Skip to main content
Search Liberal.ca
Congratulations to Daphne Sleigh of Middle Sackville, Nova Scotia, winner of the Win the Political Experience of a Lifetime Contest!

A Roadmap to Renewal

Posted by Alfred Apps on November 10, 2011 | No Comments

On behalf of your National Board of Directors, I am pleased to submit “A Roadmap to Renewal” for the review and consideration of all Liberals. It sets out some suggested ‘renewal and rebuilding’ resolutions, inspired and informed by grassroots input, for final consideration at our upcoming Ottawa 2012 – Liberal Biennial Convention (January 13-15).

Our report is intended not only to facilitate further discussion, comment and criticism but also to stimulate alternative ideas, and inspire different and better approaches, all of which are welcomed.   The resolutions we have proposed, if enacted, would result in sweeping constitutional change and radical operational modernization of the Party’s affairs.  We are inviting – indeed, hoping to provoke – the sort of feedback from Liberals everywhere that will make this process truly meaningful.

Today, the Board is posting the discussion piece: “A Roadmap to Renewal” to the Liberal Party of Canada’s website so that all Liberals, and indeed all Canadians, can fully participate in the consultation process.  But this is only the beginning, we want to hear from you:

  • Share your comments and ideas by commenting on this blog post below, by joining the discussion on our Member’s Community Page, using #renewal,  or by emailing the National Party Office at Ottawa2012@liberal.ca (prior to December 1, 2011)
  •  Consultation teams consisting of elected MPs, Senators and Party officers will hold online and in-person consultations with Liberal Members across Canada between now and December 9, 2011
  • Riding Presidents and Provincial and Territorial Executives will be sharing the feedback they collect in their ridings and regions with the National Board during  informal regional consultations, culminating in a formal meeting of the Council of Presidents on December 7, 2011

We believe that any successful renewal and rebuilding process must be staged and orderly, with a clear roadmap that is widely understood and supported by a broad consensus of Liberals. We have identified 6 major phases for the Party’s effort that take us from today to the next federal general election. These 6 major phases are outlined in the discussion paper.

The challenge of achieving profound organizational change is an inherently difficult one, but we believe that Liberals recognize what is at stake and are ready, even eager, for the sort of change that is proposed; reforms for which Members everywhere have advocated.

The decisions we take at the Ottawa 2012 – Liberal Biennial Convention are a critical first step in the rebuilding and renewal of our Party. Make sure you are signed up to participate as a delegate.

We look forward to the feedback of Liberals everywhere.

It is time again for Liberals to dream and plan for a better Canada.

Alfred  Apps


UDPATE:Building a Modern Liberal Party” has been prepared by me as background to the document “A Roadmap to Renewal” published by the National Board of the Liberal Party of Canada (“LPC”). It does not represent an ‘official’ perspective of LPC or the National Board on the matters it addresses but is provided as a personal perspective solely to stimulate discussion and debate among, and input from, LPC members and supporters. Copies of this paper are also available in French.

Help spread the word by sharing this with your friends.

Short link:

Email this to your friends.
Sender: Sender:
Recipients: Recipients:

Load from: Gmail · Yahoo! · Hotmail · AOL

Personal Message: Personal Message:

We will never share your email address.

We'd love to hear your opinion. Your comments won't be posted on the website.
Sender: Sender:

We will never share your email address.

A Roadmap to Renewal »

November 10, 2011

A Roadmap to Renewal »

November 10, 2011

A Roadmap to Renewal »

November 10, 2011

Join the conversation  

Please note that comments are moderated with the goal of stimulating an intelligent and fruitful discussion. As such, we ask that you use language that is civil and respectful, and refrain from attacks of any kind. We reserve the right to remove or not post any comments or information that does not meet these requirements.
  1. Avatar of John  McLaughlan John McLaughlan said on

    Just to knit-pick on the first read through: Point 4 concerning technology uses the same sentence twice.

    Vote
      0  
    • Avatar of André Brisebois André Brisebois said on

      Thanks John for bringing it to our attention. It’s been fixed.

