Tories: We helped defeat Rae

[Sex Panther]

If anyone thinks a few little buttons changed the outcome of that race, your dreaming.

HACKING DEMOCRACY

[gerryhatrick]

I have to question the journalism here

"Just seconds after Rae was knocked out, a prominent Tory MP wandering the convention floor pulled out a handful of buttons mocking Rae and winked mischievously."

If they can't even give a name of the person handing out buttons then this can't be taken as serious journalism. And isn't this a private event? How did he get in?

I believe the name is given out in the story.

In fact, it's in the very next sentance to the one you quoted. Did you stop reading there?

Question the journalism, lol.

[Saturn]

Rae lost because the votes on teh floor weren't there due to the corrupt LIberal electoral system plain and simple.

No, Rae lost because he represented a bit of a wild card and the Liberal National Executive wanted a safe candidate, part of the Old Guard. Which is what they got and in doing so they have made a grave strategic error.

The one member, one vote system for a political party lends itself to a corrupt process. How does the party avoid being hijacked by special interests? I'd say the best strategy for lobby groups is to buy memberships for all it union or tobacco farmers or anti-abortionists and dominate a political party. Hell, perhaps the NDP and Liberals could buy all their members a party card and vote for the weakest leader.

Rubbish. How can you say that when exactly the opposite was demonstrated just yesterday in Alberta? Morton attempted to hijack the process by selling memberships to every churchgoer in Alberta. It worked for one ballot but didn't result in anything other than his third place finish, which was as good as he was ever going to get. Why doesn't it work? Two Reasons. First, there are a finite member of one-issue people. They don't attract others to their cause because they are clearly obsessed. Second, once the existence of the one-issue whackjobs is confirmed, it attracts a much larger number of centrists which easily outwegh the whackjobs.

How much evidence do you need? Just review the voting results in Alberta yesterday for cionfirmation that your theory is simply not valid.

Look to the results in Montreal to confirm that the delegate system is the one that is corrupt and easily manipulated by the party elite. After all, their man won......Quelle surprise.

Just the opposite was demonstrated a couple of years ago when Peter MacKay allowed every Reformer to buy a PC membership and then vote in favour of the Alliance takeover of the PC party. One member one vote would definitely allow outsiders to interfere and highjack the electoral process. Votes in a party election are only for the real members of the party, not for their political opponents.

[Saturn]

I want to specify a few things because it appears a few people have ministerpreted my post.

I want to stress tha tI am not suggesting that the Conservatives were the ones responsible for Rae's defeat, I also want to stress that I was not really trying to paint this as a moral Issue, I even said this is not a moral issue it is a stupidity Issue. Putting asside morals, there is no logical justification for bragging about what they did, other then expansion of the ego. In the past Canadians have been a little leary of the percieved conservative ego. I am not trying to say the Liberals don't have one either, that was not my point. My point was purely from a strategic sense it is bad news. And if you, as most conservatives do, believe th emedia is on a biased witch hunt to destroy the party, what in the hell were they thinking.

Hello? Half the English media in this country is run by the Aspers and David campaigned with Harper. Most of the other half (Globemedia) endorsed Harper in the last election. All of the French media in this country is run by Brian Mulroney and friends. You can say that the media is on a biased witch hunt to destroy the conservatives all you want, but if you actually believe that this is the case then you are really not with it.

[gerryhatrick]

Well, thankyou to the torries for these scummy intrusions on democracy to defeat Rae.

Dion is proving to be a strong choice.

Can you say "BACKFIRED!"?

[mikedavid00]

Really - I don't know about the U.S. electoral college system other than it was supposed to level the playing field between large and small states, but it is not relevant here.

The electorage college system is brilliant and an answer to most of our electoral problems.

[jdobbin]

The electorage college system is brilliant and an answer to most of our electoral problems.

They just don't know how to count their votes down there.

[Canadian Blue]

Oh Gerry, wait a few weeks bud..........

[gerryhatrick]

Oh Gerry, wait a few weeks bud..........

No need to wait, Libs are already beating Cons 37 - 31% in the first post-convention poll.

[mikedavid00]

I was reading the Globe and Mail about the Federal Liberal Youth delegates, and it made me wonder why some of those people were voting. One guy said he's not even involved in politics, his friend just got him to do it so he could lend some votes for his candidate. The Liberal system seem's kind of f$#@ed up.

Exactly. It's corrupt and is made so elites determine who gets in power.

Ignatieff had public support on multiple polls. End of story. He gave the best speach you could say. He just had it in the bag.

Elites and corruption and back room deals saw to it that Dion/Kennedy got in.

Belinda tried to change the charter to the Liberal party by campaigning for a 1 member, 1 vote structure, but she lost the motion. You should ahve seen the look on her face last Wed. when she lost the motion. It was real close though. SHe's like 'how is 93% of our party not being here and not voting democratic?'. SHe even had several other MP's backing her at the podium to pass the motion.

Belinda was trying to stop the internal corruption that was played out on Saturday...

But the elites already at the concention just couldn't let go of their eliteness so voted it down. They didn't have the parties interest at heart: only their elbow rubbing.

Sorry Belinda, I'm sure your cooking somethign else up as we speak.

[scribblet]

Just the opposite was demonstrated a couple of years ago when Peter MacKay allowed every Reformer to buy a PC membership and then vote in favour of the Alliance takeover of the PC party. One member one vote would definitely allow outsiders to interfere and highjack the electoral process. Votes in a party election are only for the real members of the party, not for their political opponents.

