Sunday, April 19, 2009

The Ongoing WOMOV Saga

There's been a lot of blog bluzz over the proposal to change the Liberal leadership process to a weighted one-member-one-vote system, and the subsequent YLC amendment to set up youth quotas.

A few weeks ago, there was a change to the amendment procedure where instead of a 50% vote up front, the YLC amendment would need two-third after....zzzzz....yeah....I know. Thrilling stuff. But it did matter, in the sense that this change would have probably killed the YLC amendment.

Well, I have it on good authority that today that the LPC has reverted back to the original voting procedure. I'll be sure to post further confirmation once I get it since I know you're all on pins and needles on this one.

56 Comments:

  • Holy crap! Really? This is HUGE! How good is your authority?

    By Blogger Jennifer Smith, at 11:55 PM  

  • I bet some folks who thought the old undemocratic rules (that just got reversed) were a great idea feel mighty silly right now don't they?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:12 AM  

  • Frankly, I haven't heard of anybody who thought the rule change was a good idea - aside from those who made it.

    By Blogger Jennifer Smith, at 12:33 AM  

  • Well there some opponents of the YLC amendment who were quite smug about the whole thing almost giddy in saying "this will snuff the YLC out, now they'll HAVE to take a position on OMOV without their amendment being considered first".

    That said, a lot of opponents of the YLC amendment did speak out against the undemocratic rules like Jeff Jedras and I'm sure they'll say the Management Committee did the right thing in going back to proper procedure.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:39 AM  

  • The Alberta Young Liberals President just confirmed on En Famille.

    By Blogger Jennifer Smith, at 1:04 AM  

  • Having said all that, I still oppose the YLC amendment.

    By Blogger James Curran, at 1:22 AM  

  • A rare win for Liberal Party democracy.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:49 AM  

  • Congratulations to the National Executive for doing the right thing (unanimously I might add). And thanks to people like Jeff Jedras who despite their opposition to the YLC amendment, still want to give it a fair hearing under standard rules of procedure.

    By Blogger Justin, at 2:05 AM  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger Scott Tribe, at 2:06 AM  

  • A lot of anonymous folks not willing to identify themselves over this. Wonder why? For the record, I'm one of those who thought the YLC's hand got forced by having vote for the amendment first, and I don't feel silly about it at all. The change should have been kept, and personally, from what I've heard how this all transpired (but which I'm not able to elaborate on at the moment) I'm disappointed the Liberal executive backed down.

    But whatever; as with Jim, it doesn't change anything for me. The amendment should be opposed and defeated is my continued view. Whether it gets defeated first or second doesnt matter ot me as long as it does.

    It's also becoming rather apparent that if the amendment IS defeated, the YLC is going to try to vote en masse against OMOV anyhow, so I'm not really sure what the purpose was of caving into these folks and changing the order of voting.

    If anything, it gives me even more reason to oppose giving a lopsided quota and disproportionate influence to this bunch.

    By Blogger Scott Tribe, at 2:08 AM  

  • Scott, what's your evidence that there will be a move to squash OMOV if the YLC amendment fails?

    By Blogger sinblox, at 2:14 AM  

  • Scott,

    The fact that you support rules of order that are contrary to other established rules of order, is ridiculous.

    The rules which will now be used at Biennial in Vancouver are fair, standard, and established.


    "It's also becoming rather apparent that if the amendment IS defeated, the YLC is going to try to vote en masse against OMOV."


    Scott, if it is "rather apparent," do you mind explaining out how you came to this conclusion?


    If the YLC amendment to the OMOV constitutional amendment fails to pass, I —along with many other young liberals— will still support OMOV. If 50% of delegates do not agree to amending the constitutional amendment, I can accept the outcome and still support OMOV. Pass or fail, the delegates will have had their say, under fair rules of order, and I will then go on to vote in favour of OMOV.

    By Blogger Andrew Escobar, at 2:28 AM  

  • OK, I'm a parliamentary procedure geek, so bear with me, here.