      Vote
        0  
  2. Avatar of James Shaw James Shaw said on

    I’m going to feel a lot better about this when I see less about organization and by-laws of the party and more about WHAT THE PARTY IS!

    Vote
      0  
  3. Avatar of Murray Soder Murray Soder said on

    RE Key Proposal 7. If i understand correctly the voting for a leader is to be a protracted process. I feel we should work to getting it done on one weekend using all the electronic technology available. The excitement of a leadership convention creates momentum – waiting 10 days or more for reults just doesnt cut it.
    Question: How do we engage the “Occupy ” people in our party. This movement is not going away, if possible, I think we should work to harness this energy.

    Vote
      0  
    • Avatar of Curtis Carlson Curtis Carlson said on

      @ Murray Re: Quick election results

      I don’t understand this whole idea of everything ‘taking so long’ being such a problem. Politics… is not a twitter update. If you want twitter politics for your country… then by all means, become a Conservative.

      Maybe I am just old school… but patience usually results in a BETTER PRODUCT at the end of the day.

      I understand the enthusiasm everyone has about technology… but politics is a SOCIAL animal… and I am hoping it is still a PHYSICAL animal. There is a place for technology, but the attitude of “let’s just get it done and over with” is anathema to well thought and considered policy and leadership selection.

      What is wrong with waiting a few days for election results. Seriously. Think of the SUSPENSE that is built in the mind after an ever greater length of time in an election race! The media… will be SALIVATING for results for the very reason you suggest… SO THEY CAN ANNOUNCE AND THEN IGNORE the next Liberal leader as ‘old news.’ Why give the media that victory?

      If we force the media to WAIT… then they have to bring out pundits and prognosticators AT LENGTH to look into their crystal balls as to who will win.

      Can you SEE the results of waiting… from a psychological and strategic perspective?

      Quote:”How do we engage the “Occupy ” people in our party. This movement is not going away”

      -20.. snow.. windchill – 35. OWS.. fini.

      I am not a supporter of the movement. If you look at their demands… it is marxist/communist at its core. Tax the rich, more government to save the people.

      We need less government… less tax.. more freedom.. more accountability.

      Protesting… never accomplishes anything. Those in power LOVE protesters. They sit in their tower of power laughing knowing that when push comes to shove, the police will simply move in and lock them all up.

      Now… if we can talk the OWS people into putting down their placards and stop beating their drums and join… gasp… “the enemy” (i.e. the government they demand work for them but won’t participate in)… then we can show them that if they actually attain POWER… they can change things.

      Truedeau… almost went NDP. The NDP… is at its core… a protest party.

      I suspect he saw the writing on the wall. He wanted power, Tommy Douglas wanted nothing to do with it. With great respect to TD, power… is all that matters. Ethics and morals are important and you CAN keep them AND have power at the same time. But if you don’t have power… well…

      “Do you want to form a government or spend the rest of your time writing letters to the editor?”
      – Brian Mulroney, from the biography “Just Watch Me: The Life Of Pierre Elliot Trudeau” p551

      And who is in power once again? And who is protesting?

      OWS.. if that movement was channelled into POLITICAL action… not stupid protesting… we would see a revolution in this country. But just try telling that to anyone in those camps. I admire their spirit… but nothing will change if they are always on the OUTSIDE looking in. If Liberals can reach out and convince OWS of this (good luck)… we will have a powerful force to channel indeed.

      Vote
        0  
  4. Avatar of krista daley krista daley said on

    The Roadmap looks like an 8 page summary. It is hard to make meaningful assessment without the whole paper – can it be posted as well? Thanks

    Vote
      0  
  5. Avatar of krista daley krista daley said on

    I found full report on media webiste- Toronto Star…Thanks

    Vote
      0  
  6. Avatar of Curtis Carlson Curtis Carlson said on

    Ok… not to many comments yet. Let’s see if I can articulate the exact points that need addressing.

    First… I like the spirt of the document and the general conclusions derived from this consultation process. We are headed in the right direction.

