Sunday, April 05, 2009

No Amendment to OMOV

A number of other Liberal bloggers have commented on the proposed amendment to give the Liberal youth a 25% allotment of votes under a One Member One Vote (OMOV) system. Jeff has a great run down of his opposition to the amendment. Steve voices his concern as well.

Here's a summary of their proposal.
The YLC is proposing an amendment to the amendment to allot a minimum of 25 points to youth voters in each federal riding in order to maintain our representation in LPC. This amendment would translate to having separate youth ballot boxes at a leadership vote in every riding, and the votes would be tallied separately and given a minimum of 25/100 points in that riding. However, if the percentage of youth exceeds 25%, the larger number will be counted.
Quotas are undemocratic and will ultimately undermine the purpose behind OMOV; giving each riding a direct vote in selecting a leader.

I cannot support this amendment.

From my short time within the Liberal Party, I see both an energized and determined youth wing of this party who do not need this amendment to maintain their influence.


Anonymous said...

This ammendment is dumb, dumb, dumb!

Mike said...

So it's ok to give the OVER 100 ridings with absymal membership numbers (in many cases well under 100) 10x the vote of Toronto ridings, but it's absolutely horrible to give some protection of representation to youth that they found VERY HARD for to win as a constitutional amendment a long time ago?

How is weighting by riding not a quota? And why is rural Alberta more important than protecting the voices of youth, women and Aboriginals?

Oxford County Liberals said...

Mike, would you tell us if you happen to be a Young Liberal, and if you happen to be somewhere on the executive?

I ask because you're going around to multiple blogs who've written in opposition to this and saying the same stuff.. so I think it only fair to ask why you're in support of the YLC amendment, as you appear to be.

Jim (Progressive Right) said...

I'll be honest, I'd prefer pure OMOV. But, weighted OMOV is a much better compromise than the delegated system we have now.

Enforcing a youth quota does nothing to increase youth involvement within the party, and negatively impacts non-youth involvement.

Mike said...

I'm 26 and I am a convention delegate. So I WAS a youth, but now have to pay the full convention fee and don't get to vote in the YLC race. I hold no positions in the party and in fact never have, but am friends with many young Liberals.

And I believe I have posted on precisely two blogs: this one and Jeff's, if there's another I'm forgetting I apologize. And if you notice I think the YLC amendment doesn't go far enough, so I'm hardly in line with what a YLC exec member would be advocating.

Though I think I expressed quite well why I support the YLC amendment Scott, you should go over and read my comments at Jeff's blog. I'd be curious to see your responses to them, because your own post didn't adress them at all, but I'll re-iterate some of my points here.

Frankly, I'm surprised that anyone that is left of centre wouldn't support the amendment (I know that doesn't include the owner of this blog, but it does incl Scott, the party would move to the right guaranteed if youth representation declined as youth are the most progressive wing of the party and it's the fact that leadership campaigns in the past HAD to court the youth vote in order to win that led to them having more progressive platforms. There will be no reason to listen to youth if their representation in cut in half.

What OMOV does is actually reverse affirmative action compared to the status quo (that youth, women and Aboriginals had to fight hard for to pass as a const. amendment in the past), people like Scott, Jeff Jedras, James Curran, and the owner of this blog will have a greater voice than they ever had before and women, youth and Aboriginals will be silenced since they don't have the resources to recruit members to the same degree.

Scott I'd like to hear specifically from you though, why is is important to overweight dramatically for rural Alberta but not youth? Aren't youth a more key constituency to winning elections for OUR party than rural Alberta?

What's on the floor is not OMOV, it overweights for rural ridings where the Libs next to no membership. If you're going to do that, it's not unreasonable for youth to stand and want to protect the representation they already have.

If the amendment fails, so will OMOV, and that's regardless of if Sam Lavoie or John Lennard or Kerry Nelson urge youth to support the overall package if their amendment fails - there are many many youth who feel quite strongly about this and see this is a very fair compromise. And for the large majority of youth this is not a campaign issue, it's why 90% of youth supported this very same amendment last time, they're not going to take orders from a YLC candidate on it, they'll decide themselves and would be quite pissed if an amendment that passed last time didn't this time.

Mike said...

Jim a youth quota does increase youth involvement in the party bc it allows young Liberals to recruit on the credible mantra of:
"We are a protected large bloc in the party that the party leadership HAS to listen to if they want to win a leadership race and leadership review. Join our party and you WILL have a voice, unlike the NDP or Conservatives where the youth don't have a protected bloc and get ignored or are just forced to parrot the senior party line"