    Scenario 1:
    Motion to amend constitution (2/3 vote required)
    Motion to amend the constitutional amendment (1/2 vote required, must be voted on first)

    This is what you call "normal," and has been re-implemented.

    Scenario 2:
    Motion to amend constitution (2/3 vote required)
    Motion to amend constitution again (2/3 vote required)

    This is also what you'd call "normal", if the two votes are on different matters. It's also what was done with regard to OMOV at the last convention.

    Scenario 3:
    Convention 1:
    Motion to amend constitution (2/3 vote required)
    Convention 2:
    Motion to amend constitution again (2/3 vote required)

    This is what you'd call "normal", even if the two amendments dealt with the same thing.

    So here are my questions:

    1. Given that the only difference between option 1 and option 3 is the fact that in option 3 there is more than one meeting, and given that the only difference between option 1 and option 2 is that the motions are on different matters (which is a very fuzzy line), why under option 1 should we lower the vote threshold required?

    2. What do we do under Option 1 if 55% of people prefer the amended proposal to the unamended proposal (passes 1/2 vote), but 40% of people prefer status quo to the amended proposal (fails 2/3 vote)? Why should we let 55% prevent what 60% prefer? Aren't you risking getting nothing, and still not implementing OMOV on the second try?

    3. Given that option 2 is what was implemented with regard to OMOV last time (it came very close to passing under option 1, no where near passing under option 2), what authority are people using to argue that option 1 is standard procedure anymore?

    Don't get me wrong. I like OMOV, and I don't like the YLC amendment. I don't think the YLC amendment will pass anyway, because most of the voters will realize that they would be giving something to youth that they wouldn't be getting for their own constituency. And I'm a big fan of knowing what the rules are in advance, and abiding by them. But there were good reasons for the rules as they were proposed. Probably not good enough. But it would be unfair to suggest that they were solely directed at quashing the YLC amendment.

    By Blogger Gauntlet, at 2:39 AM  

  • "[Scenario 2 is] what was done with regard to OMOV at the last convention."

    Actually, it was your Scenario 1. In Montreal…

    — The motion to amend the OMOV constitutional amendment was passed by over 1/2 of delegates.

    — The OMOV constitutional amendment the failed to pass, with less 2/3 of delegates supporting it.

    By Blogger Andrew Escobar, at 2:49 AM  

  • "Scenario 2:
    Motion to amend constitution (2/3 vote required)
    Motion to amend constitution again (2/3 vote required)

    This is also what you'd call "normal", if the two votes are on different matters. It's also what was done with regard to OMOV at the last convention."

    Gauntlet you are incorrect. In 2006the YLC amendment was voted on first and received well over 50% support. THEN the overall package failed with less than 50% support.
    Those are the facts. This procedure is based off Robert's Rules which are the established practice for amendmendments used by EVERY single reputable organization in the western world.

    So it's glaringly obvious why the exec reversed itself because they were up against decades of precedents working against them and I'm sure they would have had had immense trouble citing a single precedent for a political party operating under the rules they had originally proposed (which were now reversed). And it was NOT just the YLC pressuring them to back down and do the right thing.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:50 AM  

  • Andrew and Anonymous:

    We may be talking about different things.

    In Montreal, there were two different votes on constitutional amendments. The first was on everything except OMOV. The second was on OMOV.

    They could have been included in one amendment, but they weren't, because they thought that the second issue was deserving of its own 2/3 threshold.

    There may have been successful amendments to the OMOV vote, I don't know, but the point remains, they could have treated the entire OMOV issue in Montreal as an amendment to the main package.

    They didn't.

    And I'm not disagreeing about what they reversed themselves, or whether it was the right thing to do. I'm just disagreeing about implying motives.

    I would point out the Robert's Rules has a very strong prohibition against speaking to other peoples' motives, too.

    So let's not be quite so selective in how valuable we think Robert's Rules are.