    However, I would like to advise caution and calm review before proceeding.

    I only see X problem with this document as I understand it (and I could be wrong, so correct me if I am).

    #1 – Opening the leadership vote to all registered ‘supporters’ of the Liberal party.

    Quote: “That the Constitution be amended to create a new opportunity for engagement
    with the Party for individuals who do not wish to become full Members of the
    Party”

    Quote: “A “Supporter” will include all Party Members and any person who is prepared to register as a supporter of the Party by affirming a Declaration of Liberal Principles, confirming non-membership in any other federal political party and accepting such other regulations or criteria as may be set out by the Board.”

    Refutation: I will call a spade a spade… why are Liberals afraid to ask other Canadians to become Liberals? What is the logic here:
    a) you believe in “Liberal Principles”
    b) state you belong to no other party (lying is no longer a part of human nature?)
    c) will still need to comply with party regulations and criteria

    Excuse me… but why not just become a member? It’s $10. If they don’t have $10, then our future fund raising is going to be non-existent. There is no equirement for a member to donate another dime of money to the party if they don’t want to… which I assume is the sole reason we want to expand opportunities to people who are hesitant to join the party so as to now be hounded for money as they are not sure of the party as of yet.

    If the idea is a tip-toe stage of bringing people into the party… I can concede some logic to it… but again… if they believe in Liberal Principles, are not a member of another party, and will have to abide by party rules and regulations… why not just join? Does being a registered supporter mean they are not included in the database to avoid Liberal communications? Not much point in that… so they will be in the database regardless and get hounded with Liberal ‘propaganda.” (just using black kettle terms here folks, no need to take offense).

    I disagree with this amendment. It is weak.. which is not what we want voters to think of the party. A kind of join us but not if you don’t want to kind of on the in but not all the way in sorta interested don’t really now but I like Liberal ideas however I have my doubts about and on and on and on.

    I say join.. join the party. If you don’t like it… you can cancel or let your membership expire. There is no obligation to donate but we encourage that you do when you feel you can and you feel the party has EARNED your money.

    Simple. Occam’s razor applies to re-engaging the grass roots and bringing in new members… don’t complicate things… keep it simple. There is no need to create a separate database (see, just ONE question that needs to be asked) for so-called Supporters/Non-members.

    My solution to bring more people into the party? Don’t offer some quasi-semi-membership status… just hang a HUGE BANNER on every Liberal riding EDA door that says.. ALL ARE WELCOME! Not a member? Not a problem? Conservative, NDP or Apathetic? Come on in! (If ever the apathetics create a party… ALL of us old dinosaurs of left, right and centre are done!)

    I really think this Supporter/Non-member idea is a non-starter. It is doing something to do something. Un-necessary, obfuscating and complicated.

    “So… are you a supporter or a member?” Can you see the divisions already? “Ohhh… you are not a REAL Liberal, just a supporter.”

    Human nature people… can’t ignore it… work with it. Just be confident and ask people to join. The party is rebuilding and moving forward… be part of it!

    #2) On EDA riding candidate nomination process

    Yes… by all means… every riding MUST win a nomination contest, even an uncontested one. The membership must be allowed a voice in who will stand for their riding.

    Bet again… we Liberals are trying to complicate the process.

    Quote: “… subject to the Board’s right to approve specified exceptions to the rule at the request of and on the recommendation of the Leader”

    Eeeeehhhh… wrong answer. THIS is the #1 problem with ALL parties. Either we BELIEVE in the democratic process… or we do not. The main complaint of EVERY riding is… interference from the board and leader in nomination contests.

    Again… to hammer the point home… stop interfering with the riding nomination process.

    Yes.. the board of the party… the leader… can come down and express concerns or issues with a candidate they feel the riding should be AWARE of… and then WALK OUT THE DOOR and let the democratic process play out.

    This will be a revolutionary act. If we as Liberals… and this means the Leader… stay OUT of candidate nomination processes… then the ridings.. gasp… get the candidate THEY WILL VOTE FOR! And even in the case of a split or “politics” in the riding… again.. that is for the riding and the board/leader to WORK OUT in DIALOGUE… not be interference from the top down.

