https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPoli..._member_of_the_conservative_party_of/da07htk/
So the leadership election will be organized by your local EDA, and how exactly the voting is conducted is up to them. Probably in person will be available, but also/or maybe by mail. It's not mentioned in the linked comment, but I saw other comments talking about how some might try online voting.
Each riding has 100 votes, and the votes for a riding are allocated based on the percentage of support for a candidate in a riding. So if 80% of people in your riding vote for A, and 20% for B, your riding contributes 80 votes to A and 20 votes to B. It is a ranked ballot and a candidate has to get a majority of the votes to win.
And it is 100 votes per riding regardless of how many members are in your riding, so if you're somewhere where there wouldn't be many members of the CPC your vote will actually be pretty significant.
I knew about the points (not votes!) system for awhile, but the part about each EDA getting to set their own voting system sounds...weird. I appreciate that every EDA is different, so some are more competent and organized than others, but it strikes me as unwieldy. The candidates are already having to organize operations in 338 ridings; why make them have to account for different voting systems in each one, too? It just seems like a weird extra hoop.
Maybe. I would imagine that the number of people who are members of political parties is really small though, even if it's the one that dominates the riding. It doesn't seem unlikely that in some places a single voter might control multiple votes by themselves, and there are only 33800 in total. (A candidate needing 16901 to win)
If you ever wanted to really feel like your vote mattered, this would be it.
Yep. This is why Bernier shouldn't be discounted. There are apparently quite a few rural Quebec ridings where the EDAs exist mainly on paper. If he can get a dozen or so members signed up, that's 100 points for each riding.
Also, I feel dumb, but I just realized that the Clinton thing is basically the American version of Dion/Iggy. Basically mostly uncontested leadership contests that were essentially coronations put bad people in charge of a party where they assumed that they would win by default.
I suppose Trudeau was the same, although the death of the NDP and Harper-apathy probably helped him avoid a similar fate.
(Martin was crowned too, actually. And so was Gordon Brown, come to think of it. I guess you shouldn't just hand off leadership to someone just because "they deserve it" because that seems to bite you in the ass).
Not to pile on, since Sean and maharg have already shown that this analogy fails on multiple levels, but...Martin won Liberal leadership because he spent the better part of a decade organizing and getting a stranglehold on the party. When he finally took over from Chretien I don't think you would've been able to find a more popular politician in Canada. Obviously it was a) to the party's (and the country's) detriment in the long run and b) because he'd promised everyone in the party everything (which was why he disappointed so many people so quickly), but people legitimately believed that he was going to win 200+ seats on the strength of him being so popular. Susan Delacourt even wrote a book called Juggernaut, about how he was practically unstoppable.
(The early 2000s were a weird time in Canadian politics.)
Iggy was a coronation, but no one else in the entire analogy fits in, including Trump and Clinton. Clinton, if anything, was more like Martin, in that she spent a long time building support and putting in the work, but ultimately wasn't able to pull it off (though even here, it's not quite 1:1, since Martin did win that minority in 2004).