Liberals Look to Boost Number of Women Candidates

[transplant99]

Sure it is. Who gets to vote for the riding rep? Or perhaps I should say, who actually does vote, because everyone theoretically could vote, but not everyone does.

Members of the party in that riding.

So the question is then, who is voting this way?

Members of the party in that riding.

Also, the person that wins also has to be endorsed by the party leader. So the party leader can veto someone too.

Yes...but so what? Has a female been vetoed because she was female? If not...why bring it up? Males can be vetoed as well ya know.

Now it's not discrimination in that women are turned away, it's discrimination in that you get all the old boys down at the Sundre Hotel getting together to make sure there "ain't no woman representing me! She should be barefoot and naked in the kitchen!"

I just aint buying it. Women's votes in these things are equal to mens votes...period. If there is a movement among males to make sure women dont get in, then there are not enough women casting votes to begin with. Afterall, as has been repeated in this thread many times, there are more women than men in Canada, so why aren't they coming together and making sure they are represented? Its a LOT more complicated than 6 farmers sitting around a saloon and deciding they want the women at home.

I once heard that the women who decide to run are generally more qualified than the men who do so. So why don't they get in?

Im going to hazard a guess that it's because there are so many fewer female candidates than their are male ones?

There are generally 4 or 5 candidates in any riding in any general election. Predominantly there will be one woman on average in those ridings....i would suspect that in the party elections to determine a candidate for any particular riding, the same would hold true. In fact it may even be more lopsided in the men running vs women running ratio at that level.

Its all about numbers, and the truth is that the majority of people that even begin to seek office are male...and the results just confirm that.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I just aint buying it. Women's votes in these things are equal to mens votes...period. If there is a movement among males to make sure women dont get in, then there are not enough women casting votes to begin with. Afterall, as has been repeated in this thread many times, there are more women than men in Canada, so why aren't they coming together and making sure they are represented? Its a LOT more complicated than 6 farmers sitting around a saloon and deciding they want the women at home.

Yes, it was a generalization, and I don't think more women are needed to vote a woman in at the riding association level necessarily, I'm saying that the people who vote at those elections are those who are hardcore into politics, generally older men. And older men are probably the ones with the strongest correlation between age+sex=specific voting pattern.

How many people are card carriers? And how many of those actually vote in the riding association for their delegate, instead of just voting at election time? That's what I'm trying to get at. Most people who are interested in politics are interested every 4 years and don't have their say before then...

[transplant99]

How many people are card carriers?

For 5 bucks...anyone that wants to be.

And how many of those actually vote in the riding association for their delegate, instead of just voting at election time?

But how is this in any way, shape or form an indication of discrimination? That's individual preferences/habits. Nothing to do with why there are not more women in politics.

Most people who are interested in politics are interested every 4 years and don't have their say before then...

Agreed...except those that seek office. And if you want more women in ffice, you need more women doing this full-time and being part of the process.

As I stated, its nothing more than numbers. If there are a multitude of men running vs women, even at the riding level, then the results will be pretty much the same. This is why mandating female candidates will be an unmitigated disaster. You will have people put in positions that they aren't qualified for, or dont have a great interest in.

It starts at the beginning, the grassroots, get women involved heavily there, and you will see the results down the line.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by transplant99

But how is this in any way, shape or form an indication of discrimination? That's individual preferences/habits. Nothing to do with why there are not more women in politics.

So I can't discriminate against men? It's just my personal preference? Kinda like when Blacks weren't able to vote, that was just because all the white people preferred to have it that way? (It's an extreme example, but just to display that 'personal preference' on a grand scale can equal discrimination.)

Agreed...except those that seek office. And if you want more women in ffice, you need more women doing this full-time and being part of the process.

As I stated, its nothing more than numbers. If there are a multitude of men running vs women, even at the riding level, then the results will be pretty much the same. This is why mandating female candidates will be an unmitigated disaster. You will have people put in positions that they aren't qualified for, or dont have a great interest in.

It starts at the beginning, the grassroots, get women involved heavily there, and you will see the results down the line.

To the bolded part, um, no. They still have to volunteer to do it. They still have to have the interest enough to volunteer to do it, it's a huge undertaking. As for qualifications, I would ask you what qualifications a person really needs in order to sit on the backbench?

You're right, it is numbers. However there are more women involved in politics than there are actually in office. I don't think Dion pulled 33% out of his ass, I'd say that's probably close to the % of cardholders who are women. And you're also right in that it starts at the grassroots. What I'm saying is that the grassroots are men, and they vote in men. It's not that women aren't applying as you suggest, they still need people to vote for them. If 1/4 candidates is female, but only 12% of delegates are female, that's a disconnect. I can't imagine that only 1/8 of the candidates are female.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by FireFly

For all we know he's going to put women in all the ridings they'll lose.

This is an important point--because it's actually been a pretty standard practice in politics for a number of decades. I wouldn't be surprised at all if a lot of women were thrown to the wolves in unwinnable ridings.

Let's be clear. Dion isn't proposing anything that's any different from what all of the political parties have been doing since time immemorial. Anyone who thinks that nomination of candidates is some organic grassroots process whereby constituency members select the most qualified candidate is.... well.. kidding themselves. Unspeakably naive.

The National party has ALWAYS had a hand in who runs. If the national party shows little interest in who your candidate is, it's a good sign they've given up on that riding. This is and has been true for Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, (Reform and Social Credit back in the day, etc. etc.)

Dion's mistake has been SAYING that's what he's going to do. Maybe the result of this will be more transparency in the process, which I would consider a good thing--but it's a political blunder, that's for sure.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yes...but so what? Has a female been vetoed because she was female? If not...why bring it up? Males can be vetoed as well ya know.

Point of fact, it would seem that Dion intends to veto men specifically for being men.

Seems for certain people here, discrimination doesn't matter unless they are the ones being discriminated against...

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yes...but so what? Has a female been vetoed because she was female? If not...why bring it up? Males can be vetoed as well ya know.

I apparently did not reply to this. The only reason I bring it up is to show that the method of delegate selection is not democratic as is. There are inequalities in the system regardless. Should the leader of the party even have the right to veto a person that the riding wants? If that person is 'democratically elected', then the only way to make it fair is to strip the party leader of the ability to veto at all.

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

Point of fact, it would seem that Dion intends to veto men specifically for being men.

Seems for certain people here, discrimination doesn't matter unless they are the ones being discriminated against...

I don't think anyone here complained about the status quo, and frankly, I don't give a rat's behind what the Liberal party does. The Liberal party does it to show how 'liberal' they are; how sensitive they are to the needs of all members in society... that's fine. I dont' vote based on social issues anyways. Discrimination does matter, and sometimes the only way to fix that is to have reverse discrimination. Clearly two wrongs do not make a right, but sometimes you have to do things in order to open some eyes.

Do you think that without affirmative action, society would be where it is now in regards to equality?

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well university students are hardly an accurate sample of the overall female population.

True, but they do show an increasing trend for women to be more then stay at home moms, which shows females do have the desire to be businessmen, politicians etc. which is the point I was disputing.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that women are more social than men, with a greater desire to raise and nurture children. It is evolution after all.

Of course more women want to raise children then men. The point I was disputing was that most women prefer to stay at home and raise kids. Most women in this country are in the paid labour force and most young women are getting good educations.

The old boys club excuse of "women don't get the good jobs, because they don't want them" is BS.