While the idea of primaries and supporters is being framed as a way of making the Liberal Party more open, it is in fact one of the most disempowering proposals heading to the convention. Shifting from a delegated convention to weighted one member one vote was a good change, but we should keep our leadership selection process limited to people who believe in the party, our values and our policy vision strongly enough to become members.

At next week's Liberal Party convention, delegates will be voting on a series of constitutional proposals. Most of the proposals, which Jeff Jedras has helpfully annotated, are not very significant in terms of the future electoral prospects of the party. I support most of them and they are worth implementing, but I think it is foolish to look for the seeds of electoral success in internal constitutional tweaking. We shouldn't get too excited about this particular convention.

The changes related to creating a category of "supporters" and electing our leader through a series of staggered regional voting days (aka primaries) have probably garnered the most attention. I'm opposed to both ideas. Jeff Jedras and Andrew Coyne have already articulated some good reasons. Please read both articles if you haven't already done so.

Weighted one member one vote is a good system (WOMOV). It is very likely to elect a leader who resonates well with Liberals throughout the country. I see no reason to move away from it before we try it out.

Data collection is a red herring
Adding supporters to our constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with identifying supporters. We do that already during elections (and, more rarely, in between elections). Although it is true that we would collect data during a registration drive for a primary, it's not the only way to do so. I am a big believer in data and I find the "we need data!" line of argument to be less than compelling. The acknowledged leaders in collecting data on voters, the Conservatives, have managed to do so not only without a primary system for electing their leader, but with no leadership election at all since 2004. It's been all Harper, all the time. They have a money advantage and they are using their money well to create an information advantage. Frankly, the successive elections that we caused during the minority parliaments have probably been the biggest boost to their data collections efforts and ours.

The proposal is not really about data, which we can and do obtain in other ways. It's really about broadening the franchise for leadership elections and candidate elections to include supporters who do not want to become members. The onus is on proponents of the primary proposal to convince delegates why we should do so.

Leadership selection
Given the choices of Stéphane Dion and Michael Ignatieff as leader and our results in the 2008 and 2011 elections, I can understand why people are focused on our leadership selection process (disclaimer: I like both Dion and Ignatieff). However, neither leader was selected by our existing selection process of WOMOV by preferential ballot. Our next leader will be. Whereas Stéphane Dion was elected with the support of 2,500 delegates, our next leader will probably need at least 45,000, depending on our membership numbers. Stephen Harper received more than 67,000 votes on the first ballot of the CPC leadership vote in 2004. That is a huge difference from 2,500.

Furthermore, no selection process is risk-free or a sure way of selecting an excellent leader. We should focus on the pros and cons, and the practical considerations, of the different methods.

What might a primary system mean in practice?
Warning: numbers and future babble ahead.

Some numbers may help to put the issue into perspective. In the last general election, all Liberal candidates combined received 2.7 million votes or 11.5% of the voting eligible population. In better times (2004), our candidates received 4.9 million votes or 22% of the voting eligible population (VEP). That gives a pretty good sense of what the upper limits on the number of supporters might be.

Turnout in US primaries varies hugely, from 2.6% of VEP in the Wyoming Democratic caucus to 32% of VEP for the Democrats in the Vermont primary (check the data out yourself). The Vermont numbers, which are the very best for any party during the 2008 primaries, are very similar to the 32.6% of VEP that Obama received during the 2008 presidential election (52.9% of the votes times 61.7% of VEP = 32.6% of VEP).

In Vermont, during the actual presidential election, Obama received 44% of the VEP (66% times 67%). So let's take that as an absolutely best case scenario: in regions where we are relatively strong, we might expect 75% of our voting day supporters to bother voting in a primary (32/44). In Wyoming, Obama received 21% of the VEP (32.5% of 64%) during the actual election and Democrats all together received 2.6% of VEP in the Wyoming caucus. So worst case scenario, in areas where we are relatively weak, we might expect to see 12.3% (2.6/21) of our voting day supporters turnout.

If we were to adopt a primary system with voting staggered by region or provinces, we might expect participation along the following lines, using 2011 as a baseline and 12.3%, 42.5% and 75% as weak, average and strong turnout discount factors applied to our most recent electoral results to estimate turnout in primaries (you can see my worksheet here). Thanks to the Pundits' Guide for election results by region.

