One Member, One Vote, Many Questions
Clearly, weighted one member, one vote (or, NAMBLA) would be more democratic than the current system. However, the cost would be the loss of the excitement associated with leadership conventions (“Paul! Paul! Paul! Paul!”). While many see WOMOV as a cure all panacea, it’s also important to remember that WOMOV wouldn’t end the practice of instant Liberals or bulk buying of memberships – if anything it increases them since it’s rarely the instant Liberals who actually go to these conventions as delegates.
On the flip side, the cost to attend a convention is incredibly high so we’re implicitly giving the largest say to those with money under the current system. And the bizarre quota systems at riding levels and club delegates are incredibly complicated, leading to some odd results when you examine the DEMs closely.
Since there won’t be a pro or anti one member one vote hospitality suite to sway me, I think I’m going to simply see how the convention plays out before making my decision. If the leadership convention itself seems to be benefiting the party, I think I’ll vote for the status quo under the assumption that some fine tuning will occur to the current procedure. Besides, I’m working under the assumption that we’re electing a leader for the next decade so there will be plenty of opportunities to alter the system over that time.