Saturday, April 11, 2009

Procedural Questions

Because I don't really want a readership, another post on one-member-one-vote before I rejoin the BC-STV fray. I've never attended a Liberal convention (timing and money issues) so I have some questions regarding the procedural processes surrounding OMOV and the YLC amendment. The OMOV amendment is listed in the constitutional amendments as 1.1 the YLC amendment is listed as 1.1 a. First question, what's the sequence here? Is the debate for OMOV started and then the YLC amendment is brought forward as an amendment to the motion on the floor or is OMOV voted on and then if it succeeds the YLC amendment gets considered as an amendment to the constitution. I don't know whether or not an amendment can be amended on the floor under Liberal Party rules. If you can amend an amendment before it is passed do you require a two-thirds majority or merely simple majority? Depending on the answers to the questions the YLC amendment could be either much more problematic than earlier anticipated or much less. The OMOV people undoubtedly would want the YLC amendment considered after their proposal has been voted up or down. The YLC has a more complex question before them. If there is a difference in terms of votes required to amend a motion or amend the constitution, do you try to pass the amendment when you need less votes (within the original amendment) or separately where you may have a better shot of having the votes on the floor (the senior OMOV people having possibly left for a celebratory drink)? If you always require a two-thirds majority it is likely that the YLC would want the latter to attempt to flood the room as is their wont. If anyone can answer my questions it would be much appreciated.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's:
"OMOV is voted on and then if it succeeds the YLC amendment gets considered as an amendment to the constitution"

That's right in the rules earlier in the constitution booklet.

Anonymous said...

Notably in 2006 it was the reverse:
The YLC amendment (which was the same amendment) was considered FIRST and only required a simple majority as an amendment to an amendment and it indeed did receive over 50% support (in fact more support than the main package).

They've changed the rules around this time though...

Aaron Ginsberg said...

Thanks. Forty pages of constitutional amendments, you'll forgive me for scanning the rules and regs. That makes the whole the "YLC is going to sabotage OMOV" argument kind of moot doesn't it?

Anonymous said...

No actually it makes the "this amendment is a poison pill" argument moot, but leaves the YLC stand on OMOV unclear.

In 2006 their official stance was "If the amendment passes, vote for OMOV, if not then vote it down because it would strip the YLC of any meaningful representation in leadership races".

Of course the YLC amendment passed with over 50% (but shy of 2/3) and then a sizable majority of youth (more than the rest of the crowd) voted for the overall pacakage, but the historical revisionists of course say that it was the YLC's fault the overall package failed.

As for now, I'm pretty sure these rule changes will have caught the YLC by surprise (if they knew these rules were coming they would have proposed it as a separate amendment rather than an amendment to an amendment I'm sure) and I'm not sure what stand they will take.

Judging by the stand in 2006 though (which curiously didn't get all these anti-youth rants coming from all over the place) it wouldn't be that surprising to have them say that youth should vote down OMOV because OMOV is unacceptable without their amendment included. That would be perfectly consistent with their previous stand (which again outraged no one then....).

Or maybe they'll try to get LPC to change the rules back to how they were in 2006. But I'm not so sure they'll just take this apparent slap in the face "lying down" so to speak.

Scott Tribe said...

I disagree.. I think it will force the YLC's hand.. because many of us Liberals out there who've blogged about this think this amendment was nothing but a pretext for voting against OMOV if it failed, or if it passed, it would cause enough disenchantment for OMOV with it included that the OMOV motion would die anyhow.

Scott Tribe said...

UPDATE: Here is the relevant section.

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

Anonymous said...

No one who isn't COMPLETELY BIASED thinks rule 6.10 (that Tribe quotes above) isn't absolutely ridiculous and contrary to all established procedure used by any organization in any western democracy.

I haven't seen a single opponent of the YLC amendment even bother to defend these rules as making any sense, except I guess Scott Tribe seems to think it's funny or clever or whatever, but he's ALONE in his view.

Just take a look at En Famille where OPPONENT after OPPONENT of the YLC amendment are blasting these rules as an affront to democracy, just imagine what the PROPONENTS of this amendment must be thinking since they are the ones being royally screwed.

These rules deserve to be protested loudly as the farce they are.

All views expressed in this blog are those of the author and the author alone. They do not represent the views of any organization, regardless of the author's involvement in any organizations.

All comments are the views of the individual writer. The administrator reserves the right to remove commentary which is offensive.

The author is not responsible for nor does he support any of the advertisements displayed on the page