OTTAWA (CP) - Gerard Kennedy and Stephane Dion have joined forces with Liberal leadership frontrunner Michael Ignatieff in a bid to nullify most of chief rival Bob Rae's delegate support in British Columbia.
Should the trio successfully persuade the party to negate the second-place contender's B.C. delegates, Ignatieff's nine-percentage point lead would widen to about 11 points over Rae, who would be left only marginally ahead of Kennedy and Dion.
The Kennedy and Dion camps joined Saturday in an appeal filed with the party late Friday by the Ignatieff team.
In the appeal, obtained by The Canadian Press, Ignatieff operations director Sachin Aggarwal accuses Rae's senior B.C. organizer of perpetrating "systematic fraud" during the sign-up of potential delegates in the province.
Aggarwal contends that fully 78 of Rae's 111 B.C. delegates are tainted by the fraud and he urges the party to strip Rae of those delegate spots.
Yesterday, when it was just Ignatieff challenging Rae in British Columbia it could be dismissed as a simple attempt to change the channel on a disasterous week. What do we make of Dion and Kennedy joining in? I must say, their participation in the appeal adds weight, in that there appears to be universal opinion, which lessens the partisan angle.
In the words of Rae's operative:
Moreover, Rae's team said the appeal, if successful, would effectively disenfranchise the thousands of B.C. Liberals who voted for Rae since they would no longer have delegates at the convention to represent their choice.
The problem with delegate forms "doesn't and indeed shouldn't change the fact that more people chose Bob in B.C. than any other candidate," said Rae spokesman Alex Swann.
The sensible option, if democracy is too prevail, Rae's delegates should not be stripped, but a re-vote should take place. My first option would be to simply let the Rae delegates go to the convention, censor the campaign and give Rae a few days of bad press. However, if this appeal is successful it will be a travesty if voter intention is throw out with the bathwater. A re-vote would be difficult, although as a junkie it sure would be intense.
I say this as a Kennedy supporter, this pile on has a definite odor of political opportunism, with moral clarity a distant second. It would appear that the gloves are off, and we are beginning to see the death match phase of the campaign. Tomorrow's debate should be a hoot :)
20 comments:
I disagree with your view that this is political opportunism.
There were a lot of suspicious goings-on with Rae's campaign in BC, and while Rae's team has been pro-active in dealing with these irregularities, it is imperative for the party's image that the leadership vote be conducted according to the rules.
The rules provide for an appeal, and so it can hardly be opportunistic for the other campaigns to exercise their rights under the rules.
"The rules provide for an appeal, and so it can hardly be opportunistic for the other campaigns to exercise their rights under the rules."
That's fine. However, I don't agree with the sentiment that Rae should be stripped of his delegates, which is requested in this appeal. People voted for Rae, unless someone can prove that memberships were tampered with or something else that affected the vote, I think all this measure does is punish democracy.
While stripping Rae of his delegates may seem harsh, that might be what the rules require.
Consider what Steve Janke wrote about this last week, well before the story broke in the mainstream press. He points out that the rules do not allow alternates to be appointed if the originally elected delegates are found to be ineligible.
Again, it may seem harsh, but the party can't just ignore the rules if disqualifying Rae's candidates is what the rules require.
Well ... Raes guys cheated ... so there should be SOME punishment right?
Why let him get off scott free like the party proposed?
If the delegates nomination forms were found to be invalid, then those delegates shouldn't be allowed to go. I mean, that's reading the letter of the law.
My view is that the campaign should be allowed to fill some of those, but maybe not all. Maybe consider it as a "30-delegate" penalty for not properly following the rules.
You can bet that Rae's campaign would be crying bloody murder if the positions were reversed.
I can't believe people are letting them get away with their self-righteous indignation when it was their organizer who broke the rules.
Kennedy, Dion and Ignatieff didn't break the rules - they're just asking that the rules be followed.
As a Dion supporter, I am dissapointed that he involved himself. The appeal can only be viewed as an attempt to ignore the intention of BC voters on Super Weekend.
The delegates did not bother to sign their own forms. That was pretty dumb but it was not as if these people were forced to be delegates against their will. It appears to be more of a procedural error than an attempt to thwart the democratic process. Rae did not benefit and it was he who came forward.
I don't much care if they substitute alternate delegates because rules are rules but I will be upset if the Liberal party takes action that is inconsistent with what the voters of BC wanted. The other camps should most definitely not benefit at the expense of BC voter intention.
First, a revote just can't be held. It violates the independence of voting (i.e. voting without complete knowledge of outcomes elsewhere). It's just downright unfair.
Given that the party punished Volpe pretty severely for actions which:
a) they did not establish his central campaign knew about;
b) and which involved just a few membership forms;
there must be greater punishment for Rae. Someone who had an important role in his campaign fraudelently filled out delegate places. This shouldn't be a simple doover where those delegates get replaced. At a minimum, the party should invalidate those delegates. Whether they can be replaced wholesale is up for question, but I have to say that the whole thing stinks enough that they should probably lose the spots.
I'm not advocating a re-vote, I think the alternates should go and Rae censored somehow. However, if the alternative is no Rae delegates, then I would favor a re-vote.
psychols
Very well put!
The argument that disqualifying Rae's 78 delegates ignores the intentions of BC voters doesn't hold water.
BC voters expressed a clear preference for the 78 disqualified delegates. They did not express a preference for the replacements, who were also on the delegate ballot.
The rules provide for alternates where the original delegates are unable to attend the convention, not because the original delegates were ineligible in the first place.
Similarly, the rules on backfilling limit campaigns to two backfilled delegates per riding - this is to prevent campaigns from parachuting in a bunch of delegates who don't represent the Liberals in the riding.
