Revisiting Staggered Primaries

After looking at how the supporter system was conceived yesterday, today I gaze ahead at what its future might hold. Specifically, the musings of some that the LPC could still hold staggered primaries, even though a motion to do this fell short of the 2/3 majority needed to pass at the Liberal convention this weekend.

The argument goes that the party didn't need a constitutional amendment to hold a staggered primary since the National Board has the right to "set the date" of the vote, and in past leadership contests this has given them the flexibility to select multiple dates over the same weekend. And heck, 58% of Liberals voted for staggered primaries, so members have effectively endorsed the concept.

Now, this isn't the Parti Quebecois. I believe a clear majority is needed to enact major change and I don't believe we should keep voting until my side gets its way. The amendments discussed at convention failed, and should be tossed aside until at least the next leadership race.

That said, questions remain about the supporter system, such as the exclusion of 14-17 year olds and the membership cutoff period. Logistics might also make a single day of voting impossible. The party may choose to go to its membership on these issues via extraordinary convention, as was the case when they delayed the leadership vote in June 2011.

And if they do, I don't think it would be at all inappropriate to suggest an alternative primary mechanism - one that addresses some of the real concerns about fairness and abuse raised at this weekend's convention. Here's one idea I floated during the edge-of-seat thrill-a-minute WOMOV debate of 2009:

My System of Choice

As mentioned above, WOMOV lacks some of the excitement you get from conventions. So, to remedy this, I'd propose the following version of WOMOV (copied somewhat from the primary system):

1. Carve the country up into, say, 30 regions of around 10 ridings each - so, for example, Edmonton would be a region, BC Interior would be a region and so on...it doesn't really matter how you divide them up.

2. Randomly divide up the voting schedule so that it takes place over 4 weeks. I'd set it up where you had 2 regions voting the first week, 4 the second week, and then 12 each of the last two.

3. On the final weekend, you could also hold a series of provincial or regional "mini-conventions" that anyone would be free to attend, to watch the results come in - this would include the reading of the second choice votes if candidates fail to reach the necessary majority on the first ballot.

This would give you the New Hampshire/Iowa/Super Tuesday excitement of the US primary system condensed over a month and, since the order would be drawn at random, it wouldn't favour any one particular region. You'd get Canadians more excited in the entire process, compensating for the loss of convention pizazz.

Obviously enough, you could carve the country up into however many regions you like, and schedule them as you see fit. For those unwiling to put their faith in the hands of the random number generator, we could add a disclaimer that Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies, and BC must each get at least one primary over the first two weeks.

So how might this play out?

Perhaps the fates will select Winnipeg and Quebec City the opening weekend. The candidates would descend on these cities, the local media would cover them and, hopefully, Liberal voters there would decide to be a part of it. From there, the race might shift to the BC Interior, Ottawa, Northern Ontario, and Nova Scotia for week two. This would be followed with the rest of the country over the final two weeks.

By selecting the regions at random, you'd be taking the possibility of shenanigans out of the hands of the national executive and you'd avoid the "New Hampshire effect" where one region always gets to go first. The regional focus would still mean heaps of local media coverage, and the month-long timeline would generate buzz and help vet the candidates.

Now that the Liberal Party has embraced the supporter system, I'd suggest we go all in, and select the leadership selection process which is most likely to encourage supporters to sign up. Staggering randomized regional primaries would be fair and it would be damn exciting.

Why the Liberal Party Took a Chance on the Supporter System

The boldest and most surprising outcome of this weekend's Liberal Renewalfest in Ottawa was the party's decision to open its doors to all Canadians by adopting a supporter system. As a result, any voter who supports the Liberal Party will be able to vote for its next leader - no need for a membership card or membership fees. I've blogged ad nauseaum about why I like this system, but I never expected it to pass - and neither did a single person I talked to at the convention.

So what caused Liberals to support the supporter system? How did this come about?


History

Systems like this are hardly new. The Americans have been using variations of it since the 1952 New Hampshire primary, but the rules and mechanisms have varied from state to state and from year to year. Currently, Americans register as Democrats, Republicans, or Independents on their taxes, and vote for their party's candidate - though rules on who specifically is allowed to vote vary from state to state.

The French socialists opened their leader-selection process to the public in 2011 and 2.7 million voted - this to choose the leader of a party with 200,000 members. The British Conservatives mailed an entire riding ballots to pick their candidate in Totness in 2009, and about a quarter of eligible voters participated. Despite these largely successful case studies, the idea of the Liberal Party trying this wasn't on anyone's radar until 8 months ago, when two events softened the ground enough to made it a distinct possibility.

