Quote:
Originally Posted by FireFly
What I was told was this:
If the leadership committee says no, then he always thinks that if they had let him run, he would've won, and so he'll keep trying. If the membership votes and he loses, he'll understand that it's not the leadership committee, it's the party as a whole that doesn't want him to lead.
What it comes to though is that whomever we elect as leader will have veto power over who runs as candidates. So what you'd end up with is if Danielle wins, she vetos Jeff as being too right wing, and if Jeff wins, he vetos Danielle as being too moderate. In theory anyway. I don't know for certain either of those scenarios will play out, but the point is that the leader will direct the party for the future... And almost as important as who we choose as a new leader is who we can get to run in each riding. It's looking like we'll get some very strong candidates for the next election.
|
When you explain it like that, it makes sense, but I'm not sure your average elector will go through the same steps to arrive at your logic.
__________________
“The fact is that censorship always defeats it's own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion.”
Henry Steel Commager (1902-1998)
|