- Liberal Leadership Race - As far as Gerard Kennedy throwing support to Dion.
The following is in part my response to:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081101.WBSteele20081101193706/WBStory/WBSteele#commentLatest
Apparently, Gerard Kennedy is leaning strongly to running in the leadership as the party renewal candidate.
I don’t think you can blame Kennedy since he was simply playing the game as it was defined. In other words, riding associations selecting delegates who are bound in the way they vote only on the first round of voting, is ideally suited, and I suggest designed for, the vary purpose – i.e. back room wheeling and dealing. In fact, his inner circle was, obviously, very good at it since, they say, around 92% of Kennedy’s supporters swung to Dion - who would have thought it possible. So, in other words, not only was he playing the game as it was designed, he, or should I say his inner circle, excelled at it.
Bottom line is that we must blame the delegate – convention system of voting and not Kennedy.
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.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081101.WBSteele20081101193706/WBStory/WBSteele#commentLatest
Apparently, Gerard Kennedy is leaning strongly to running in the leadership as the party renewal candidate.
I don’t think you can blame Kennedy since he was simply playing the game as it was defined. In other words, riding associations selecting delegates who are bound in the way they vote only on the first round of voting, is ideally suited, and I suggest designed for, the vary purpose – i.e. back room wheeling and dealing. In fact, his inner circle was, obviously, very good at it since, they say, around 92% of Kennedy’s supporters swung to Dion - who would have thought it possible. So, in other words, not only was he playing the game as it was designed, he, or should I say his inner circle, excelled at it.
Bottom line is that we must blame the delegate – convention system of voting and not Kennedy.
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.
posted by wlloydm at
2:54 PM
<< Home