    If the board/leader do not like a candidate… they are going to have to MAKE THEIR CASE to the riding and let the riding vote to approve or remove the candidate in question for the nomination process.

    Occam’s razor… keep it simple.

    #3) On moving to a primary style leadership election process

    I am in agreement on this… but not the execution (see note #1). The primary process will bring in more participation and media coverage as the leadership race criss-crosses the country AT LENGTH in each province as the primaries are held. This will bring the candidates in for EXTENDED face time and media coverage over a much longer process than individual campaigns culminating in a final delegate election. The party candidates and party get feedback on support BEFORE an election and can save themselves and the party money if that support JUST IS NOT THERE to stay in the campaign.

    I think the primary process is a great idea to elect the next leader… but only open to MEMBERS.

    Again… see note #1 above. Do you seriously think Conservative won’t become a supporter, never attend a meeting or donate a dime, follow the whole process of rebuilding… and then show up in droves to “vote” for the next Liberal leader? If politics has changed in this country it is right here. American style win at all costs do whatever it takes… ethics and morals.. right out the window.

    If you FORCE people to become a member… Conservatives especially won’t spend the money to do so… and they would be in violation of their own party rules to not be members of another party.. .assuming of course they care at a minimum of following their own rules. Then there is the PSYCHOLOGICAL factor… no Conservative… is going to EVER sign up to be a Liberal! LOL :-) Fraud… dismissed.

    Second… again.. why not just become a Liberal member? Then you can vote for the leader. That DOES NOT MEAN you are forced to vote Liberal in the next election. Being a member does not mean you have no option on the ballot card. All it means… is you are participating in the party you would like very much to vote for… but at the end of the day… you are a FREE CANADIAN to vote your conscience.

    I think this whole ‘supporter’ idea is all about trying to attract those people who are apathetic, not involved in politics, and vote either red or orange and even blue if they must (Ontario).

    Becoming a Liberal does not mean you have to vote liberal.

    What it does… is set a psychological marker in the mind that you are COMMITTING to a certain set of principles in your politics

    And I have historical proof.

    Taking nothing way from Mr. Ignatieff… he only had 40% of party membership support. The other 60% was distributed among the other candidates and it NEVER moved to his camp. It is a fact… if a democratic leadership vote had been held the second time… Bob Rae would have one on the first ballot.

    THIS is why Liberals abandoned the party… and the May 2nd results prove it. We Liberals, as a percentage, got EXACTLY the amount of support we should have expected… 40% of the membership behind Ignatieff and the few Candadians of the same mindset.

    So… we don’t need to involve more Canadians in the process of electing our leader. The membership is REPRESENTATIVE of the Liberal mind as a whole. If the party RESPECTS a democratic process and lets each member vote… we will get a winning candidate.

    Lastly.. the primary process in the USA for President is because of their republic constitution and particular tri-partate division of powers. The President is responsible to no one but the people, his ‘party’ affiliation is by tradition (and increasingly down south, irrelevant)

    Opening the primary process to ‘supporters’… and I use that term loosely… is a disaster for a PARLIAMENTARY democracy where the leader of the country IS the leader of the party, and if he losses the election but wins his seat.. he IS in parliament as opposition and has a job to do.

    We have true party politics in this country. An open and public leadership election that is responsible not just to parliament, but to its membership, is fraught with dangers. One being (as Maria Minna pointed out in a comment on another thread)… is the POWER the leader will think he has from the support of non-members. (Again.. the complications of this process or multiplying and the cuts from Occam’s razor will be numerous).

    So… I believe a primary process is a good idea… but ONLY within the party membership.

    With those three points out of the way… I think the rest of the renewal road map looks pretty good.

    My two cents.

    Vote
      0  
    • Avatar of Janice Nickerson Janice Nickerson said on

      I am in full agreement with Curtis. We should NOT have non-party members voting on our leaders, but we SHOULD open up the voting to all members, using accessible methods. Leaders should NOT be able to impose their will in the nomination of candidates. They should be welcome to comment and suggest, but it should be up to the the EDA members to choose the right candidate for their riding.

