Saturday, May 07, 2011

Amend The Constitution To Delay Leadership? Possibly

We CAN amend the constitution... We can allow all party members as of the date of appointment of the new leader to vote on a constitutional amendment to allow for a 2yr window to select the next leader. An online vote can be done quite easily. Also a "local" ballot in ridings across the country. The latter option would also allow Liberals to gather one more time post-election... Great way to begin people thinking about party reform.

We CAN do it. We just need to - as needed - break with "tradition". The Constitution can be amended. There is no need to shy away from that. As a matter of fact many of the needs of this party may require constitutional changes.

post signatureVICTORY FUND


Paul Raposo said...

Excuse me while I put my tinfoil hat on.

The Reform/Alliance party bought up memberships in the PC party to force their merger. How do we know the CPC won't buy memberships in the LPC to vote down amending the constitution?

WesternGrit said...

Because we would only include "immediate past" members and current members at an arbitrary date set shortly after the decision is made by caucus. It's very fair. You're a member right now in a very trying time, then you must be a true Liberal. You get to help decide the future of the party. If you lapsed long ago, or have now decided to try another party, too bad, but you're probably not as concerned about the future of the party.

We could also check Facebook pages for "loyalty"... lol... (just kidding).

Anonymous said...

I have my membership there any date on it?

Anonymous said...

"We can allow all party members as of the date of appointment of the new leader to vote on a constitutional amendment to allow for a 2yr window to select the next leader"


I don't quite get how you envision this will work. Do you mean to delay the next leadership campaign? If so that isn't really (hopefully) when we'll need the delay and if you mean to delay the current one... what happens if the vote comes up "no"? Or if the guy chosen refuses to step down after two years? Or any other cog in the machine happens? Why not make it simpler and name a parliamentary leader and have MI stay on as a figurehead leader (I'm sure there has to be some way to "withdraw" the resignation) until one day before the leadership review (December yes?) and then call for the campaign (1 year and a bit seems like it should be plenty enough time).

I don't like arbitrarily changing rules. Or planning things based off of presumptions.

WesternGrit said...

What I mean is that we could have an interim leader, but have an online vote to extend the actual leadership vote to a point in the future which will give us significant time to work on policy and recruit leadership candidates.

Anonymous said...

Near as I can tell per Chapter 18 section 76 amendments to the constitution have to be made at a convention. Nothing accounts for the possibility of an online vote, it doesn't preclude it either but there would have to be an interpretation by the Council of Presidents that such an online vote would constitute a "convention".

"18-76-1: This Constitution may be amended in accordance with this Section by a Special Resolution of the members of the Party at a convention."

Anonymous said...

Why not simply do what the Constitution says - appoint an Interim Leader in 23 days, and have a Leadership Vote within 5 months?

It seems the simplest and clearest thing to do. Those who wish to change the Constititution seem to have ulterior motives in mind, but dare not express them.

Why not come clean?

CuriosityCat said...

Why not simply do what the Constitution provides for - appoint an Interim Leader in 22 days and have a Leadership Vote within 5 months.

Simple, clean and as the party's rules require.

It seems to me that those who oppose the Constitution have an ulterior motive in mind, but are afraid to express it.

Come clean, now.

WesternGrit said...

The only thing I'm concerned with is having some real policy created by the party grass roots vs. waiting for a leader and her/his team, who tend to dominate the national executive, local executives, etc., and basically gear policy that way.

With every ounce of my being, I'm committed to this party having sound policy before a leader. I'm sick and tired of either wing calling us "wishy-washy". We want to have a direction that is TRULY centrist (or whatever may be the whim of the membership.

Basically what I feel is that the Liberal Party strayed away from our bold vision days. Bold policy. Ideas that rocked the nation. If we are to be a party that resonates with ideals of our base, then we should select our leader AFTER we put together a framework for Liberal policy for the next generation.

There is a very real problem in this land - something we bloggers and political junkies don't seem to get (particularly in our party).... That Canadians are not aware of the true identity and value of the center. Politics is polarizing as we continue to be called "the mushy middle". The right in particular is working to galvanize both wings, as they realize that a "bi-polar" Canada would make them the "natural governing" party. They would by default own the corporate support and support of the very conservative media ownership oligopoly.

I would like to see our party gear our spending towards advertising to enhance our position - and do it year round until Harper answers OUR calls (to the public) to put an end to year-round political advertising and "off-writ" advertising. To do so means actually having something to say. Something besides "Harper is evil".

Believe me... After watching the $hitheads destroy our party with internecine warfare for the last decade or two, I'm not about to want to start anything stupid. Anyone who starts getting selfish, or goes overboard for a leader or hopeful really doesn't deserve to be in the party. Party should come first, foremost, always.