Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:


We interrupt this Easter break for an OMOV update..

I said blogging was going to be light this Easter Weekend, but this blogpost over at Aaron’s caught my eye. It seems he was reading part of the constitutional rules booklet for the Liberal Party, and it seemed to him to indicate that the One Member One Vote proposed constitutional amendment vote came first, and any or all sub-amendments to it – i.e. the YLC”s proposed quota sub-amendment – came second. He asked others if he was reading the rules right, and this comment came along:

“OMOV is voted on and then if it succeeds the YLC amendment gets considered as an amendment to the constitution”

I’m checking into that. I’ve had a couple of people tell me that is indeed the case. Another person has told me the rule changes for the voting order were apparently made in August 2008, by the Dion leadership. (not sure about that either).

IF this is indeed the voting order, then the folks in the YLC council have been too clever by half. This means the YLC is in the position of either having to support OMOV in order to get it passed so their amendment has a chance to also be passed, or to tell their supporters not to take the risk of their sub-amendment quota for OMOV failing, and thus to vote against OMOV.

If they try to get their youth delegates to vote en masse to kill it, then I think the case that some other Liberal bloggers have made in saying that the YLC amendment was a poison pill becomes stronger. How? I’m starting to believe, as some of these other bloggers have theorized, that the YLC passed that sub-amendment with the aim being it either would get defeated to give the YLC leadership a pretext for telling the YLC delegates to vote against it, or if it passed, it would make the OMOV proposal untenable to the rest of the delegates for enough of the delegates to reject it.

This order of voting (if indeed this is correct) will now force the YLC’s hand, or at least the ones who thought this amendment was a good (clever?) idea. Do they support better representation and more democratic means to choose leaders at Conventions every 5-10 years or so (the current delegate-system REMAINS in place for policy conventions, it must be remembered), or do they wish to try and kill OMOV reform in a short-sighted attempt to save their perks?

UPDATE: The relevant section, as was sent to me. It’s in a PDF file over at the Liberal website of rules and constitutional changes apparently:

6.10 Amendment Proposals. If a Constitutional Proposal (the “Amendment Proposal”) is an amendment of another Constitutional Proposal (the “Main Proposal”), then the Amendment Proposal will be considered and debated only if the Main Proposal is passed by a two-thirds majority. The Amendment Proposal also requires a two-thirds majority in order to be passed

UPDATE 2: I haven’t been actively updating this on a regular basis, but the list of Liberal bloggers who support the OMOV measure and at the same time oppose the YLC quota sub-amendment has been growing. The number of Liberal bloggers who support OMOV/oppose the YLC 25% quota sub-amendment far outnumber those who won’t support OMOV without the quota being included.


2 comments to We interrupt this Easter break for an OMOV update..

  • KC

    Whatever the virtues of OMOV and youth quotas Rule 6.10 is a dumb rule. Figure out exactly what change is to be made before you vote on whether or not the change should go through. It would create a bias in favour of the status quo.

    I dont know how that rule got through.

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.