    By Blogger Gauntlet, at 2:57 AM  

  • "It's also becoming rather apparent that if the amendment IS defeated, the YLC is going to try to vote en masse against OMOV anyhow"

    If that is true, why is that wrong? The reason the YLC proposed the amendment was because many people didn't agree with OMOV as proposed. If the YLC amendment fails, why would anybody be obligated to support something that they do not like and tried to amend. Just because the amendment hypothetically gets defeated doesn't magically mean that everyone has to fall in love with OMOV as proposed.

    I haven't decided how I will vote if the YLC amendment fails, but I'm leaning pretty strongly towards keeping our current system, which at least protects the voice of youth and is still weighted by riding. But I don't think it's going to come to that anyways because I expect that the amendment will pass in Vancouver as it did in Montreal.

    By Blogger Justin, at 3:42 AM  

  • "It's also becoming rather apparent that if the amendment IS defeated, the YLC is going to try to vote en masse against OMOV anyhow"

    And your basis for this conclusion is? Didn't Andrew above just prove that to be false? And I thought you were saying this was all one big poison pill conspiracy to defeat OMOV?

    Where do you get these kinds of ideas from? I don't think there's a single young Liberal that sees their amendment as poison pill, an overwhelming majority of Young Liberals voted for OMOV (after their amendment was attached) in Montreal.

    I believe any group is entitled to stand up for the representation they currently have AND are entitled to view their amendment as being a requisite for supporting the whole package. You may not care if the influence of the Young Liberals is gone (or cut from 30% to 10% for ALL future leadership race), but a lot of Young Liberals do.

    The math is simple anyway, it's easier to the whole package with the youth amendment than without. No one has presented any evidence otherwise.

    By Anonymous Dan, at 4:12 AM  

  • -"And your basis for this conclusion is? Didn't Andrew above just prove that to be false? And I thought you were saying this was all one big poison pill conspiracy to defeat OMOV?"

    And didn't Justin above just prove Scott's theory. The fact is people like Justin are opposed to one member one vote because they think having 10% of the membership of the party entitles them to their 33% of the delegates that they currently enjoy.

    One Member One Vote is about having an equal voice. Not sure how the youth think they're worth 25% more than everyone else's vote. Why is my vote only worth 0.75 youth members? Why am I going to lose 25% of my vote? How is that democratic? How is that forward thinking?

    YLC is clinging onto a system that OMOV is trying to eliminate completely. This is why Scott and others jump to the conclusion that the YLC is throwing this in as a poison pill. The YLC amendment runs contrary to the OMOV amendment. So, in effect, YLC is votiing against OMOV.

    Perhaps another reason Scott and others feel the youth will not vote for OMOV is that people like Justin have already said they won't vote yes if the YLC amendment isn't passed first.

    By Blogger James Curran, at 8:04 AM  

  • jim, isnt a weighted omov contrary to omov as it gives rural ridings with low membership a disproportionate say?
    I was unsure how to vote on the ylc amendment, but you are really obnoxious and definitely making me consider supporting the youngsters... wow, who pissed in your all bran this morning?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:53 AM  

  • Um. NO! But perhaps when you're mature enough to debate it with a name infront of your post, I'll just reserve the rest of my answer.

    BTW, the over 25 crowd would like to have 25% of the vote on all the youth elections. I mean, afterall, it's only fair that we have some say in who represents us on all these commissions at the national level!!!

    By Blogger James Curran, at 9:03 AM  

  • no way jim u oldies arent touching our Prez elections!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:17 AM  

  • Kinda hypocrtical of the youth no? You want a voice at the table, but we can't have one at yours.

    Oh, but we're good enough to donate our money and our time to all the youth events and sponsor their delegates and campaigns. I see.

    By Blogger James Curran, at 11:38 AM  

  • James what an odd complete deflection from the issue at hand. I suspect no one agrees with your view. Is there any precedent for giving people who are NON-MEMBERS of a group a vote in their affairs? Find me one organized group anywhere that gives votes to non-members.

    The leader is the leader of ALL Liberals, youth have a right to a vote, just as you do. You aren't a young Liberal, so you don't pick the leadership of young Liberals.