      Vote
        0  
      • Avatar of Didi Miesen Didi Miesen said on

        Bravo – well said :) !!!

        Vote
          0  
      • Avatar of Curtis Carlson Curtis Carlson said on

        @ Janice

        Quote: “We should NOT have non-party members voting on our leaders, but we SHOULD open up the voting to all members, using accessible methods. Leaders should NOT be able to impose their will in the nomination of candidates. They should be welcome to comment and suggest, but it should be up to the the EDA members to choose the right candidate for their riding.”

        We speak… but will they listen?

        I am only a Liberal again for one reason and one reason only… I think this rebuild of the Liberal party is the ONLY chance Canada has to stay Canadian. Yes… it is that serious.

        If Liberals don’t listen… if they don’t get this democracy, representation thing right…

        I can walk away from my life long interest in politics knowing it will NEVER change in my life time. The opportunity for feedback, for debate, that communication technology has opened up… if Liberals don’t listen… if they honor the democratic process AT THE ROOT of the party?

        Step up Liberal Party of Canada. The whole country is watching… even if you think they are not.

        Vote
          0  
  7. Avatar of William Apps William Apps said on

    The debate about “members” versus supporters is a critical one and your view is one that many Liberals share. Our thinking is that the choice of leadership candidates and riding candidates should be open to all Liberals who want to support us, whether or not they are members. The governance of the Party (i.e. serving as an officer, standing as a candidate for nomination, participating in policy votes [as opposed to mere input] and attending conventions where policy, constitutional and governance decisions are made) should be for members only. Its really a question of how open we are prepared to be. The French socialist party recently followed this example in the selection of its Presidential candidate and it fundamentally revived its flagging fortunes and was regarded as a resounding success. Here’s a link to my longer paper where these issues are discussed. But these are just my views and I certainly welcome yours. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/survival-at-stake-liberals-throw-open-party-doors-to-all-canadians/article2232137/

    Vote
      0  
    • Avatar of Curtis Carlson Curtis Carlson said on

      @ Alfred Re: the effectiveness of opening up participation to non-member ‘supporters’

      Members vs supporters is a critical debate… one of the top three in my view.

      Why? Again… it comes back to the psychology of the idea. It is weak… Charlie Brown politics… wishy-washy.

      It is also the single most counter-productive strategy the party could adopt to rebuild itself.

      Quote: “The governance of the Party (i.e. serving as an officer, standing as a candidate for nomination, participating in policy votes [as opposed to mere input] and attending conventions where policy, constitutional and governance decisions are made) should be for members only.”

      Then why participate at all? As a ‘supporter’… I have NO SAY in what the party ultimately becomes. I can come out, listen, say something, but I have no REAL POWER to affect anything (policy convention, governance, voting in any way on party matters I agree or disagree with, etc).

      Supporter = neutered member
      (and no, I did not intend the play on words, but hilarious non the less :-)

      I believe this idea centers around the belief that there are Liberal ‘supporters’ who just want to know what is going on and perhaps have their voice heard (i.e. input). Well… that is all fine and good and there is some evidence to suggest many people… just want to hear their own voice. Stand up… say something… sit down… go home.

      That is not going to rebuild the party.

      We need members… new members… but the QUALITY of those new members is vital to the next four years of rebuilding.

      We need people to make a choice. Conservatives and NDP members have made theirs. Liberals have to admit… there is no wishy-washy in either party when it comes to membership commitment and participation. This is because… they ask members to JOIN… to COMMIT.

      All this supporter idea will do is tell people… Liberals want your input, but not so much that you actually have to get up off your couch and get involved in any way.. and even if you do, you have no real power to affect anything. You can just internet surf from home… maybe comment on a blog here or there… heck, vote the for leader, we’ll give you that… but actually come out and get involved? No.. we don’t want to ‘burden’ you in such a way.

      Do you think Conservatives.. or NDP… ‘supporters’ think that way?

