I would think that Jeff Jedras’s point on Facebook at your page about the fact that OMOV has nothing to do with policy conventions and only to do with selecting leaders rips a major hole in your video arguing that this quota amendment is needed at all to retain youth influence on policy. I’d think a video do-over is necessary… because that argument holds no water.
Quite frankly, the YLC is worried about losing its influence and perks, period, in a time where their total membership in the party is declining below historical levels (below 10%).. it has nothing to do with policy worries. The solution is easy: get YLC leaders that aggressively go out and recruit new members, instead of constantly backbiting and snipping at each other internally, as they’ve been doing the past few years.
If the YLC has leaders willing to do some hard work occasionally.. rather then plotting internal machinations or trying to organize social events.. that will help increase their membership and naturally increase their influence… rather then a quota system that gives them no incentive to do so.. since they’d have 25% delegates even if they fell to 5% membership in the LPC.
Agree with a good chunk of what you said, but one part sounded just totally wrong and out of left field:
You seriously think women will have MORE influence under a OMOV vote system than one where they got 50% of the delegate spots? They don’t make up close to half the membership so where’s your logic in that?
Same goes for Aboriginals who had 7% of their spots reserved.
Could you explain please because that left me scratching my head on what was otherwise a good take on this issue.
IMO, the only salient point is whether giving the Young Liberals a disproportionate voice will make the party more effective. I think it does, even without their impact on policy conventions. The fact that young people will play a major part is the selection of party leaders ensures that said leaders campaign on a progressive platform that will reflect the cutting edge views of the youth.
You’re basing your argument on personal perceptions of negativity and corruption within the Young Liberals and I’m sorry but I just don’t share your views or opinions.
Stooner:
I’m definitely suggesting that youth promote more progressive ideas. If you remember correctly it wasn’t the seniors that were fighting for same-sex marriages, it was the Young Liberals. I think arguing that a sixty year old person will have the same ideas as our youth is far fetched.
Dan:
In short, the reserved delegate spots do not translate into delegates; hence those numbers do not reflect the real delegate percentages. With a OMOV system all voting will occur without conventions which means that there are no prohibitive costs or travel expenses. That will ensure all women, seniors, and lower-income members can take full part and that will increase their influence to their actual percentage of their memberships in the party.
Scott, you assume that the delegate policy process right now has influence over the leadership, which I think as people in the party know that isn’t true.
Young Liberals have independence to push these policy decisions because of their influence in leadership selection. They are taken seriously by up and comers (read future leadership contenders or organizers) and the current leadership structure due to that influence.
Don’t believe for a second that without this amendment, that the next big push will be to eliminate delegate quotas, or the commissions themselves. (which isn’t a big deal for the middle aged male well educated blogging type to be sure)
Truth be told, any youth that are there pushing for this now will more than likely not be around during the next leadership cycle. This is not about individual power, it is about the future of our party.
Jason I don’t buy it, you know that in 2006 leadership camps made sure that their female delegates could attend and helped them raise money to get there, so women in the end were close to 50% of convention attendees in 2006.
It would probably be a good guess to say women actually make up about 35% of the party membership. So therefore I’d say that’s a pretty big DROP in their influence, so you might want to take that part out in your video where you say women would have INCREASED influence, there’s no evidence whatsoever that fewer than 35% of convention attendees were women, from everything I know it was close to 50% in 2006.
Same with Aboriginals, there were several hundred at the convention in 2006 which made them make up at least a few percent of the attendees, With OMOV they will have less than 1%. Does that not bother you in the slightest?
This video is disingenuous as this ammendment appears to be more about creating disproportionate influence to their actual percentage of the youth membership than preserving the youth’s “traditional voice”.
The interesting thing about the ammendment being proposed is that it allows the youth more than the 25% quota if their membership is greater than this threshold but doesn’t acknowledge the scenario if it is less than 25%. It seems reasonable that if the youth want this ammendment passed then they should consider a win-win scenario that allows for a lower quota if their membership is less than 25%. As it stands this ammendment is undemocratic and is hardly an example of progressive policy that is touted as being a youth strength.
