News of the delegate vote turnout (or lack thereof) must give an extra sting to Gerard Kennedy. Written off for not having any support in Quebec whereas the others, who also have no support in Quebec, can keep dreaming of leadership.
...The source said a total of 6,500 Liberals voted in the Quebec delegate-selection elections. That represents just 17% of the party's 38,000 members in the province. Michael Ignatieff came out ahead in the province, with 37.6% of delegates, followed by Stephane Dion with 29.3%, and Mr. Rae with 23.4%. Gerard Kennedy, who finished fourth nationally, won less than 2% of Quebec delegates.
David MacNaughton, head of Mr. Kennedy's campaign, said the low Quebec turnout indicates that nobody should be crowing about how well they performed in the province. "There were more people who voted for Gerard Kennedy in the greater Toronto area than voted for every one of the candidates in the province of Quebec," he said.
He said Mr. Kennedy has work to do to build his appeal in Quebec, but so does the party as a whole. "To suggest that the problem is Gerard Kennedy's weakness in Quebec is to ignore the overall problem, which is that the Liberal party has got some issues in Quebec," he said.
It would be very interesting to see what the popular vote was in the delegate election. It should touch off an interesting debate of delegate election vs. one member one vote. Maybe the Reform/Alliance parties had it right all along.
Comments (2)
I read Hamilton’s bit and it’s not clear what point he’s trying to make. In terms of representation, it’s not very different than the Tories’ system of picking a leader where all electoral districts are weighted evenly, regardless of number of members. The fundamental difference between the Tories’ and Liberals’ systems for picking a leader is that the Liberals system is elitist whereas the Tories system is democratic. First of all you have the ex officio elite, party insiders and hacks all, who are about a third of the delegates. Then, recognizing that the first-ballot intention is not that relevant, it’s all about the power-broking and deal-making done on the floor by the delegates. Delegates themselves are weighted towards the well-heeled, who can afford the convention fees and travel costs.
As much as some people think a delegated convention is great because of the media coverage, you have to admit it’s an undemocratic anachronism from an age before computers and telecommunications. But the Liberal party has never been about democracy: it’s sole reason for existence is power.
Posted by Hector B. | October 19, 2006 4:00 PM
Posted on October 19, 2006 16:00
How old is that article? GK finished 3rd nationally, not 4th.
Posted by Rachel | October 19, 2006 8:22 PM
Posted on October 19, 2006 20:22