Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:


Some more OMOV stuff, and more on those voting rule changes…

I mentioned in my prior blogpost how rule changes at the LPC Convention have now been made so that any constitutionally proposed amendments must be passed first, and then sub-amendments to those amendments would be considered second, and only if the original amendment passed. That led to some supporters of the YLC amendment becoming furious. I got accosted without provocation on Facebook in chat by 1 such supporter angrily claiming that the Liberal Party executive was trying to screw the YLC. Well, as per Jeff’s blogpost update today, outgoing LPC President Doug Ferguson responds:

I hope you will allow me to deal with this issue and why the Rules of Order are set up in the way they are. The Rules of Order were approved by National Management Committee as per the party constitution. We felt that the general principle of OMOV (and any other major amendment) should be voted on first. If it passed, then the convention could consider a substantive amendment to it, such as that of the YLC. If OMOV does not pass, then the YLC amendment is moot.

Reading between the lines, Doug is saying this was not done to specifically “screw’ the YLC on this OMOV amendment, or anyone else. Oh, and as for OMOV itself? Doug said this:

Personally I support OMOV and I believe it will pass.

That’s a second high ranking Liberal official (Rocco Rossi is the other one) that has come out publicly in support of the weighted OMOV proposal. The question again remains – will those in the YLC who put forth their quota amendment stand in the way of democratic reforms for the Liberal Party on one very specific change (remember, this is only for determining how to vote for candidates for Leadership Conventions – which don’t happen that often – not on policy conventions or anything else), or will they do as Jeff thought to him it appeared they were doing and attempt a very short-sighted obstruction campaign in trying to protect their political power base?


3 comments to Some more OMOV stuff, and more on those voting rule changes…

  • Anthony Di Domizio

    and the poison pill begins taking effect…

    too bad its the YLC who will get the brunt of the blame for this

  • Josh Hutchinson

    By what possible logic would you want to pass OMOV not knowing what the final product is going to be? There is a reason sub-amendments should be debated first; I’m not an MP, but I don’t think what they do in Parliament is pass a Bill, and then immediately vote on amendments to the Bill.

    Would you support OMOV with the YLC amendment? I’m sure there are those who wouldn’t. How would they feel if they voted for OMOV, and then the YLC amendment passed?

    It seems like the only rationale for this change in procedure is to defeat the YLC amendment. Thus, the Party is stifling the democratic processes it seeks to strengthen with OMOV. And, thus, the word “screw”. An apt description.

    I’m absolutely voting against OMOV (which I’d otherwise support with the YLC amendment) if this procedure isn’t changed, and I’m going to encourage everyone else to do the same.

  • KC

    Pretty weak explanation from Ferguson as to why the normal order of things was reversed. Pretty well just “we feel” that its the best way to do things. “We feel” isnt a reason.

    We often support “general principles” on certain conditions and caveats. Its kind of like signing a contract to sell something without working out the details first. People might support “OMOV” in principle but prefer the status quo if the details are unknown. This rule is a very bizarre way of doing things. Its a recipe for buyers remorse or voting down positive change because you’re unsure of how the details were worked out afterwards.

    For what its worth I support OMOV and oppose the YLC amendment but the vote order should be reversed. For instance if geographical weighting came AFTER the vote on the main amendment (which isnt the case here but hypothetically) I would be inclined to vote against OMOV (which would be too bad).

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