I would think that Jeff Jedras’s point on Facebook at your page about the fact that OMOV has nothing to do with policy conventions and only to do with selecting leaders rips a major hole in your video arguing that this quota amendment is needed at all to retain youth influence on policy. I’d think a video do-over is necessary… because that argument holds no water.
Quite frankly, the YLC is worried about losing its influence and perks, period, in a time where their total membership in the party is declining below historical levels (below 10%).. it has nothing to do with policy worries. The solution is easy: get YLC leaders that aggressively go out and recruit new members, instead of constantly backbiting and snipping at each other internally, as they’ve been doing the past few years.
If the YLC has leaders willing to do some hard work occasionally.. rather then plotting internal machinations or trying to organize social events.. that will help increase their membership and naturally increase their influence… rather then a quota system that gives them no incentive to do so.. since they’d have 25% delegates even if they fell to 5% membership in the LPC.
Jason
Are you suggesting that only the youth are capable of providing superior policy for the LPC?
Come on…
Agree with a good chunk of what you said, but one part sounded just totally wrong and out of left field:
You seriously think women will have MORE influence under a OMOV vote system than one where they got 50% of the delegate spots? They don’t make up close to half the membership so where’s your logic in that?
Same goes for Aboriginals who had 7% of their spots reserved.
Could you explain please because that left me scratching my head on what was otherwise a good take on this issue.
IMO, the only salient point is whether giving the Young Liberals a disproportionate voice will make the party more effective. I think it does, even without their impact on policy conventions. The fact that young people will play a major part is the selection of party leaders ensures that said leaders campaign on a progressive platform that will reflect the cutting edge views of the youth.
You’re basing your argument on personal perceptions of negativity and corruption within the Young Liberals and I’m sorry but I just don’t share your views or opinions.
Stooner:
I’m definitely suggesting that youth promote more progressive ideas. If you remember correctly it wasn’t the seniors that were fighting for same-sex marriages, it was the Young Liberals. I think arguing that a sixty year old person will have the same ideas as our youth is far fetched.
Dan:
In short, the reserved delegate spots do not translate into delegates; hence those numbers do not reflect the real delegate percentages. With a OMOV system all voting will occur without conventions which means that there are no prohibitive costs or travel expenses. That will ensure all women, seniors, and lower-income members can take full part and that will increase their influence to their actual percentage of their memberships in the party.
Scott, you assume that the delegate policy process right now has influence over the leadership, which I think as people in the party know that isn’t true.
Young Liberals have independence to push these policy decisions because of their influence in leadership selection. They are taken seriously by up and comers (read future leadership contenders or organizers) and the current leadership structure due to that influence.
Don’t believe for a second that without this amendment, that the next big push will be to eliminate delegate quotas, or the commissions themselves. (which isn’t a big deal for the middle aged male well educated blogging type to be sure)
Truth be told, any youth that are there pushing for this now will more than likely not be around during the next leadership cycle. This is not about individual power, it is about the future of our party.
Jason I don’t buy it, you know that in 2006 leadership camps made sure that their female delegates could attend and helped them raise money to get there, so women in the end were close to 50% of convention attendees in 2006.
It would probably be a good guess to say women actually make up about 35% of the party membership. So therefore I’d say that’s a pretty big DROP in their influence, so you might want to take that part out in your video where you say women would have INCREASED influence, there’s no evidence whatsoever that fewer than 35% of convention attendees were women, from everything I know it was close to 50% in 2006.
Same with Aboriginals, there were several hundred at the convention in 2006 which made them make up at least a few percent of the attendees, With OMOV they will have less than 1%. Does that not bother you in the slightest?
This video is disingenuous as this ammendment appears to be more about creating disproportionate influence to their actual percentage of the youth membership than preserving the youth’s “traditional voice”.
The interesting thing about the ammendment being proposed is that it allows the youth more than the 25% quota if their membership is greater than this threshold but doesn’t acknowledge the scenario if it is less than 25%. It seems reasonable that if the youth want this ammendment passed then they should consider a win-win scenario that allows for a lower quota if their membership is less than 25%. As it stands this ammendment is undemocratic and is hardly an example of progressive policy that is touted as being a youth strength.
For the record I support OMOV with or without the YL amendment.