Projection (using 2011 as baseline)

Atlantic Canada (strong): 250,000
Central Canada (average): 825,000
Western Canada (weak): 61,000
Northern Canada (average): 4,500

Total: 1.2 million

So, I think that it's fair to say that if we switched to a primary system, and if we succeeded in registering a very high proportion of our supporters, we might expect 1.2 million or so voters to participate in our primaries for a leadership election. This is 10 times as many as we might expect to participate in a WOMOV system (the Conservatives had just under 100,000 in 2004).

To review the various systems and the approximate number of votes likely needed to win:

Delegated system: 2,500 votes
WOMOV: 50,000 votes
Primaries: 600,000 votes

Reaching and mobilizing this many voters would of course come with financial and human resource implications -- similar in scope to a major provincial election, judging from the numbers. Increased spending requirements would likely limit the field of initial candidates. The winnowing process inherent in staggered voting would further narrow the field as we moved across the country.

Finally, and most importantly, adopting primaries would reduce the influence of members to roughly 1/10th of the influence they enjoy now under the WOMOV system. Considering the situation we are in right now, I don't think that disempowering members in this way, and on this scale, is a good idea. I don't know why most people would continue being or choose to become members if we made this change.

Bold, but not smart
In speaking with proponents of this proposal, it is clear that they are very excited about the possibility of opening up the party, reaching out to more Canadians and making a bold change that they believe will make a big difference. Even though I disagree with the proposal, I'm glad they are so actively engaged with it and enthusiastic. Unfortunately, the rationale for the proposal is sorely lacking. We are being asked to abandon a perfectly good system without crucial information about the costs of this change, how exactly the voting days would be staggered, how higher spending limits would influence the field of candidates, etc. Compounding matters, we are facing a fiscal crunch with the phase-out of the per vote subsidy and we don't have a lot of time to adopt and implement this change in advance of the 2013 leadership vote -- look at how much time and effort goes into the US primaries. The idea is well-intentioned, but it is rushed and misguided. I believe we can reach out to Canadians and better inform our campaigning without enacting the proposal.

Membership has to matter. It has to mean something. If you will be attending the convention, I hope you will join me in voting against this proposal.

Note: you may want to read up on the US primary system, as it is the one we are superficially familiar with. It's actually fairly complicated, with state primaries or caucuses determining the number of delegates that the respective state Democrats or Republicans send to their national conventions, where the nominee is officially elected by the delegates. Fans of US history may recall when Gerald Ford defeated Ronald Reagan at such a national convention. Usually the outcome of the national convention is known in advance, as most of the delegates are bound by the results of the primaries and caucuses in their home states.

Update 6 Jan 2012: Based on the results seen in the Socialist Party primaries in France (2007 presidential election and 2011 open primary), I would expect participation in a Liberal Party primary to be between 470,000 to 850,000, with the lower number based on 2011 election results and the higher number based on our 2004 election results. Broken down by region, that would mean as few as 24,000 in Western Canada (2011 baseline) and as many as 585,000 in Central Canada (2004 baseline).

Roughly 2.9 million people voted in the Socialist Party primaries, which is 17.3% of the 16.7 million who voted Socialist Party in the presidential elections and 6.5% of the voting eligible population (2.9/44.4 million).

Update 6 Jan 2012: The Alberta Liberals used a primary system for their leadership selection. They signed up 27,000 or so supporters, 8,640 of whom actually voted in the leadership election (31%). Details at Blunt Objects.

Here's a calendar of events for the upcoming Liberal Party convention. Unofficial events such as hospitality suites are welcome!

The race for national policy chair of the Liberal Party of Canada took a negative turn a little while ago. A former friend of Zach Paikin's posted a blog entry describing his concerns about Zach's ambition, interpersonal dealings with other Liberals and views on a variety of policy issues, most of them related to foreign policy.

The post is a typical example of negative campaigning, straight out of the Prince of Darkness' school of kicking ass in politics. It relies, for the most part, on quoting Zach's own views on policy and characterizing those views as antithetical to Liberal values, policy and general worldview. Similar to how the Conservatives targeted Michael Ignatieff or how the Liberals targeted Stockwell Day, the fundamental idea is to frame Zach as "not one of us" in the minds of Liberal delegates. The post also included a few judgments by the author on Zach's character and dealings with others.