The first you're all familiar with. On May 2nd, the Liberal Party was obliterated. After making excuses for years ("we lost because of Adscam", "we lost because of the income trust investigation", "we lost because of the Green Shift"), Liberals realized the party needed to change and try something new. Many of the speakers in support of the supporter resolution on Saturday gave variations of "we have nothing to lose but our third party status" - when you're down, you're a lot more willing to take a risk and try something new.

With the Liberals down, it didn't take long for them to start considering an open primary - I heard Alf Apps float the idea at an Edward Blake Society gathering in Toronto just two weeks after the election.


The Alberta Trial

Also in May, the first Canadian case study of the supporter system was launched, when a room full of Alberta Liberals voted overwhelmingly to give Liberal supporters a vote in the party's upcoming leadership contest. The party's young executive and executive director Corey Hogan had drafted the resolutions and run an aggressive "Yes" campaign with buttons and pamphlets, but even the party's 83 year old former leader Nick Taylor spoke in favour of the move. Like the federal grits, the Alberta Liberals were down and out, and were willing to take a chance.

In effect, it was that feeling they had little to lose that got the ball rolling on the supporter system in Alberta several months earlier. On February 1st, Hogan and party president Erick Ambtman held a press conference to discuss ALP leader David Swann's resignation, and fielded question after question along the lines of "Does this mean the Alberta Liberal Party is dead?". Hell, most reporters weren't nice enough to include the "does this mean" part.

According to Hogan, that's when he began seriously floating the idea of allowing all Albertans to vote for the party's next leader. Having flirted with the idea of free memberships and registered supporters for some time, Hogan and Ambtman decided to go all in. Within a week, resolutions were approved by the party's Executive Committee. Within two weeks, they were approved by the Board of Directors.

Despite this enthusiasm, many party officials described themselves as "blown away" when 95% of Liberal members not only voted in favour of the supporter system, but voted to use it in the current leadership race. They needed to draft rules, iron out logistics, and administer this new system in a matter of days.

The results of this rushed and messy experiment in democracy were mostly positive. Twice as many Albertans voted in this leadership race than in the 2008 contest that had elected David Swann, and the party added the contact information of 27,000 voters to its database. Removing the $10 fee and the stigma of being a Liberal in Alberta certainly helped, but the big catalyst in this supporter drive was the ability to sign Albertans up over the phone - a technique used to great success by the contest's winner, Raj Sherman.

That's not to say there weren't problems. Runner-up Hugh MacDonald complained about the lists, but since they were cross-checked with the Elections Alberta voter list, they were arguably more accurate than party membership lists - no cats or corpses allowed. There was a takeover attempt by Craig Chandler's right wing PGIB group, but it failed spectacularly with their candidate finishing fourth with just 7% of the vote.

The impact of the Alberta "case study" cannot be understated - it was mentioned by Sheila Copps repeatedly during her presidential campaign, and pointed to several times during the floor debate on the LPC constitutional amendment as a reason to embrace or avoid this system. Liberals are always wary of following the Americans and few had heard of experiments with this system overseas - I think it was reassuring to many that the system had been tried successfully by their fellow Liberals in Alberta.


The System Goes Federal

But it was still far from certain to go federal. After the outgoing national executive floated the idea over the summer and formalized it in November, Liberals were still mixed. I called in to a telephone debate among Presidential candidates in December and a push button straw poll showed attendees split - 40% in favour, 40% opposed, and 20% on the fence. Three of the four candidates for Party President were against the idea, and even Sheila Copps had begun muting her language around the concept as the convention approached.

The pundits were split. The blogs were split. Twitter was split. There didn't seem to be a large "vote yes" campaign in the lead-up to the convention beyond a modest "Liberals for Open Leadership" website. The atmosphere at a Friday discussion on the proposed changes was downright toxic, with former MP Maria Minna leading the charge against the ammendment.

Despite a strong Saturday push by the Young Liberals, and words of support by author Don Tapscott and a pair of Obama organizers, I fully expected a 50/50 vote, far short of the two thirds majority needed to pass this resolution.

Then on a Saturday night, with 2000 delegates watching in the convention hall (and dozens of Canadians watching on TV), Bob Rae stood up to argue passionately in favour of the supporter amendment. A murmur went up around the room - even though Rae had previously voiced support for the resolution, I never got the sense he was fighting for it. I turned to my friend and said "This could be a game changer - I was wrong, this thing could pass".

Rae was followed by a young girl...then by Justin Trudeau. Suddenly, we had a ballgame. Supporters of the supporter system spoke of "renewal", "openness", and "historic change", playing off the mood of the convention. Opponents focused on logistics and warned of outsiders hijacking the party. Then a Liberal delegate got up and said how he'd supported the Liberals for years but this was his first convention - he was here to "hijack" the party and he hoped millions of Canadians joined him in hijacking the party. Game over.