      Humility… we need to recognize that the other parties have what we don’t… COMMITTED MEMBERS!!!!

      It won’t matter how many ‘supporters’ we attract… if they are not at the level of commitment to Liberal Principles to be bothered to buy a measly $10 membership and come out to a policy meeting with ideas and debate… to be ACTIVE political participants in Canadian democracy? Do we… need them?

      To make a military analogy… and this is a war people if you have any delusions… there is a difference between our regular forces… and JTF2 special forces.

      I would rather have a small fighting party of JTF2 Liberals than a whole planet of regular forces.

      This is not knocking those in the reg force… it is just a fact. There is a difference in KIND and QUALITY that make the JTF2 team… reg force members know this very well. We need the same approach to membership recruiting.

      Does that mean there are no reg force Liberals? Darn straight there is… and vitally important, but they are also… gasp… COMMITTED ARMED SERVICES volunteers!

      Last time I checked… Canada does not have a military made up of arm-chair soldiers.

      Do we really want a rebuilt party of arm-chair Liberals? Is that not EXACTLY the very mess we find ourselves in?

      The Liberal party will NEVER rebuild… if all we attract is a bunch of arm-chair political Canadians who just want to have their raised hand recognized in a meeting so they can say something and then go home and do nothing for the party.

      I apologize if I am blunt… but blunt talk is needed right now. We have four years… and ONLY four years… technically TWO at best

      Quote: “The French socialist party recently followed this example in the selection of its Presidential candidate and it fundamentally revived its flagging fortunes and was regarded as a resounding success.”

      Interesting.. interesting… ummm… we are still Liberals correct? Not knocking the idea that we can look around at what others are doing.. but this is a SOCIALIST policy in what is effectively (I believe, but correct me if I am wrong) a French political scene of extreme right and left.

      Canada… is a CENTRIST nation by history… and unique at that in all the world’s democracies.

      That means… we want to have people feel they are included and consulted (socialist)… but also responsible and active in political life (conservative).

      Of course a socialist party would adopt such a policy of ‘supporters’… it is based entirely on feel-good, government cares and will take care of you, you don’t need to be responsible for anything, just donate to the party (if you want) and vote (if you want) when the election comes up.

      Conservatives and NDP (socialists)… are of the same breed. Both ideological… one extreme commitment and responsibility… the other extreme protest and daddy-government largesse.

      Why can’t we adopt a middle road policy… join the party… and if you want to participate in a meaningful way… you are able to.

      I have to disagree… the idea of a ‘supporter’ non-membership membership (there’s that complexity again when we need simplicity)… is not going to bring the kind of engagement we want to rebuild the party… and by extension… engage the country.

      To wit…

      Is this what you would adopt as an election campaign strategy? There is no difference. A Liberal member… is most likely a Liberal voter. A Liberal ‘supporter’… eh… maybe, maybe not.

      Which one do you want to rebuild the party?

      Choose your strategy wisely.

      Vote
        0  
  8. Avatar of Philip CHISHOLM Philip CHISHOLM said on

    Here is a link to the 79 page report….not sure why it is not on liberal.ca site!

    http://media.thestar.topscms.com/acrobat/ec/57/3c50086f4c688184221dccc8c4a1.pdf

    Vote
      0  
    • Avatar of André Brisebois André Brisebois said on

      Hi Philip,
      As Alfred Apps mentions just below, the longer version of the document are his views, not the National Board’s. The National Board has only collectively adopted the shorter version of the document. You can also find it on the globe and mail’s site with the link provided by the national president.

      Vote
        0  
  9. Avatar of Brian Klunder Brian Klunder said on

    I am not a fan of the American style Primary solution for a couple of reasons. Most notably I would like to see what the cost implications are for potential candidates to run a campaign in multiple regions (primaries). We still have 2006 candidates paying off debt and don’t want same issues again.

    As well, we have only just moved to a weighted OMOV in 2009 and have not even used it yet and people want to move to something else. If we truly value our members, we will let them decide who the leader will be rather than watering their voices and votes down with this proposal.

