1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.ARTS.TV

  • [OT] Liberal party considering making it easier to oust their leader

    From Rhino@21:1/5 to All on Sun May 25 13:05:37 2025
    The (federal) Conservatives here in Canada have a process to force out
    an unpopular leader of their party, a process which they used to oust
    Erin O'Toole after his mediocre result in the 2021 election. (The Tories
    in the UK have a similar process and used it twice to get rid of Boris
    Johnson and Liz Truss.)

    It seems that the Liberals are considering adopting the same rule! With memories of Trudeau's reluctance to hit the bricks when he was so low in
    the polls still strong, they seem to be at least open to the idea of
    having a mechanism to oust a future Trudeau in a way that might be less
    painful for them and the country than what they finally had to do to get Trudeau out. (The Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, Crystia
    Freeland, resigned from Cabinet hours before giving an "economic
    statement", essentially a mini-budget, forcing a cabinet shuffle. It
    still took Trudeau additional weeks to finally smell the coffee and
    decide to step down and additional months for a new leader to be chosen.)

    I'll bet Trudeau's ears burn when he hears about this!

    https://globalnews.ca/news/11196033/liberal-caucus-party-leader/

    Of course, the Liberals may decline to adopt the change so this isn't a
    done deal. They must feel fairly cocky now that they've been re-elected,
    thanks to Trump, and may imagine that nothing will ever necessitate
    removing a leader who has lost the public's trust in the future.

    --
    Rhino

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Horny Goat@21:1/5 to no_offline_contact@example.com on Wed May 28 09:21:31 2025
    On Sun, 25 May 2025 13:05:37 -0400, Rhino
    <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

    The (federal) Conservatives here in Canada have a process to force out
    an unpopular leader of their party, a process which they used to oust
    Erin O'Toole after his mediocre result in the 2021 election. (The Tories
    in the UK have a similar process and used it twice to get rid of Boris >Johnson and Liz Truss.)

    Actually party leadership in Canada and the UK are quite different
    since in Canada it's done by a vote of the party membership (which in
    most parties costs something like $10 / year) whereas in the UK party leadership is determined by a behind closed doors meeting of the
    elected caucus. Meaning that if your local MP is not of the party you
    support you have no say at all directly or indirectly.

    Some parties have adopted an at-large electronic vote, others use
    national conventions with delegates chosen at the electoral district
    level. In most Canadian parties, if the local member is from your
    party your district gets an extra vote (e.g. them)

    The major difference between Canada and the US is that you do actually
    have to join your chosen party to vote - there's no such thing as a
    'registered Democrat' or 'registered GOP'. Obviously a Canadian party
    member gets called on to help out at election time though I haven't
    said yes since my college days which was eons ago - beyond having a
    lawn sign which I did in the provincial election but not in the recent
    federal election. (I live relatively far from the commercial area but
    on a bus route with the main entrance to a local park being across the
    street from me)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Adam H. Kerman@21:1/5 to The Horny Goat on Wed May 28 18:20:12 2025
    The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

    . . .

    The major difference between Canada and the US is that you do actually
    have to join your chosen party to vote - there's no such thing as a >'registered Democrat' or 'registered GOP'. . . .

    The United States does not have universal election law per federalism.

    Many US states have never had party registration through voter
    registration. My state has never had party registration. What typically
    happens is a voter declares his party to participate in a primary. Even
    in a state with party registration, there can be a method of changing registration to participate in a primary or one may participate in a
    primary without regard to party registration. And then we have a handful
    of states, like Wisconsin, in which the voter is handed a ballot of
    candidates of all parties with primaries and chooses which primary to participate in on an office-by-office basis.

    In states that still use caucuses for specific nominations like township government, participation is usually showing up or signing a form to participate in that party's caucus.

    A presidential nominating caucus is a hybrid of caucus and convention,
    as delegates are selected at a caucus to attend a convention; the caucus
    makes no nomination.

    And then we have a number of states -- many southern states and
    California -- that abolished primaries for many or all offices.

    City of Chicago doesn't have a primary election. Officially candidates
    are nonpartisan. If they receive a majority vote in the first round,
    they are elected. Otherwise it's top two in the second round. Both Lori Lightfoot and Brandon Johnson were leading candidates with small
    pluralities in the first round. Lightfoot had the plurality with 1/6 of
    the vote, and in re-election, came in third. Johnson didn't do much
    better. The problem with top two voting is the majority is forced and
    not true public support which is part of the reason why both were weak
    mayors.

    Even Rahm barely campaigned for re-election, deluding himself into
    believing he was popular, and was forced into the second round as he was
    just under a majority in the first round.

    This law was changed to appease the Republican Party.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)