It's not often that high profile constitutional resolutions are won and lost on the the convention floor, but I truly think the speeches from the floor - especially Rae and Trudeau's intervention - tipped the scales.

And just like that, a resolution that looked dead a week earlier, and which no one would have contemplated a year earlier had passed. As the great philosopher Bob Dylan said "when you've got nothing, you've got nothing to lose". The Liberals took a chance on change - who knows what the repercussions will be, but we'll soon find out.

Primary Debates (2)

Myself and Jeff Jedras follow up our online debate, with a video chat over beers on the primary resolution which will be up for vote at this weekend's convention.



After the video ended, the rest of the bar patrons joined in on the argument and it ended in a brawl.

Primary Debates

In his Macleans.ca debut, my friend Jeff Jedras takes aim at the proposal Liberals will be voting on in January to move to a US-style primary system to choose the party's next leader and nominate candidates.

While I've already voiced my support for this system, Jeff raises three valid critiques which I want to take the time to rebut - one logistical, one conceptual, and one on the decision-making process.


1) Logistical: "One concern is the potential for shenanigans; supporters of another party signing up as Liberal “supporters” to vote in the primary and negatively influence the process, such as voting for the least-favoured candidate."

Again, I point to the Alberta Liberal example, where such shenanigans were tried (against a much weaker party) and failed spectacularly.

The reason for this is simple enough - most people don't give a big enough damn to try something like this, and those who do are too high profile to risk getting caught. Finding 50,000 rabble rousers willing to sign up and make Tony Genco the next Liberal leader simply can't be done under the radar, and whoever tried to organize a campaign like this would seriously hurt their credibility.

Seventeen US states let Democrats vote in Republican primaries and vice versa. Their rationale is that a candidate who earns primary votes from across the aisle, will also earn general election votes from across the aisle. If Karl Rove can't find a way to get Denis Kucinich the Democratic nomination, then I don't think we have much to fear here.

I know some are concerned about special interest groups taking over a nomination meeting, but a $10 membership fee isn't going to stop them - if anything, a supporter system makes a takeover harder since it takes more votes to win. If an anti-abortion group goes from needing 100 votes to 120 votes to win a nomination meeting, it makes it that much more difficult for them to get their candidate of choice nominated (remembering of course that all candidates still need to be green lit by the party).


2) Conceptual: "One of the key incentives for joining a political party is the opportunity to vote in leadership and nomination races. This proposal devalues membership. Already, during each successive election, it has become harder to get Liberals to volunteer to knock on doors, stuff envelopes, and get out the vote. We need committed members, and more of them, to successfully rebuild this party."

Here's the thing. By itself, party membership means nothing. The point of signing someone up to be a member is to get their contact information so that you can get them to knock on doors, stuff envelopes, and get out the vote. I agree we need more of these people, but the way you get them is by making it easier to join the Liberal fold. Consider the supporter system a gateway drug to lure liberal-minded Canadians into the big red tent (and yes, I totally intend to put that line, creepy as it is, on a button at the Ottawa convention). Once they've registered, they can be invited to become full fledged members, volunteer, and donate money.

Yes, we need to make membership meaningful to retain and engage members. But if we want to grow the membership, we need to tear down the barriers to becoming involved, and a primary system would do just that. You don't think a few of the millions who signed up to vote for Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries also gave their money and time to get him elected in the ensuing general election?

I know many are uneasy about "instant Liberals", but if this change means thousands of new Canadians pouring into our ranks, then that's fantastic. There are instant Liberals I signed up for leadership votes who are now more involved in the party than I am.


3) The Process: "The party executive wants to amend the constitution so the new leadership selection process can be adopted at the biennial convention in Ottawa January 13-15, 2012, barely two months from now. Meetings to elect delegates to that convention are happening now, and many are being cancelled and the delegates acclaimed due to a lack of people willing to fill all the available spots. It’s not as if this concept has been debated in Liberal circles for months. We’re just getting this now. We’re talking about fundamentally changing the most important thing we do—selecting a leader—and we’re rushing into it."

I know the Liberal response to every problem is to call a Royal Commission, but this gives delegates to the January convention two months to debate the idea - plenty of time to make up their minds. Liberals have talked about "renewal" for years without anything happening - it's time to get off the pot or shift the way we do politics.

The reality is we need to lay down the ground rules for the next leadership race before we find ourselves in the next leadership race. We're now a third party, and a series of rolling primaries would add much needed excitement to the contest, helping us introduce the next leader to Canadians.

