Who should the NDP choose as an Interim Leader?

263 posts / 0 new
Last post
JKR

Left Turn wrote:

JKR wrote:
Left Turn wrote:

cco wrote:
I campaigned against Mulcair at the last leadership convention, so I was never exactly on his team, though I did fight hard to get him elected in October. But as far as what I'd propose to fix the convention system, my colleagues and I discussed a few propositions. Extending the convention to a full week was one of them, though some (like myself) could barely afford to be there for three days. Allowing resolution prioritization to be done by members online instead of just elected delegates in too-short panel sessions was one of my big recommendations. I like the delegated convention system, on the whole, but if we're going with OMOV for electing leaders, why not extend that to which resolutions get to the floor?

I like the idea of online resolution prioritization. Not in favor of week-long conventions, as fewer people would be able to attend (time, money).

My other big suggestion is to cut out most of the speeches/panels, as this would allow more time to debate resolutions. Resolutions are more important to me than speeches by NDP premiers, party elders, ect. (Notley, Stephen Lewis ect.).

 

I think the whole convention could be online with all of the membership participating and voting on resolutions electronically. Proposing resolutions could also be done by the entire membership online before the convention. I think an annual electronic convention on the Internet would create a much improved NDP.

I still prefer the idea of an in-person convention. The in-person convention provides a human element that is too often lacking in our increasingly isolated and compartmentalized lives -- and I like to think that fighting back against this is one of the things the left does. And it gives NDP members the opportunity to meet with like-minded folks across the country.

It provides a physical event for the media to reprot on -- CPAC broadcast the convention live. If the NDP conventions were held online, media coverage would be much more sparse.

I didn't mean to say that the in-person convention should be gotten rid of. What I meant to say was that an internet component should be added as part of the process before and during the convention. I think modern technology would now allow for such an additional electronic element.

Debater

Left Turn wrote:

Unionist wrote:

MegB wrote:

nicky wrote:

Yes terryt...l I am saying the word. Bye.

Contratulations. You bullied someone off the board. I hope you feel real good about yourself.

I share Meg's comment.

Terrytowel may be annoying, provocative, whatever - just judging from my interactions with him, besides anyone else's - but he has been part of our community. I've reached out to him privately (as I have done on past occasions) to encourage him to reconsider and stay. I can't and won't defend his childish "just say the word and I'm gone" tantrum. But I never agreed with the bullying, and I can't share in the glee at his departure.

I concur with MgB's and Unionists comments.

I never considered Terrytowel a troll. What I did notice was a fairly consistent error in basic logic in his posts -- taking the source of comments he posted as proof of their accuracy -- and a tendency to get into circular arguments to defend his fault logic.

It was grating, but I don't think he derserved to be bullied off this board.

I wish Terry Towel & Nicky could have worked out their disagreements.

I will miss the enthusiasm he used to display for certain topics.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I will miss the enthusiasm he used to display for certain topics.

Liberal innocence... NDP stumbles... Joe Cressy.  *sigh*

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

JKR wrote:
Left Turn wrote:

JKR wrote:
Left Turn wrote:

cco wrote:
I campaigned against Mulcair at the last leadership convention, so I was never exactly on his team, though I did fight hard to get him elected in October. But as far as what I'd propose to fix the convention system, my colleagues and I discussed a few propositions. Extending the convention to a full week was one of them, though some (like myself) could barely afford to be there for three days. Allowing resolution prioritization to be done by members online instead of just elected delegates in too-short panel sessions was one of my big recommendations. I like the delegated convention system, on the whole, but if we're going with OMOV for electing leaders, why not extend that to which resolutions get to the floor?

I like the idea of online resolution prioritization. Not in favor of week-long conventions, as fewer people would be able to attend (time, money).

My other big suggestion is to cut out most of the speeches/panels, as this would allow more time to debate resolutions. Resolutions are more important to me than speeches by NDP premiers, party elders, ect. (Notley, Stephen Lewis ect.).

 

I think the whole convention could be online with all of the membership participating and voting on resolutions electronically. Proposing resolutions could also be done by the entire membership online before the convention. I think an annual electronic convention on the Internet would create a much improved NDP.

I still prefer the idea of an in-person convention. The in-person convention provides a human element that is too often lacking in our increasingly isolated and compartmentalized lives -- and I like to think that fighting back against this is one of the things the left does. And it gives NDP members the opportunity to meet with like-minded folks across the country.

It provides a physical event for the media to reprot on -- CPAC broadcast the convention live. If the NDP conventions were held online, media coverage would be much more sparse.

I didn't mean to say that the in-person convention should be gotten rid of. What I meant to say was that an internet component should be added as part of the process before and during the convention. I think modern technology would now allow for such an additional electronic element.

I'm in favor of an online prioritization of convention resolutions prior to the convention; and an online vote for the leadership review, also prior to convention.