I first discovered the post in a Facebook group about rebuilding the Liberal Party. It was posted by a guy who knew the original author of the blog post. In the subsequent flurry of testosterone-fuelled discussion, several other people, who seemed to know both the original author and Zach, commented on the thread. It was clear to me that some or all of them — none of them candidates, it should be noted — were acting in concert to promote the blog post and its goal of ensuring that Zach is not elected as national policy chair. Some of them used "our" and "we" when making their points. The whole thread was eventually deleted by the admins of the group when it got out of hand.

Partly because the principal antagonists are the sons of well-known Torontonians, the story was picked up by GridTo. It was also reported by CTV when Bob Rae responded to a tweet by Adam Goldenberg with "what is this bullshit?" (I believe Bob was pissed about the comparison with Newt Gingrich, not the Liberals infighting bit).

Anyway, back to the negative campaigning, which I generally dislike. The problem is that it's usually effective in achieving its short-term ends.

I don't begrudge the guys who are opposing Zach for doing so. They seem to be legitimately concerned about his policy views, his judgment and his ability to serve as national policy chair. All of which are fair game. But I do have an issue with how they are going about their campaign, which includes:

1. Repeatedly characterizing some of Zach's policy positions as 1) too right wing; 2) too similar to the Conservative Party; 3) inconsistent with liberalism; and/or 4) inconsistent with official Liberal Party policy. While this may be effective in driving some Liberals away from supporting Zach, it sends a message to Liberal members that 1) we are hostile to ideas and 2) if you dissent from official policy on certain issues, you aren't a real Liberal or you are unfit to serve on the executive.
2. Aggressively challenging Zach and various Liberals to defend the policies that Zach supports. It's the tone that's problematic. Unsurprisingly, no one has really engaged them in the policy discussion they so desperately want to have.
3. Vaguely referring to secondhand accounts of Zach's allegedly inappropriate dealings with other Liberals. Useless hearsay, as far as I'm concerned.

I think it is incredibly short-sighted to launch such a negative campaign, during the early stages of our rebuilding process, against a 20-year-old guy who is running for national policy chair. Yes, they may succeed in preventing Zach from being elected, but they will have severely alienated him, his core supporters and other Liberals in the process. As a result of their negative campaign, I have a pretty low opinion of the folks who are running it.

As far as Zach is concerned, I think he has handled the attack fairly well. In fact, his response belies the claims the negative campaigners have made about his character in the face of opposition. He has shown admirable restraint in responding directly to the people campaigning against him and has tried to stay positive. Even though I disagree with Zach on a host of policy issues and have concerns about his actual platform, the way he has handled these attacks has impressed me.

The negative campaigners, in going so far overboard in their campaign, have generated some sympathy for the very guy they are attacking.

They could have made different choices.

1. They could have focused on his actual platform and campaign for national policy chair. For instance, creating a independent Liberal think tank.
2. They could have focused solely on Zach's policy views and left out the hearsay about his character.
3. In criticizing his policy views, they could have refrained from characterizing them as "Conservative," illiberal, "near-fascistic," "far right," etc.
4. In pursuing their campaign, they could have simply been nicer to their fellow Liberals.

I wish they had made different choices. In the longer run, the kind of campaigning they have engaged in hinders rather than helps us rebuild the Liberal Party.

Today Stephen Taylor raised a minor ruckus on Twitter about the Liberal Party of Canada's policy on who is able to attend the biennial convention free of charge. In past conventions (2006, 2008 and Canada @ 150), bloggers were able to seek accreditation as media and avoid paying any fees. At the upcoming convention, unless a blogger is sponsored by a media organization, the only way he or she can attend the convention is as an observer ($1,100) or as a delegate (fees vary from $200 to $675). Jeff Jedras has a blog post on the issue that provides a lot of useful background.

While I wouldn't have made this change in policy myself, I think it's fine. And I think people are overreacting to a change to the status quo.

First of all, in practice this policy affects very few people: in past conventions, maybe a dozen or so bloggers have been accredited as media. Of those, a bunch are probably already attending this convention as delegates. So we are literally talking about a handful of people.

Second, blogging is a lot less important now than it was 2.5 years ago. Unlike in previous conventions (2006, 2008) there will likely be at least one hundred people tweeting from the convention floor directly and posting on Facebook. Maybe several hundred. Plus all of the journalists who are now using twitter extensively. Keep in mind that in January 2008 there were eight employees at Twitter; now there are 400 employees. More than 1 billion tweets are posted per week and there are 400 million+ accounts (up from 30 million in early 2009). There will be no shortage of as-it-happens news reported from the convention.