Can you clarify that, I don't know what you are referring to, Peter Mackay alone had no say in the membership process, any agreement was reached by concensus

From a Canoe report on the Alberta PC election :

"Not everyone who voted Saturday was an ardent Tory.

One couple emerged from a polling station with big frowns on their faces and admitted they are members of another political party.

They said they bought Tory memberships in the hope their votes might help thwart a Morton victory.

"We are going to get together with friends when this is over and burn our Tory party cards," said a woman who declined to give her name or her political affiliation. "

I agree we need to design around the abuse of the membership process - do away with these different scenarios and restrict party voting rights to those that have been party members for a minimum period of say 6 months. Every new member should also sign a statement affirming that he/she is not a member of any competing party and be subject to penalties in the event of a false declaration. That is if we don't want a registration process for all voters.

Fixed election dates and a standardized leadership election system would help, especially if run by Elections Canada.

Delegated voting is for the elite and for only those who can afford to attend a convention, might be fun and all, but not democratic. The best thing would be for all registered voters to vote for a PM.

[abcon99]

Rae lost because he is a socialist, and he screwed up Ontario, and he wouldn't get votes in most of the country. Buttons and other junk are silly and not worth getting worked up about. Alberta just had a one member one vote election of the leader of the Conservatives, and the man who will be premier. Sure, of the 140 000 people who voted, maybe 20 000 were liberals or ndp people trying to choose the leader, but who cares. If you are afraid of letting people join your party, even up to the day of the election of your party leader, then you are gutless and anti democratic.

[jbg]

Really - I don't know about the U.S. electoral college system other than it was supposed to level the playing field between large and small states, but it is not relevant here.

The electorage college system is brilliant and an answer to most of our electoral problems.

It is a good system, but it has created its share of weird and distorted results. Many would rank Bush's victory in 2000 (I voted for Gore but thanked G-d that Bush won, oh, on September 11, 2001), Kennedy's "dead man election" in 1960, and the Nixon-Humphrey-Wallace squareoff as unfortunate accidents. It also tends to overstate landslides, i.e. Nixon's 1972 and Reagan's 1984 victories (aboiu 60% of popular vote, and over 95% of electoral vote in each case).

[jbg]

Oh Gerry, wait a few weeks bud..........

No need to wait, Libs are already beating Cons 37 - 31% in the first post-convention poll.

Post-convention publicity bounce. In the US Dukakis sprinted to a 60% lead post-convention, then lost 1988 election by wide margin.

[gerryhatrick]

I wonder when this despicable behaviour will be given the full attention it deserves in the liberal media!!

This kind of interference is something Canadians would not approve of, thus it's being largely ignored in the media.

[jefferiah]

They handed out buttons. Wooooooooooooo. Handing out buttons----Sponsorship scandal. Handing out buttons--- Sponsorship Scandal. Hmmmm.....someone help me out here. I cant figure out which is worse.

As for the memo, I think that's just good strategy. I don't think it worked though. I think everyone knew they weren't afraid of Ignatieff.

[kimmy]

I wonder when this despicable behaviour will be given the full attention it deserves in the liberal media!!

This kind of interference is something Canadians would not approve of, thus it's being largely ignored in the media.

The Liberals are welcome to make an issue of it if they wish... but they won't, because they can't do so without undermining Stephane Dion.

-k

[August1991]

This thread has drifted out to sea...

The electorage college system is brilliant and an answer to most of our electoral problems.

The advantage of the electoral college is that it creates buffer between vote of the people and the selection of a president. There is wisdom in this as we saw in 2000 because it means there is quick, legal way to determine who is president. The electoral college decides.

---

I think a delegated convention has many advantages. Hundreds of thousands of party members chose over 3000 delegates in ridings across Canada. The delegates are the people who will volunteer to work during an election campaign. I think the federal Liberal party has benefitted from this convention just as the Conservative benefitted from its policy convention in spring 2005.

[stignasty]

The advantage of the electoral college is that it creates buffer between vote of the people and the selection of a president. There is wisdom in this as we saw in 2000 because it means there is quick, legal way to determine who is president. The electoral college decides.

Why is a buffer necessary? A quick and easy (and unimpeachable) way to figure out the will of the people is to simply count their votes.

[Remiel]

Ignatieff had the best speech? Which leadership convention were you watching?

[jbg]

The advantage of the electoral college is that it creates buffer between vote of the people and the selection of a president. There is wisdom in this as we saw in 2000 because it means there is quick, legal way to determine who is president. The electoral college decides.

Why is a buffer necessary? A quick and easy (and unimpeachable) way to figure out the will of the people is to simply count their votes.

Not really. Someone could set up purely regional parties, or parties aimed at big cities, and get the largest number of total votes, while having no significant support in large chunks of the country. The Electoral College (and other similarly roundabout ways of selecting leaders) have the virtue of ensuring diverse popular support.

[hiti]

No, Rae lost because he represented a bit of a wild card and the Liberal National Executive wanted a safe candidate, part of the Old Guard. Which is what they got and in doing so they have made a grave strategic error.

Absolutely wrong. The Old Guard, as you call them did not win because they were backing Rae and Ignatieff. And Rae lost because he use to be the worst NDP premier in Ontario and he just didn't have too many policies in his platform, unlike the other front running candidates. The majority of the voting Liberal members wanted the delegates to elect either Dion or Kennedy, so yes the results were quite satisfactory to all Liberal members.

Not like the farce in the Alberta leadership vote, where anyone with $5 could go to the poll, buy a membership and vote to keep Morton out. Which many, many did. And that is also how Dinning lost, to the determent of Alberta.