    What you want a vote in the leadership of the Women's, Aboriginal's and Senior's Commissions too? Ludicrous by both the LPC and the Commission consitutions you aren't a member, and in fact you are the first person I've seen who might be interested in still being seen as a Young Liberal at your age. But since you aren't a member of that group you don't get to vote for their leadership simple.

    Whether you admit it or not your tone (and Scott Tribe's) is very off-putting, condescening and combative and wins over no one. People like Jeff Jedras have been much more respectful and youth have in turn engaged him in respectful debate. Maybe you want to take some lessons from him in basic etiquette.

    People are entitled to a difference of opinion. Stephen Kakucha, candidate for VP English supports the YLC view on this, that's it's beneficial to give them a large voting bloc in leadership races. Belinda Stronach also spoke at the podium in favour of their amendment at the 2006 convention. What say you about that James and Scott? Are they agianst OMOV? Because I kind of thought Stronach was seen as it's biggest proponent?

    I'd really like to hear your view on that. Are would you bash them as being anti-OMOV and against grassroots democracy too?

    By Anonymous Dan, at 12:05 PM  

  • That's my point Dan. why is my vote only going to count as 0.75 votes Dan? Why? Afterall, that's what a quota would do. And yet, in essence, a single youth vote cast could be worth as much as 25% of an entire riding. Well that's democratic.

    Belinda came off a Conservative Party leadership race that allowed their members to even vote by phone. Imagine that. By phone even. All registered members could vote...equally. So, yes she supported OMOV, naturally.

    By Blogger James Curran, at 12:14 PM  

  • James why is Wild Rose, Alberta going to count 10 times more than you?

    But you didn't answer the question, why did Belinda support the SAME YLC amendment in 2006 and even speak in favour of it at the podium?

    Why does VP English candidate Stephen Kakucha support the YLC amendment now?

    Does that make them anti-OMOV? Does that make them anti-grassroots?

    By Anonymous Dan, at 12:26 PM  

  • And no the Conservatives did not have all members vote equally, the urban former PC ridings got counted more than the more Reform dominated rural ridings. Anyways curious to hear your thoughts on why Stronach and Kakucha support the YLC amendment.

    By Anonymous Dan, at 12:28 PM  

  • @ Dan

    -James why is Wild Rose, Alberta going to count 10 times more than you?

    It doesn't. Wild Rose sends one MP to Parliament. So does Niagara. They are equal.

    -But you didn't answer the question, why did Belinda support the SAME YLC amendment in 2006 and even speak in favour of it at the podium?

    Exactly. OMOV failed after that didn't it. Exactly. We won't make that mistake again...or will you.

    -Why does VP English candidate Stephen Kakucha support the YLC amendment now?

    Perhaps The obvious answer is that he would like the YLC to help him win an election.

    -Does that make them anti-OMOV? Does that make them anti-grassroots?

    Um. I don't recall anyone talking about grassroots, but since we're on the topic...why are my 200 canvassers, all over 25, only worth only 150 votes? Are they not grassroots enough.

    -And no the Conservatives did not have all members vote equally, the urban former PC ridings got counted more than the more Reform dominated rural ridings. Anyways curious to hear your thoughts on why Stronach and Kakucha support the YLC amendment.

    Actually, it was the reverse. The Reform/Alliance votes won the day for Harper. Belinda and Clement came from the PC side and lost.

    By Blogger James Curran, at 12:57 PM  

  • I hope James speaks to this amendment at convention.... the venom he is spewing will only turn people off and the YLC amendment will be successful

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:42 PM  

  • Hilarious. Oppose the YLC and you are venomous. I guess there'll be "a lot" of venomous types in Vancouver.....as opposed to "anonymous" types.

    By Blogger James Curran, at 1:54 PM  

  • We all know where Kakucha stands on this issue but how about the other potential Vps? Fridhandler is not getting my support.
    Curran endorsed Fabrice Rivaut so is he going along with this too? How about Briggitte Gaceau and Ryan Hillier?
    All candidates should be forced to speak on this issue for the youth.