I don't think the end result would be any different under one-member-one-vote or the registered supporter system. But, like Jeff says, process matters, and this new way of electing leaders would send a message to Canadians that the Liberal Party is willing to change and open itself up to Canadians.


UPDATE: Jeff responds to my responds here, to which I respond here and he responds here. At this point, I call him and argue Hitler was against a primary system, to which he calls me a redneck and hangs up. Let's agree to disagree and call it a draw.

An Open Party

The Liberal White Paper on party reform has been leaking out over the past few days, and will reportedly be released in full tonight. I'm sure there will be a lot of worthwhile ideas within it, but the one likely to grab the most headlines is the proposal of moving to a primary-style system where any Canadian could register to vote for the next Liberal leader (and perhaps in local nomination meetings too). Without a doubt, this will be a hotly contested vote at this January's convention.

Before the rhetoric starts flying, both sides of this debate need to recognize this isn't going to lead to millions of Canadians stampeding out to vote in Liberal Party primaries. A $10 membership fee and the stigma of political party membership is a deterrent for some, but if you give a damn about who the next Liberal leader is, those are pretty small barriers to jump over. So when supporters argue it's going to double the party base and opponents argue it's going to lead to a takeover, they're both being melodramatic.

With that caveat given, I come down strongly in support of the concept, for the following reasons:

1. It will get more people involved in the party. Not as full fledged members, but consider this a gateway drug. First you hook them with the primary system, then you lure them into the seedy world of political rallies, membership forms, volunteering, and donating money.

2. The party will get valuable information from these supporters. In the new age of micro-targeting and fundraising, having additional data on Liberal-inclined voters is worth a lot more than a $10 membership fee.

3. Symbolically, it's the right play to make. It would send the message that the party is changing and that it's open. Voters have grown increasingly cynical of backroom old-style politics, and this would counter that.

4. It would create excitement and draw media attention to the Liberal leadership race. In the past, this would have been a given, but life as a third party is different. The next leader is likely to be an unknown to voters, so getting media attention during the race makes introducing him or her to voters afterwards a lot easier.

The argument opponents of the primary system usually raise is that it opens the party to a takeover. Poppycock. The Alberta Liberals switched to an open supporter system for their recent leadership contest and, sure enough, Craig Chandler's PGIB group threw their weight behind a far right candidate (who has since jumped to the Wildrose Alliance). The result? Their man finished fourth with 626 votes. If a weak Alberta Liberal Party can shrug off a right wing takeover in the heart of Conservative country, surely the federal grits have nothing to fear.

Even at the riding level, if a special interest group wants to stack a nomination meeting, they'll find the 10$ a head to do it now. A supporter system actually makes takeovers harder, since it means more votes are needed to win. Instead of signing up 100 anti-abortion activists to win a nomination meeting, you might need 120 or 150.

No, the only downside I see is on the financial ledger. Any leadership format outside of royal succession is going to lead to instant members, so there's an argument you might as well get some money out of it. This move will likely wind up costing the party over half a million dollars.

That's not an insignificant sum of money to write off. In the end, I think much of it will be made back by eventually getting donations from some of the new members and by making membership meaningful enough that supporters will want to join.

The payoff of opening the party up to all Canadians exceeds this cost. It would be a bold move, at a time when the Liberal Party is hungry for boldness.

The Alberta Test Drive

No surprise, as Raj Sherman wins the Alberta Liberal leadership race on the first ballot:

Raj Sherman: 54% (4684 votes)
Hugh MacDonald: 26% (2239 votes)
Laurie Blakeman: 9% (854 votes)
Bill Harvey: 7% (626 votes)
Bruce Payne: 2% (197 votes)

As I wrote on Friday, this leadership race deserved watching, even outside Alberta, since it was the first in Canada to be run on a supporter system. The vote was open to all Liberal supporters, not just party members.

So how did the test drive go?

The number most will look at is 8,640 - the number of Albertans who voted, nearly double the total in the 2008 race. Of course, you take Sherman out of the equation and we're back to 2008 levels. I have anecdotal evidence to suggest some supporters wouldn't have taken out memberships, but if we're being honest about it, the new system clearly didn't lead to a stampede of interest in the Alberta grits.

What it did do was get the party contact information for 27,000 Albertans. Even if only a fraction take lawnsigns, volunteer, or donate money in the next election, that's a win.

But the most telling number in this little primary experiment is probably 626 - the number of votes Bill Harvey collected. Whenever I pitch the supporter system to Ontario Liberals, their biggest concern is that right-wing special interest groups will take over the party. I never really understood this, since there's nothing to stop them from paying $5 or $10 a head for memberships now. If anything, the primary system makes a takeover more difficult because it means more votes are needed to win. But the fear exists and, up until yesterday, there wasn't a good case study to dispute it.

