primary" in describing the National Board's proposal -- and no doubt the media will do the same -- nothing in these amendments constitutes what is traditionally understood as a primary. A primary system usually envisions that there will be a secondary round of voting. In the United States, for example, the Democratic and Republican parties have a second round of voting at their delegated conventions. The French Socialist Party, on the other hand, has a run-off vote between the two top candidates from the primary vote. The National Board correctly describes their proposal as "staggered regional voting days."
Now consider the following hypothetical.
Suppose Stephen Harper went before the Canadian people and said, "Look, we have a real problem in Canada with low voter turnout and we need to do something that will help raise public interest. As a result, my government will enact legislation mandating staggered regional voting days for the next federal election. Halfway through a six week campaign, the Atlantic provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta will vote. A week later, Quebec and British Columbia will vote. And after the final week of the campaign, Ontario will vote. I know the Canadian people will support the government in its efforts to make our elections more exciting."
What would your reaction be and why?
7 comments:
I think the idea that primaries are undemocratic is a bit of a stretch. I'm no fan of a primary system, but even your intriguing last question does not offer an argument against a primary system.
Scott,
Please read carefully.
What the National Board is proposing are NOT primaries. Voters will cast their FINAL ballot at different times. There will be NO second vote, either by delegates or in a run-off election.
Some voters will have to make a FINAL choice halfway through the campaign, while others will have the benefit of observing the entire campaign before they make their FINAL choice. That necessarily means the conditions for making an informed choice are UNEQUAL.
Why don't you try answering my intriguing question?
The real problem with this is that the voters who vote first will have much more influence then those who vote last because their choices will narrow the field and create the front runners.
Gwynne Dyer once pointed out that if international monitor had observed the American primary elections, they would declare them undemocratic.
Peter thanks for the heads up about reading carefully. Please clarify what you meant by your comment. Your first paragraph in your post states the party is proposing primaries and yet your comment suggests otherwise.
Also, to clarify, is it your position that if conditions for making an informed choice are unequal the process is undemocratic? Does this apply to education level of voters? Owners of national media or any media outlets? Does this apply to twitter posting early results? Etc.
For your question I would respond that it is a gimmick that is not needed. However considering our current electoral process can be argued that it is stagnate, I would be more open to change possibly primaries being adopted nationally than within the LPC.
Considering we have a process that has not been tried, that was recommended to right previous wrongs, and is being used by the current party in power, I believe the strongest argument against primaries is not a negative one but a positive argument for our current weighted vote system.
doconnor,
I will deal with that issue in a future post. But keep in mind candidates drop out in the States because the costs (TV commercials, etc.) become prohibitive as they move to multiple state primaries. That will not necessarily be the case here. So that conventional expectation and analysis may be incorrect.
Scott,
Please read paragraph 4 of the original post.
As for unequal conditions, let me explain it this way: you and I follow politics closely, so the choices we make may well be more informed than those of some of our friends and family who do not follow politics closely. Generally speaking, however, we all have an equal opportunity to inform ourselves to the best of our ability.
Staggered regional voting days deprives those who vote early of that equal opportunity, since those who vote later will have more time and information on which to base their final choice.
If, as the saying goes, a week is a lifetime in politics, what does that make TEN weeks?
re: Harper hypothetical. You'd be against it because it's a gimmick, not because it's unfair?
Seems the party is far too influenced by Americanism.
Post a Comment