Convention vs. OMOV

Well, one word that I keep hearing from the convention is that by shooting down OMOV, we ruined a chance at renewal. I say that's a bad viewpoint.

First off, I'm not out there to bash one member one vote systems. I do think that they are a decent system, and we definitely need to give it a serious look. I know not everyone can shell out the 1000 bucks for the delegate fees at the convention, and until we actually have a real way to fundraise for stuff like this, it's too steep for many people.

Now on to why we did the right thing by not jumping into this new system:

1. Conventions are fun, and are a great thing to have. We all saw the poll numbers from Sunday. I haven't seen the Alberta PC polls recently, but I seriously doubt they got a big jump in numbers are their vote, and they had 2 weekends of results. And anyone who went to the convention will say that was one of the best times they've had in a long time.

2. Some may argue with me about this, but OMOV we lose the backroom dealing. Now, to some, this is a great thing, but I think it takes the leader almost another step away from people. The anticipation of figuring out where a leadership candidate will turn to, th scene of them walking across the floor, and all the smoozing between leaders makes it better. I like to know where the guy I likes will go, since if I trust the man enough to think they'd make a good leader, I don't mind knowing who he thinks the next best leader would be. Even if not many Brison or Dryden delegates followed him to Rae, I'm sure a few more did than if he didn't let them know of his choice.

3. OMOV won't actually bring anyone else out to vote who wouldn't have normally. Honestly, does anyone actually believe that some people decided not to vote because they're opposed to the delegated system? If you're anywhat active in the party, you did all you could to get yourself or people you know elected as a delegate. And if you're not involved, then just bringing in a different voting system won't get your more involved, except to possibly vote. But if we just brought in someone to vote, is that actually worth it? This is more a rant in finding ways to get others involved, but I don't think people will suddenly do more with the party just because we have OMOV. I signed up a half-dozen people to vote for me to get me to go as a delegate. Would I still have signed them up without the reward of a delegate spot?

4. OMOV isn't the only form of renewal. It is a form of renewal, but is it worth pushing it in just for the sake of "renewal"? Pushing ahead something just because it's new is no different than changing leaders and calling ourselves a new party. The constitution, now there's a form of renewal. We need to change the way the party operates, but we need to do so in a smart way.

5. As a side point of 4, we shouldn't try to slip this behind people when caught up in leadership. Just like the dump idea of trying to hold policy sessions this time around, everyone knew it was a Leadership convention, even if we tried to stick the "biennial" label on it (and just like the Conservatives being the Alliance in drag, not really a PC/Alliance party). Even the constitution workshop only had 600 or so people out of 5000 who could have gone. Did people actually know what they were voting on? I bet if you asked people to describe the amendment, most wouldn't even know about the points system involved. Wait until we can actually concentrate on it at the next biennial.

6. If the Alberta PC race is any indication, OMOV may bring in catchy campaign songs.

As I said, OMOV is a new way of doing things. I think we need to worry more about getting people involved, and getting more people out, than about worrying about how we pick our leader once every 10 years (on average). However, I do think we need changes before the next leadership vote. Personally, I have not looked enough into it, but I think the best would be to have our leader picked 50% based on a form of OMOV and 50% based on the delegate results. This keeps the usefulness of a convention (since if we went strictly OMOV holding a convention would look pretty stupid), but while still giving everyone a say. Again, maybe some details need to be figured out, but let's actually sit down and talk about it. Figure out how to guarantee an amount of Youth, Women, and Seniors participation, but actually have a talk about it. I think if we spend some time, we can find a system that appeals to people, but even lots of OMOV supporters didn't like this last one.