    By Anonymous ylc4ever, at 2:15 PM  

  • James your ability to introspect is completely amazing. It's the tone you give that's venemous not your point of view. Just compare how are talking about this issue to how Jeff Jedras does. He's very respectful of differences of opinion and at least tries to take the opposing perspective. You do neither.

    And again James if the YLC amendment is so hated why did it receive over 50% support last time? Obviously youth were only 30%of attendees, so that's a pretty big chunk of non-youth supporting it. Instead of treating such people as imbeciles you might want to think about why it got such widespread support last time and what you'll do if it passes again.

    Will you encourage delegates to torpedo OMOV? It's within your rights to do and I respect your opinion but you should be honest about when you'd do should their amendment passes if you're going to make accusations of what the YLC will do if it doesn't.

    By Anonymous Dan, at 2:43 PM  

  • See the comment above yours Dan. See it? The youth have chosen this amendment as the wedge issue. They are pitting Lennard and Lavoie on the issue. Now Rivault versus the others. And Kakucha. It is the youth Dan that have chosen to be venemous. Every one of them that I have engaged in debate have said they will vote down OMOV if they don't get their way. Now you want to turn the tables and ask if I'll vote down a vote that takes awat 25% of my own vote? Damn right I'm venemous. Why is your vote worth up to 50% more than mine? Why?

    By Blogger James Curran, at 2:51 PM  

  • Because James, its not about YOU. Its about representating views in the party. There are 4x as many "yous" (regular members aged 16-59) than there are youth in our party.

    By Anonymous Daryl, at 2:58 PM  

  • sorry typo: 26-59, not 16*

    By Anonymous Daryl, at 3:00 PM  

  • Ok well again compare your tone to Jeff's: A world of difference.

    I think ALL delegates have a right to know where candidates stand on this issue. It's up to them to decide whether their stance on it rely should influence how they vote - to be honest for the majority of them it won't matter in the slightest in who they vote for for exec positions.

    It's not a wedge issue. And James you are flat wrong when you say "Every one of them that I have engaged in debate have said they will vote down OMOV if they don't get their way". Andrew Escobar above said he would vote for OMOV no matter what. There are more like him and it's not a Lavoie-Lennard issue either, as there are people on both sides I'm sure with widely different views on this issue (in terms of what they would do if the YLC amendment 90% of youth support fails).

    But you CAN'T have it both ways James. You can't say to person X "I know you're going to vote against this if you don't get your way" and turn around and say "I'm not going to tell you how I will vote if I don't get MY way!".

    So what is it James, it's a simple fact this amendment passed last time. How did you vote THEN on OMOV after it passed? And how would you vote now?

    If you won't answer you simply have no right to be making assumptions and accusations of how other youth will vote, especially when your assumptions have already been proven wrong in comments above.

    By Anonymous Dan, at 3:01 PM  

  • I see. So age is a detriment now to membership rights and privileges.

    And it's worse than 4 times out there in the real world isn't it Daryl. I mean, you know, as a population of the whole.

    By Blogger James Curran, at 3:02 PM  

  • Don't you have a job James? How can you spend all day commenting on blogs. Did you have some more cheque problems?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:13 PM  

  • I see Dan. So it's back to me is it? It's all up to James Curran now right.

    If you recall, the YLC Exec passed this amendment unanimously. That means that yes, they are all on the same page.

    And judging by the comments such as these:

    "And with a little gossip to fuel the fire: apparently John Lennard, YLC Presidential Candidate, spent today's South Western Policy Parliament defending the National Executive... Food for thought I guess?"

    and

    "Sam Lavoie should get FULL credit for the rules being changed back.
    He is not selling out the youth."

    and

    "Anon145 thanks for the info.
    John has lost my vote and so has every other candidate who opposes the youth on this amendment."

    at

    http://liberalfreshmeat.blogspot.com/2009/04/it-lives.html

    By Blogger James Curran, at 3:15 PM  

  • Dear CG,

    I'd like the IP address of anon 3:13. I think it would be appropriate for me to have it, don't you.

    By Blogger James Curran, at 3:16 PM  

  • I guess anon 3:13 was referring to this:
    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080731/curran_charges_080731/20080731/

    Very brave anonymous. Very brave. And, CG, I'm not kidding. I want the IP INFO.