I'd support online participation during conventions in a capacity that a) doesn't bog down the convention proceedings in any way and b) is user-friendly. For instance, I don't think the online voting system they used for the 2012 leadership election was user-friendly enough that people would be able to reliably contribute at a moment's notice.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Left Turn wrote:

I'm in favor of an online prioritization of convention resolutions prior to the convention; and an online vote for the leadership review, also prior to convention.

I'd support online participation during conventions in a capacity that a) doesn't bog down the convention proceedings in any way and b) is user-friendly. For instance, I don't think the online voting system they used for the 2012 leadership election was user-friendly enough that people would be able to reliably contribute at a moment's notice.

I hate to rain on your parade, guys, but there are currently no online voting systems that are even close to being secure and reliable. Yes, we chose Mulcair in 2012 using an online voting system, but I can assure you that election could have been subverted if anyone with the necessary technical skills, and/or lots of money had seriously wanted to do it. I think it would be well to consider what is the state of the art at present before going forward to use easily hackable technology to decide party issues of any kind.

Just about all internet security professionals agree that the technology for secure voting is not available now, and may never be. Here is a lengthy, technical report, from July, 2015 by a group of real experts. This is their summary of the current situation:

U.S. Vote Foundation wrote:

INTERNET VOTING TODAY

Internet voting was first proposed over thirty years ago. Since then, many governments and businesses have created Internet voting technologies that have been used to collect millions of votes in public elections.

However, computer scientists, cryptographers, and cybersecurity experts warn that no current Internet voting system is sufficiently secure and reliable for use in public elections.

Part of the problem is that existing systems do not allow third parties to observe the election system and independently verify that the results are correct. In fact, most vendors explicitly forbid such oversight.

SECRET

No existing commercial Internet voting system is open to public review. Independent parties cannot verify that these systems function and count correctly, nor can they audit and verify election results.

INSECURE

Elections for public office are a matter of national security. Researchers have shown that every publicly audited, commercial Internet voting system to date is fundamentally insecure.

NO GUARANTEES

No existing system guarantees voter privacy or the correct election outcomes. Election vendors are rarely held liable for security failures or election disasters.

And here is their list of Recommendations:

U.S. Vote Foundation wrote:

RECOMMENDATIONS

The five key recommendations of this report are:

 

Any public elections conducted over the Internet must be end-to-end verifiable.

No Internet voting system of any kind should be used for public elections before end-to-end verifiable in-person voting systems have been widely deployed and experience has been gained from their use.

End-to-end verifiable systems must be designed, constructed, verified, certified, operated, and supported according to the most rigorous engineering requirements of mission- and safety-critical systems.

E2E-VIV systems must be usable and accessible.

Many challenges remain in building a usable, reliable, and secure E2E-VIV system. They must be overcome before using Internet voting for public elections. Research and development efforts toward overcoming those challenges should continue.

     

    It is currently unclear whether it is possible to construct an E2E-VIV system that fulfills the set of requirements contained in this report. Solving the remaining challenges, however, would have enormous impact on the world.

    So, it would seem that if the NDP wanted to have a secure, non-hackable way of running conventions over the internet, it would have to fund the solution of some serious technical problems, which seems most unlikely. Even then, such systems should at first be used only with both ends under supervision. That is, there could be a meeting at a central location in each riding, where party members could gather and cast their votes. Anything more ambitious would be totally unreliable, and would work properly only as long as nobody seriously wanted to subvert it.

     

     

    cco

    There were plenty of serious technical problems at the 2012 leadership convention, too. I was there in Toronto as well, and I remember the ballot rounds getting pushed further and further back due to either a denial-of-service attack or, more likely, the people in charge of IT failing to plan for the load peak.

    kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

    So are you guys saying that some Mulcair supporter could have rigged his win?

    Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

    kropotkin1951 wrote:

    So are you guys saying that some Mulcair supporter could have rigged his win?

    Sure, it's possible, but I consider it most unlikely, given the level of technical expertise (not) demonstrated by Mulcair's minions since then.

    Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

    So are you guys saying that some Mulcair critic could have rigged his loss?

    Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

    Mr. Magoo wrote:

    So are you guys saying that some Mulcair critic could have rigged his loss?

    No, the only voting was by delegates on site. Internet not involved.

    Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

    Back in 2012, not two weeks ago.

    I'm just thinking that if someone has the techno-skillz for that, maybe they also have the techno-skillz to go back in time and make things right.

    Notalib

    In hindsight, Tom Mulcair’s decision to stay on as leader after the election was a bad decision for all involved. Not only was he embarrassed when NDP members voted in early April to look for a new leader, but the party lost a valuable six months finding that leader and getting him or her established.

     

    found here: http://www.canada.com/news/national/democratic+party+faces+challenge+sta...

    Pages