    I also wonder what would happen if the Council of Presidents would rejct a leadership result. Is this being contemplated? Would it be addressed in by-law that it is not real power but just a pro-forma approval? If so, why even bring it forward.

    My thoughts.

    Vote
      0  
    • Avatar of Curtis Carlson Curtis Carlson said on

      @ Brian Re: American style primaries.

      I agree with your cost analysis of a primary style of leadership election… but the costs can be ameliorated and the benefit as a cohesive force immeasurable.

      Here is how I feel it should work.

      1) Candidate entry cut-off date. Cut or fish bait.. none of this Johnny-come-lately, last minute, media blitz money driven “personality” leadership races. We have time. Those that think of running, have the time to make a choice. This way.. we have a slate of candidates that is SET to keep costs down.

      2) Cost – the primary is run for ALL candidates. The party decides at a minimum where and when and for how long the primary will run, and pays for each candidate to be at each event. Equal face-time for all in a town-hall format of direct question/answer/speech format. Any campaigning outside that for each candidate will have to be paid out of their own personal fund-raising capabilities… which is THEIR responsibility (with oversight and regulation via Elections Canada to ensure transparency and fairness)

      3) Primary voting process… all on-line with access at riding associations for members without access. This will reduce polling and results considerably.

      3) A final leadership vote across the country. I am loathe to have an electronic system as I was in IT and you can simply never fully trust a digital system. Paper ballot and counting never fails and can always be PHYSICALLY re-counted.. not retrieved from some database… OOOOPSSS! For the FINAL vote… the one that counts… it MUST be paper. Technology is a TOOL… to be used when that tool FITS the job. A final election ballot… must always be paper.

      on the idea of a weighted ballot… I totally agree… it should be abandoned. There should be no putting of region against region. We are all Liberals… and each member gets one vote.

      As long as we also adopt the SECOND CHOICE ballot style (to be worked out, see Mr. Dion on this initiative I believe)… then a weighted system is not necessary. There will always be a way for your WHOLE VOTE to count… your first.. and if not your first and NO MAJORITY win.. then second votes are counted. no need for thirds. If still no majority… another run-off round of voting will commence until a majority candidate is selected.

      In majoirty… I think.. it is time we start feeling out the idea the old 50% plus one is enough. It is not. Mathematically… yes, it is. But we are not calculating the structural integrity of an aircraft wing. We are dealing with HUMAN politics.

      50% + 1… is not good enough to say you have a majority. You do not… you have HALF support… plus one person.

      Now… 60%… I think is enough. More than 50… but not approaching unanimous majority of say 65% or greater.

      Moving forward… for our leader and perhaps for the country as well with so many people complaining of 40% ‘majority’ governments… maybe we as a party need to discuss and debate the merits of introducing a 60% majority win rule. For leader… for individual candidates… for government.

      If someone gets 60%… after a 2nd or 3rd run off ballot… then we have a CLEAR winner. You really can’t argue against, and it FORCES people to get more than just half + 1 to win.

      Canada.. in 1997… was almost broken up because of 50% + 1.

      I don’t think I am alone in thinking… perhaps majority and what it means should be rethought.

      PS… what is this “Council of Presidents” talk? That sounds… and smells… very stinky to me.

      Vote
        0  
  10. Avatar of William Apps William Apps said on

    Brian – with online and electronic voting, costs are minimal. Please take a moment to read the attached.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/survival-at-stake-liberals-throw-open-party-doors-to-all-canadians/article2232137/

    Vote
      0  
  11. Avatar of Brian Klunder Brian Klunder said on

    Alfred:

    How would online and electronic voting decrease costs to candidates? This may reduce cost to Party but not candidates.

    They are still going to have to travel, communicate with ‘supporters’ across the country by phone, e-mail and snail mail, recruit and track ‘supporters’, hire staff to manage a national campaign. If anything I would costs of a serious campaign would be much higher.

    And at riding level, we need to remember money raised for a nomination campaign comes out of a donors limit for EDA level donations.