    By Blogger James Curran, at 3:20 PM  

  • That wasn't a fair comment at 3:13. James was vindicated.

    Let's stick to the issues guys.

    I don't think it's fair for you to say that OMOV failed last time because the YLC amendment passed.

    I don't recall one person up at the microphone saying that "I'm voting against this because the YLC amendment passed". Everyone was saying "I love conventions", "Conventions give the party great publicity", etc. There was no appetite for OMOV in general.

    By Blogger Justin, at 3:21 PM  

  • As someone who called for a more civil tone Anon 3:13's comment is COMPLETELY inappropriate and uncalled for. This is exactly the kind of thing that cheapens the debate, sorry to see that happen James.

    But back to the debate at hand I make no apologies for people trying to score political points on the YLC race over this issue, I don't agree with that especially since the YLC exec was unanimous in passing their amendment it shouldn't be seen as a YLC Presidential race issue.

    But you are confusing things, just because the YLC moved the amendment doesn't mean they will all vote against OMOV if the amendment fails, in fact I guarantee some will vote for OMOV regardless.

    So again HOW did YOU vote last time AFTER the YLC amendment passed? It's a simple question.

    And how would you vote this time?
    Scott Tribe has said he would support OMOV with or without the youth amendment, why can't you?

    By Anonymous Dan, at 3:23 PM  

  • Talk amongst yourselves.

    By Blogger James Curran, at 3:26 PM  

  • As the anon from 3:13. I apologize. That was really unfair of me. If I gave the impression that James did something wrong I am sorry. I guess this debate is just getting too heated. Again, I am sorry. James has done absolutely nothing wrong and it was wrong of me to stoop to that level.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:27 PM  

  • Why is it wrong to want to know how a candidate stands on the OMOV amendment?
    I want to know whether the candids share my view on this issue or not.
    If they want my support, I want theirs.

    By Anonymous ylc4ever, at 3:34 PM  

  • I guess the debate is at an end because of MORON anon 3:13/3:27 with his/her uncalled for comments. I don't blame James for leaving can't believe anyone is su immature and galling to post such incendiary stuff for no good reason.

    By Anonymous Dan, at 4:06 PM  

  • Everyone will need to take a bit of water in their wine. The YLC is prepared to maintain 25 percent strength, as opposed to the 33 percent they currently have. Jim, I think old timers like us will need also be pragmatic here and realize that if omov is to be successful, we need to get behind the youts (as Chretien used to call them) on their amendment... its better with the amendment than omov failing right?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:24 AM  

  • As exciting as constitutional amendment debates are, I can't wait to comment on a post about the policies being discussed in Vancouver!

    By Anonymous Chris Drew, at 2:13 AM  

  • Well Chris maybe it's because so many people were disenchanged with how the policy process worked THIs time.

    For instance, youth made up a tiny fraction of riding Presidents who decided which policies went there and surprise surprise NOT A SINGLE YLC sponsored policy made it to the floor (yes there are some youth written ones that made it but very few, but none of the 9 YLC ones up for debate, only one going is MSM Organ Donation because the YLC was allowed to give one policy immunity from the riding Presidents vote).

    Had youth been allowed to vote on these in workshops no doubt at least half would have made it to the floor. So the youth were totally silenced in this process.

    So yeah that takes some enthusiasm out of the whole process wouldn't you agree Chris?

    It's exactly why people think it's essential to entrench in stone a minimum 25% requirement for leadership races, because if youth are only 10% of the membership (evne if their absolute numbers doubled, they'd still likely only be 15%), then leadership candidates can ignore them and not give

    And if the youth quota for leadership races are gone, next will be the quotas for policy conventions, you can guarantee it! (In fact Carolyn Bennett suggested as much in a recent Hill Times article)

    So then Chris the discussion of this amendment DOES directly link to policy. So what say you about it?

    Are you ok with youth losing their quotas for leadership AND policy conventions even though it means they'll never have the 25% plus voting bloc they have now?