Is there value in having bloggers like Stephen Taylor at the convention? Sure. Is it a really important issue? No.

Think of it this way: if you were to choose a group of people to attend the Liberal Party convention free of charge, would bloggers be at the top of your list? Personally, I'd rather have some non-partisan policy experts who could provide useful insight on policy.

Here are my top ten reasons for supporting Andrew Coyne (@acoyne on Twitter) for leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Please tweet any of these reasons, or your own reasons, and hashtag the tweet with #Coyne4LPC #cdnpoli #lpc.

1. Andrew Coyne is a genuine democrat and he could lead democratic reform of our politics and political institutions. As he wrote in April 2011: "What we cannot afford is the continuing slide of Parliament, and parliamentary democracy, into disrepair. Conventions once discarded, habits of self-government once lost, are much harder to regain."
2. The #lpc has a serious credibility problem and Andrew Coyne has credibility in spades. I'm sure he would resign rather than compromise his integrity.
3. Andrew Coyne advocates for smart public policy, which will appeal to reasonable people who've supported the #lpc, #cpc and #gpc. Especially environmental policy (carbon tax, road tolls, etc).
4. Andrew Coyne is a fiscal conservative who is unafraid of confronting sacred cow legacy #lpc policies such as supply management. He would shake things up in #cdnpoli, especially in the West.
5. Andrew Conyne is a strong federalist and advocate for the liberty of individual Canadians.
6. Andrew Coyne well understands our history and politics and is an excellent speaker and writer. He would perform well in the House of Commons and communicate well with Canadians.
7. Andrew Coyne would not be a handmaiden to business, as he believes in unwinding government subsidies to businesses in all their various forms.
8. Andrew Coyne is well respected for his understanding of both #cdnpoli and economics.
9. Andrew Coyne would represent Canada well to the world. He's a bilingual patriot who is well informed on international affairs.
10. It would be very difficult for the #cpc to effectively attack Andrew Coyne.

Comments from Canadians on the idea of Andrew Coyne running for leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

• "Coyne as Liberal leader might be the only plausible scenario in which I'd reconsider my own allegiance [to the Conservative Party of Canada]" - a longtime Conservative partisan and organizer
• "That would be pretty awesome" - Curtis from Muskoka
• "#Liberals4Coyne? Yes, I can get behind this." - Brian from Ottawa
• "I highly endorse @jesse_helmer's #Liberals4Coyne campaign, although the Economists' Party hates to lose the guy" - Mike from London
• "He'd get my vote." Chris from Sudbury
• "I read your post [about Coyne for leader of the LPC] with interest." Dave from Waterloo
• "#Liberals4Coyne? Okay! #TeamCoyne" Heather from Ottawa
• "Hmmmm... that would be VERY interesting." - Matt from London
• "We should be so lucky." - Rob from Toronto
• "I'd probably vote for the Coyne Liberals." - Alex from Brantford
• "I'm serious. If you get Andrew to run, I will become a card carrying Liberal! I love Andrew Coyne (far too much for my hubs' liking... lol)" - Anonymous from London
• "Amazing choice. Would be a formidable opponent, and I know a lot of disaffected Libs that would come back for him!" Justin from London
• "It would suck, because I'm a commited Conservative.  I prefer him in the media, where he can hold all parties to account." Tony from Ottawa
• "I'm liking the sounds of this! he seems to have a very high level of integrity and respect for government and could put up a strong fight in a campaign. Andrew is a bit 'right' on some issues but would certainly be much more compassionate than Harper and his trolls. this could be that 'wow' moment..." - Sean from Niagara Falls
• "I don't know about others, but I could use a fresh breath and new ideas from outside the traditional avenues of party politics. I would certainly be willing to listen to Mr. Coyne and his concerns and perspective." - Randy from Penatanguishene
• "Although I think that what the Liberals really need is a coherent policy direction (rather than some grab bag of ideas) and an attitude adjustment, having a leader with credentials and an ability to both analyse and communicate policy would be a tremendous boost. Coyne would help bring back all the "small 'l'" liberals who have been holding their noses and voting CPC because of the perception that the Liberals are too big-government oriented. Liberalism is supposed to be about small government and personal freedom, and I think the Liberal party would do well to get back to those roots." Devin from Saskatoon
• "As a voice of reason alone I would support his leadership. Lord knows we need some of that in Ottawa." Wes from Vancouver