    Vote
      0  
    • Avatar of Curtis Carlson Curtis Carlson said on

      @ Brian Re: keeping leadeship candidate costs down.

      I really do believe online and electronic voting and polling has tremendous cost savings available to the party… IF it is used properly.

      For one… if we adopt as I have suggested below (or above, this is an odd blog)… and the party have a well designed and integrated leadership candidates site… then there will be NO REASON for each candidate to go out and produce their own UNLESS THEY WANT TO.

      I see no reason why a leadership races cost can’t be kept minimal… and information broadly and equally available to all… by centralizing the campaign process.

      That said… if a candidate wants to RAISE MONEY out of his own pocket (again, in accordance with Election Canada rules) to run a distinct campaign outside of the party marketing to the membership… go nuts. But… at least in this way… candidates won’t have to feel they HAVE to spend money and the donations from the membership will know their money is going to support ALL CANDIDATES and an open and broad leadership race.

      I think the primaries especially… can be run very cheaply with online resources.

      The only money that needs to be spent… is the actual election itself.

      Vote
        0  
  12. Avatar of William Apps William Apps said on

    Brian:

    Smart candidates will use the internet. We just had tens of thousands on a virtual townhall with the Leader at a negligible cost. We have to become tech-savvy. And think of this, smart candidates will be able to ‘test the waters’ in the first couple of primaries to see if they can build popular support (and thousands of small donors) without having to make the up-front call as to whether is is possible to raise a million or two. The whole point of this is to engage tens of thousands of Canadians who will be motivated to donate $20, $30 or $50 to the candidate of their choice and later to the party. This is our way out of the chicken and egg fundraising problem we have had for a decade.

    Vote
      0  
    • Avatar of Curtis Carlson Curtis Carlson said on

      @ Alfred Re: smart internet use by candidates to keep cost of leadership campaign low

      I agree.. but why not take it to the next level.

      Let the party… with member donations of which are limited to both party and candidate restrictions… create the technology hub by which all candidates participate in.

      I think the last big leadership campaign showed… each candidate left to there own to create the technology infrastructure really disadvantages those that out fund raise others.

      If the party puts the tech together… unbiased and open… then each candidate can use it and supplement with their own campaign technology IF THE CHOOSE… which means they are responsible for the financial cost of via more donations to them personally.

      Quote frankly… with cost being such an issue… why not just disallow separate campaign tech and put it all under the party roof?

      The ONLY reason to have a candidate’s own tech… is to outdo the others because of the money they raise.

      That money… instead of being wasted on a leadership run… could go toward the election.

      Keep the leadership race simple, open and broadly accessible to all Canadians from a central location… and focus the real marketing campaign of differentiation on the election of a Liberal govermemt!

      This way… no candidate will have to raise or spend a penny! No debt.. and costs fully tracked and transparently accountable to the party membership and elections canada in one place.

      I think it is also important to inculcate a mentality of donating to the party… and not the personality at the head of it.

      It is PERSONALITY politics that has got us in the mess we are in. We have an opportunity to show Canadians a DIFFERENT style of politics from our rivals.

      Apps
      Comment:
      Brian: Smart candidates will use the internet. We just had tens of thousands on a virtual townhall with the Leader at a negligible cost. We have to become tech-savvy. And think of this, smart candidates will be able to ‘test the waters’ in the first couple of primaries to see if they can build popular support (and thousands of small donors) without having to make the up-front call as to whether is is possible to raise a million or two. The whole point of this is to engage tens of thousands of Canadians who will be motivated to donate $20, $30 or $50 to the candidate of their choice and later to the party. This is our way out of the chicken and egg fundraising problem we have had for a decade.

      Vote
        0  
  13. Avatar of John  McLaughlan John McLaughlan said on

    The CBC has posted a link to the full 80 page document. So far I’ve only read a few, but it makes for a good read. It would be appreciated by all, I think, if you could please post the full document here.

    Vote
      0  

Join the conversation

You might also be interested in:
National Riding Rebuilding Roundtables’ Report