- Liberals should replace the leadership convention

I submitted the following to Scot’s Diatribes on 21 Nov.’08. They later truncated it saying it was too long. I am posting here in its entirety.

http://scottdiatribe.canflag.com/2008/11/21/liberals-should-replace-the-leadership-convention/#comment-17208

17208. wlloydm said on November 21, 2008 at 3:17 pm

…
In reply to “Liberals should replace the leadership convention. “
I posted a quite in depth discussion of the issue you raise on my Blog on 2 Nov.’08:
http://cicblog.com/comments.html

“Liberal Leadership Race - As far as Gerard Kennedy throwing support to Dion.”

Also,

On 14 Nov ’08 I posted a response to the G&M article “Dropping gloves early, Rae walks out on forum”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081116.wliberalleadership1116/CommentStory/politics/
. . .
At least Bob Rae is on the right track. He should go that step further and suggest that there should be a number of votes - one for each province and where it is not the delegates that votes but the grass roots of the party. Each of these votes produces a number of delegates for each candidate. I know, it sounds familiar. But, it is a very successful formula for democratic participation and getting people at the individual level involved and [engaged]. Who knows perhaps if people feel they are involved and their opinions count they may even decide to support the party and actually vote Liberal come election day – and that’s a good thing.
and,

On or about 29 Oct I sent an E-mail to Greg Fergus, National Director, Liberal Party of Canada, upon his invitation to send feedback, regarding the very issue you mentioned:
(the essence of which is set out below see below).

If I recall I also sent a similar E-mail Douglas Ferguson, upon similar prompting.

I sent another E-mail to Greg Fergus, on around 11 Nov.’08, asking for his reply.

I have, as yet, received no reply from either to this issue

___________________

http://cicblog.com/comments.html

“Liberal Leadership Race - As far as Gerard Kennedy throwing support to Dion.”
. . .
In the national context all parties find themselves in, as long as the Liberal Party sticks with this form of electing a leader there will always be a very significant risk that a leader will be chosen that does not resonate with the general population. And, with modern technology there is no need to hold Party elections in this fashion. This form of election tends to alienate and not activate the grass roots members or the population in general.

It was successful previously for one because of the rules for political donations – i.e. there were very few restrictions on who and amount. Consequently, there were relatively few, but they were large and from corporations and individuals, who in many cases very politically active. The “back room boys” (this includes ‘girls’ as well) system is a natural manifestation of this old political contribution regime. The Liberals not only excelled at this but their whole structure developed around it – including the Riding Association – delegate – convention - committed first round vote.

This system is self perpetuating for two reasons. Many of the ‘powers that be’ in the Liberal Party are there because of this system and thrive off it. Also, it is the back room boys, and girls, that attend these conventions (delegates that are chosen pursuant this system) that vote on whether the next leadership race will have the same format (compare 2006). Is it any surprise they vote to perpetuate it. It allows those who make large contributions, both monetarily and otherwise, to have a direct and significant say in who gets elected as leader and makes it clear to those running “to whom they are indebted”. On the other hand, it makes it easier for those running since they have a relatively few, well defined, sources of support they can focus on – as opposed to something as diffuse as the whole Liberal Membership, each individually. This latter aspect, in essence, makes it possible for a large number of people to run for leadership since they need a relatively small number of supporters, amongst politically very savvy people who are looking for a ‘house to back’.

The draw backs are:

- for one that the leader that is selected may very well not be the ‘people’s choice’. For an organization, generally, this may not be significant – i.e it may not be important that the general public perceive the organization’s leader as the person to leader them as a nation. But, where the whole purpose is to elect someone whom the ‘people’ will identify with and vote for to lead our great nation, it is inevitable that now and again it will fail in this objective.

- it does not activate people at the grass roots to be involved. The above can make people more jaded and cynical of the political process and in actuality turn them off. This can lead to a reduction in the number of people making financial contribution, volunteering their time during an election campaign and, voting for the Party, or coming out to vote at all.

It is only reasonable to conclude that where the people were not activated in selecting the leader the chances of choosing a leader that resonates with them is reduced and the amount and the extent that they participate in an election, whether contributing money, time or voting, is reduced. With the current political donations regime which excludes corporate donors and large donations, this can be fatal.
The extent to which the above plays a role in the Liberal fortunes in this last election – you be the judge.
___________________


contents of:

29 Oct.'08, E-mail to Greg Fergus
and,

1 Nov.'08, E-mail to Douglas Ferguson

Inability to raise funds is generally acknowledged as a major problem for the Liberal Party. I submit that there is a direct co-relation between this and the lack of direct involvement of individuals, at the grass roots as they say, in the Party and how it conducts business. It is generally observed that prior to the changes to the fund-raising provisions in the Elections Act, the Liberal Party relied to a very large extent on large donations from businesses and a relatively elite group of individuals.

Now, with the restrictions this is obviously not a viable alternative. It is submitted that the manner in which the leadership is determined – delegates selected by Riding Associations voting at a convention, was well suited and went hand-in-hand with former type of fund raising i.e. it left the selection of the leader to relatively a few, hard core Party members, which in turn allowed a more direct say by those contributing. This form of delegate convention also was well suited to the behind the scenes power brokering and, yes, “king making”. This form of electing the leader obviously leaves out the input by the individual Party members and, in fact, it is suggested, alienates them. In the case of the last leadership race, Dion was not a front runner during the campaigning and as such was not scrutinized by the media to any real extent which in turn did not allow Canadians to see who he was and respond.

Once elected of course the media attention was on him and, it is submitted he simply didn’t resonate as a leader with the grass roots Canadians. Dion suggests that the attack ads are why he did not ‘catch on’ with Canadians. Attack ads do have an impact (and I read somewhere that Attack ads must be countered within two days or they sink into the psyche, or subconscious). However, it is submitted that if they resonate with what people’s instincts are telling them and put to words what people are already feeling but have not formulated into words, they have a much greater impact.

It is hard to see how a response will purge this type of impact. Being coroneted as Liberal Leader does not transform the person into a leader that will inspire the people. I find it hard to believe that Pierre Trudeau was just some run of the mill Joe who upon being made Leader transformed into this dynamic, charismatic leader. What being elected leader did was bring him to the attention of all Canadians who could see in him these leadership qualities.

Allowing all Liberals to have a direct vote allows them to vet all the candidates and support the one(s) that “inspires” them. It is submitted that this direct involvement not only tends to result in a more popular leader, generally, but promotes involvement at the grass roots which is bound to carry forward with ongoing support with respect to fundraising, volunteers and votes. It also tends to eliminate the “power brokers” and back room deals that result in a leader who only a relatively very few people want and for reasons that might not be for the best as far as the Party is concerned and promotes the electing of a leader that Canadians can identify with. With modern communications allowing all Liberals to vote is certainly quite feasible either thru the Internet or telephone calling.

Making it easy for people to join the Liberal Party, assuming they hold Liberal values and of course pay their 10 bucks, to vote would broaden the base. Modern technology and banking facilitates these large numbers of people contributing small amounts which is also in line with the Elections Act. If it is too difficult to get the powers that be in the Liberal Party to change over, then perhaps a middle ground where regional delegate are voted on in a serious of preliminary votes in various set regions of the country open to all Liberals in that region would help. It may be trhat this typ eof process has been suggested before but I am hoping that results of this last election and the difficulty ion raising finds impresses upon all the members of the Party the importance of this type of “grass roots” process in electing a leader.


The attack adds did have an impact and I read some where that Attack ads must be countered within two days or they sink into the psyche, or subconscious.
____________________