Rae's campaign is trying to drop in a bunch of people that BC Liberals had the opportunity to vote for but didn't. That is also a denial of the intent of the voters.
"BC voters expressed a clear preference for the 78 disqualified delegates."
No, the voters expressed a clear preference for the candidate, and overwhelming didn't give a rats ass about the delegate.
You are citing all these rules, which have merit, but those rules don't reconcile disenfranchisement, which is inevitable if you follow the letter. There are other ways to punish Rae, without punishing his supporters who were unaware of any trangression, even if it is a clerical error.
No, the voters expressed a clear preference for the candidate, and overwhelming didn't give a rats ass about the delegate.
With respect, I disagree.
If voters truly don't give a 'rats ass' about who represents them as a delegate, why does the party even have a separate delegate ballot? Why not simply pick names out of a hat?
Given that there is a separate delegate ballot, we can't simply scoff and selectively ignore the delegate choices of BC voters.
That too would be disenfranchisement.
Steve,
I also point out that the issue at the root of the appeal is the possibility that there are hundreds of bogus members, not just dozens of bogus delegate candidates.
If signatures were forged for hundreds of illegitimate instant Liberals, then how can the results of the BC DEMs reflect the voting intentions of BC Liberals?
The Rae campaign has the means of showing that the members signed up by its BC organizers are legitimate because they have a list of all the people their campaign signed up. The burden should lie on them to go through these membership forms and ensure that they are properly filled out.
Otherwise, the Rae delegates from BC may not be truly representative of legitimate Liberal members.
If voters truly don't give a 'rats ass' about who represents them as a delegate, why does the party even have a separate delegate ballot?
Maybe because we are stuck in the past. This system is ancient and should be updated, just as Canada's first past the post system needs to be updated. I'm sure an overwhelming number of the people who voted for Rae's deligates considered it a vote for Rae, not the deligate.
Charlie,
A fair point, but we can't just ignore the rules because we feel the system is antiquated. The rules are the rules.
Also, even if the people voting for Rae delegates thought it was a vote for Rae, we still don't know if the people voting for Rae were legitimate members of the party.
The Ignatieff camp are trying to bend the rules governing delegate selection in an attempt to "punish" Bb Rae for the actions of an organizer, despite the fact that the Rae team brought the irregularities to the attention of the returning officer.
Neither the Rules nor the Constitution of the Liberal Party provide for the "punishment" of voters (members of the LPC) by effectively stripping them of their votes for the leader of the Party.
This attempt to disenfranchise voters is undemocratic, illiberal and pretty much like the Bush Republican Party's attempts to do so down south.
"I also point out that the issue at the root of the appeal is the possibility that there are hundreds of bogus members, not just dozens of bogus delegate candidates."
If there is evidence to suggest that allegation then let's hear it. I am basing my opinion on what is known, I don't think speculation is relevant. I might add, if what you imply is true, then why haven't we heard anything to substantiate, especially when you consider all the other camps, and the Party, have probably gone over the memberships with a fine tooth comb. Until someone can prove Rae pulled a Volpe, then it shouldn't be part of this discussion. Merely slander at this point.
The Liberal members who came to vote were subject to checks to verify if they were allowed to attend and vote. Those checks are contained in the Rules of the LPC. Now, suddenly, based on a suspicion and apparently nothing else (at least, nothing mentioned so far in the press), Ignatieff's team want to change the Rules and strip the voters of their rights to vote.
What is not clear to The Cat is how on earth Ignatieff's team is going to identify how voters voted? Call each voter in all of BC, ask them if they really complied with the rules, then ask them who they voted for, then make some kind of decision as to whether the voters were truthful, on a case by case basis, then ... what?
When you strip it down to its essentials, the Ignatieff claim is very disturbing, and a professor of human rights should be concerned by this. It's prmise is: based on some acknowleged irregularities, it is safe to assume fraud has taken place in the admittance of voters, and therefore based on this assumption, the Party should deny BC members their rights to select a leader.
Wow! Mr. Ignatieff, do you really support such flimsy arguments to strip members of the Liberal Party of their fundamental right to vote for the leader of the Party?
That old expression hovers in the background: Practice what you preach ...
The hushed accusation is that because some delegates were invalid, that it therefore equals that members who voted for Rae were also invalid.
Unless the party wants to dig its own hole and provide the planks for the coffin, I suggest those people stand back and think again.
The Form 6s are completely separate from a membership form, and we're talking about a great number who were signed up by one major player -- not the candidate but his main BC emissary. Yes, these mistakes are enuf to require some sanction/punishment, but to have essentially the voter's choice negated would also result in BC having its voice negated at the convention, where not just a leadership will be decided. There is no formula that can establish how those delegate spots could be divvied up, not with the same result where Rae polled the highest among all candidates.
The suggestion against Rae (and Soshanoa's against Kennedy) is one that assails the whole political system as designed, and one that wouldn't be addressed in a one-vote, one-member system. Whether members are signed up by potential party candidates for leadership or mp candidate, there is no measure to guarantee that they are committed members. And to assail Rae and Kennedy for having areas of success is to build a racial divide between who is a true liberal and who isn't. It is a serious accusation that there is an underhanded goal to signing up supporters -- it could be binded by religion, economic, ethnic or gender or whatever -- because it is the goal of democracy to involve the public. You can not legislate complete involvement, nor can you punish candidates for working within the rules.
Rae's campaign guy broke the rules, the team notified the BC office, so I agree with Far&Wide that a fine should suffice.
And yes, I am a rightly elected delegate for Bob in B.C.
burls
And just like SB, all accusation, no evidence, little credibility. Put up or shut up.
Post a Comment