One of the comments to the first post on the topic did ring a bell -- almost a fire alarm.
"That's easy for people to say who can afford it, James."
Very good point -- and, candidly, I have no idea what to do about that. I still think a face to face convention is important; but funding is a real issue for many.
I know potential candidates who will not attend because of funding problems.
It's easy to say "fund raise" but that's not really very effective.
I guess I don't know what to suggest but the point is very well made.
2 comments:
What, you're not suggesting average or poor people could have any real impact in political conventions, are you? Many riules have been put in place precisely to prevent that from happening.
We need to find ways to lower the costs of attending conventions. We'll still need them, even with OMOV, for policy, constitutional amendments, and that important face to face factor you mention.
One way we can make it cheaper is to defeat the amendment we'll be voting on in Vancouver to reduce the size of riding delegations from 20 to 14. Bigger delegations mean higher attendance, spreading the costs amongst more people. The result? Lower fees.
We also need to seriously rethink the scope of our conventions, with an eye to cutting costs. We can't afford the splashy conventions of the past.
We might also consider holding parallel regional conventions, allowing more people to attend with lower costs for fees and travel.
Post a Comment