Harvey was endorsed by Craig Chandler's PGIB group, yet he was a non-factor in this contest. If a sickly provincial Liberal Party had no problem fighting off a right-wing insurgency in Alberta, it seems clear the federal grits have little to fear from a supporter system.

No, this wouldn't solve all that plagues the LPC, because a lot of problems plague the LPC. But the Alberta test-drive shows it works, with little downside.

This Week in Alberta - The Liberals Pick a Leader

It will be a busy fall politically, with provincial elections in Ontario, Saskatchewan, PEI, Newfoundland, and Manitoba. Although we likely won't see an Alberta vote until 2012, the province will get a new Premier, thanks to Ed Stelmach's surprise resignation in January. The first round of voting takes place on September 17th, and assuming no one gets the coveted 50% + 1, the three finalists will square off in a steer wrassling contest on October 1st to determine the winner.

Alberta's official opposition also finds itself in a leadership contest, with the winner being crowned tomorrow from the following list of candidates:

Laurie Blakeman: website, profile
Bill Harvey: website, profile
Hugh MacDonald: website, profile
Bruce Payne: website, profile
Raj Sherman: website, profile

The announcement likely won't get a ton of media coverage - after all, if media reports are to be believed, former PC MLA Raj Sherman is heading for an easy first ballot victory. And let's be honest, Alberta Liberal leadership contests usually turn out to be about as important in the scheme of things as Bloc Quebecois nomination meetings in Mount Royal.

But I'll still be watching the results tomorrow with interest, for a few reasons:

1. Despite the high number of supporters Sherman signed up, it remains to be seen how many will actually vote and how many will actually vote for him. Wednesday's bizarre tweet from Sherman only confirms this:


2. This is the first trial run of a primary-style "supporter system" in Canada, so politicos will be watching to see how many supporters actually take the time to vote. The Alberta Grits drew 4,500 votes when they picked a leader in 2008 - if they can triple that number, support for the system could pick up outside Alberta.

3. With Craig Chandler's ultra-Conservative PGIB backing Bill Harvey, the supporter system is getting a real test on just how "takeover proof" it is. If Harvey wins or comes close to the top, federal grits wouldn't dream of touching the system for at least a decade.

4. The ALP caucus is notorious for internal feuds, so it will be interesting to see whether or not the defeated candidates take their loss in stride. Hugh MacDonald has already raised doubts about the supporter list (without offering any proof) - if the defeated can't rally behind the winner, they might all find themselves out of work a year from now.

5. Finally, although a Liberal victory in Alberta seems far fetched, fanciful, ridiculous, or any synonym of your choosing, with the divided right the Alberta Liberals will be relevant in the next election. Their level of relevancy remains to be seen, but in an unpredictable election that might very well result in a minority government, it would be foolish not to pay attention to a party almost certain to pick up 20% to 30% of the vote.

I can't say I have a horse in this race. All five candidates bring their own unique set of skills and liabilities to the table. But I'll certainly be watching the result with interest tomorrow.

Electoral Reeeeeeform

Even though I don't agree with the man's politics, I maintain it's a crying shame Preston Manning didn't run for the Alberta PC leadership in 2006, out of fear some chap named Dinning would beat him. Hindsight being what it is, it seems obvious Manning would have won, and his time as Premier would have been fascinating to watch.

Manning's latest idea, is to move Canada to an open primary system, something I wholeheartedly agree with - not just for nominations, but for leadership races too. I'm not convinced it would work unless coupled with some sort of voter registration system, but I do like the idea in theory. It's hard to see how anyone who watched the US primaries last year couldn't.

Often it takes a crisis of some sort to create opportunities for reform. In Britain, the recent scandalous abuse of expense accounts by members of the House of Commons from all major parties has created precisely such a crisis and opportunity.

In order to bolster public confidence in its candidates for the soon-to-be-held general election, the British Conservative Party has become willing to experiment with democratic innovations.

One in particular is being introduced in the constituency of Totnes. It should be watched closely by Canadian politicians and parties.

The Conservative MP for Totnes, Anthony Steen, was recently forced to “stand down” when it was revealed that he had claimed more than £87,000 over four years in parliamentary expenses on his country home.

Rather than choosing a candidate to succeed him by the conventional method of a constituency nominating meeting in which only card-carrying Conservative Party members can vote, the party has decided to experiment with an “open primary” in which every voter in Totnes will be invited to help choose its candidate for the next general election.