    Do you think leadership candidates will listen as much to youth if they are only a 10-15% bloc?

    Do you think it will be easier or harder to pass youth sponsored policies once the quotas are eliminated for policy conventions as they are proposing now for leadership races? (Guaranteed to happen if the YLC amendment doesn't pass this time)

    I think our whole experience with the policy process THIS time gives you your answers.

    So will you stand up for youth and make sure their quotas for leadership conventions aren't taken away, if only to ensure they NEVER are for the policy process?

    By Anonymous Ron, at 3:25 AM  

  • sorry some missing words it sould say: "It's exactly why people think it's essential to entrench in stone a minimum 25% requirement for leadership races, because if youth are only 10% of the membership (evne if their absolute numbers doubled, they'd still likely only be 15%), then leadership candidates can ignore them and not give any attention the POLICIES they hold dear. You can't afford to ignore 25%, 10%-15% yeah you could still win without that."

    By Anonymous Ron, at 3:28 AM  

  • Oh and Chris while we are on the topic of POLICY do you support the following YLC amendment?

    11. Policy resolutions
    Proposed amendment: Add as subsection 61(7) the following:
    All policy resolutions which are duly sent to a biennial convention by a PTA or a Commission
    according to the rules set out by the National Policy and Platform Committee must be
    considered by delegates at the convention before going forward to the floor for a final vote.
    I hope so, this should be one all Young Liberals can get behind to ensure that at the least at the 2011 convention ALL 10 YLC sponsored policies are duly considered at policy workshops. As you know well these policies come from 2 years of hard work as you know at the PTA level - work you should be commended for yourself as an excellent previous OYL VP Policy, I'm sure it pained you to see all that great work go up in smoke when the only people deciding which policies went were riding Presidents.

    As I said I'm betting if the youth quotas are taken away for leadership there will be an amendment in 2011 to take them away for policy too, but this would at least ensure youth had a voice for the 2011 convention guaranteed.

    By Anonymous Ron, at 3:41 AM  

  • If anyone is actually interested in other policies, I made a post about the Integrated Transportation Policy proposal that we could talk about :)

    A question on numbers: while I understand that something on the order of 33% of delegate seats (including club reps, etc.) are reserved for Youth, I've also read that not all of those seats are actually filled, and that the real numbers of youth delegate voters at any given convention are considerably lower. Can anyone clarify?

    By Blogger Jennifer Smith, at 12:57 PM  

  • Jennifer, for this convention, the youth that got spots represent just under 20%. Of that, the number will decrease as youth find they may not be able to afford it.

    So the mythical 33% is non-existance, with the exception of the YLC being "entitled" to it.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:04 PM  

  • No idea what the numbers are this time (if the anon above knows obviously somebody broke the rules and leaked them the delegate list), but the 33% youth WAS there in 2006.

    That's because leadership camps make sure every youth gets to go and those that can't are filled in by youth alternates. So they would in any future leadership race if youth had their quota maintained because leadership camps would make the same effort.

    There were TONS of youth there though in 2006 who never even got delegate spots, so the 33% isn't mythical at all. Do you seriously believe youth spots went unfilled in such a competitive leadership race? If so, why were there so many youth alternates at convention. I don't think there's alternates of any kind at this convention and OMOV had to do with leadership races.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:39 PM  

  • Hey Ron,

    How's it going? Thanks for responding to my comment.

    I'm in the middle of exams so I'm not going to have a lot of time to cover all of the issues. On the policy front, I couldn't agree with you more about the problems with the process. I'd be happy to show you lengthy emails I sent to the National Policy Chair and the LPC Exec raising concerns about the lack of accountability and transparency of only riding Presidents voting for which policies will be discussed in Vancouver. As you noted, the results of the policy vote for Vancouver show what happens when policies are not debated by the grassroots, or when the youth is shut out.

    I hope a better system is created for next time. In terms of how policy relates to OMOV and the YLC amendment, you've made some excellent points.

    See you in Vancouver!

    By Anonymous Chris Drew, at 3:35 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home