babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
The party is lucky only 10,000 people are using online voting. That's just 1 in 13 of eligible voters. Upwards of 40,000 people could have been using the online system today. Presumably, if that would have happened this whole election could have been upeneded.
What exactly does a Deputy Leader do? And if they do anything important, why are they appointed and not elected?
I think there are some good unions out there, and there are some unions who are too busily protecting their own members interest at the expense of those who dont have unions or are just temp workers. The truth is, if you want to protect the union benefits and the idea of senority, there are less chances for those who are trying to gain entry to the workforce; most people dont have job security at all..as a leader, you have to appeal to the NEW labour, not just old labour.
Unions look out primarily for their own members, especially when company is threatening layoffs,but the job of a political leader is look out for all members of society.
I like unions, but theres got to be a balance; unions do improve the overall standard of workers condition; but increasingly, the main purpose of unions is simply to keep and protect the existing job protections of those who are already in an union...and their rhetoric about soldarity doesnt fly..i am sorry..
what sort of maintenance? maintaining the status quo? fixing the gears? oiling heads? changing nuts? tightening screws?
(it's never too early to start, I guess...)
Take it to Free Dominion. They'll welcome this with a round of applause. If they still exist.
Yep...like throwing the party back decades!
Mulcair is the best bet and he does have english Canada's support because we all know he can defeat the diabolical Harper conservatives...and right now that's what counts....because if Harper isn't taken down now he will never be taken down before he contracts out election voting to his digital american Republican based corporation - cgi - he may never be defeated without physical force...
Mulcair is our only hope! and the NDP's
It's honarary, but it is a chance for the party to be represented by someone with a big-sounding title, when the leader can't be everywhere at once.
He has and I have seen some...
Bookish Agrarian wrote:
Just dropping in to say that the online voting is a complete cluster-fuck
The party is lucky only 10,000 people are using online voting. That's just 1 in 13 of eligible voters. Upwards of 40,000 people could have been using the online system today. Presumably, if that would have happened this whole election could have been upeneded.
This simply dramatically emphasizes that the party has to review and improve the voting system for the next election. How many people wanted to vote but could not? I suspect it is well into the thousands. We need to find out, correct it for the future, and be seen to correct it, or we will lose members. I would not be surprised to see a Con ad: "They can't even run their own election, let alone a country" (I didn't say it would be fair).
I am not commenting on the race during the convention, only the process, as there is already too much negative back-and-forth about candidates as it is.
I just saw Rebecca Blaikie interviewed on CPAC and she said she thought that now that they've allowed two hours for this vote, that the online voting problems are resolved. I don't think so! radiorahim has now been trying for an hour to vote. No luck.
Hey, that same guy who I think messed up those previous names is now interviewing Anne Lagace-Dowson (sp?) and I think they said "Lagace-Nelson" while introducing her! I can't swear to it because it went by quickly, but wow. I guess it's been a long day after a late night. :)
Well, maybe that's how many people have been TRYING to vote and weren't able to...
"leadership2012.ca is not responding"
"waiting for response from leadership2012.ca"
"Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage"
I think, regardless of what you think of Mulcair, it's encouraging that he's shown good growth and broad appeal beyond the narrow assumptions of pundits. Also, that an "Anybody-But-Mulcair" dynamic seems largely absent from the convention floor. Should Mulcair win, it's a good way to start.
I really don't agree with this at all. I see many campaigns and I see where unions are placing their efforts.
Have you had a good look at the campaigns of major unions?
On pensions just for one?
The voting can always be extended. It's not like the Voter ID has an expiry date.
At least he won't contract out election voting to the company that's running today's NDP election.
As I said, Mulcair climbed more between the first ballot and second ballot than anyone else. He's a lot of people's second choice.
As I said, Nash declined to endorse anyone else, not even mildly. Not the actions of someone trying to stop Mulcair.
"Anybody-But-Mulcair" is a fiction. "NDP Civil War" is a fiction.
Always has been.
Still trying to vote in this round. Squeaked in my Cullen vote last time, but think I'm gonna move my vote to Topp, since Cullen probably won't win enough Nash support to overtake him.
I am also struggling to get my 3rd ballot vote in. I really (really!) have better things to do.
I just don't understand why people did not vote ahead of time.
Several threads ago The Architect wrote: "the endorsements that should really matter are from the people who have personal knowledge of the candidates-which generally means the senior MPs who have been in caucus with the candidates."
If so, we might have reasonably left the choice of House Leader to those who are actually in the House.
Duplicate post
I thought this would be exciting and fun :(
Because some of us couldn't make up our minds.
I made a stab at answering this in another thread, here.
Woop! Just voted for Topp. So did my GF.
I am pretty bias, i am just speaking from my own recent experience, i saw a press release from a particular union that argued temp workers should be the first one to go ahead of those who are in the unions in time of layoffs , since temp workers are not real workers. I think since so many company uses temp workers as well as unionized workers, there can be alot of tension; but i didnt expect the union to go out of their way to argue temp workers should be let go first in the name of fairness..i dont think its fair at all
i know not all unions are like that, but my personal experience has now made me somewhat angry at unions, maybe even irrationally. I dont think theres anything fair at all about giving the most protection to those who have been in the unions for the longest; i dont understand that logic, those people earned the most money and have the most protection, and i dont see how thats fair that they should be protected at the expense of those who are newer to the workplace and are desperate for income.
radiorahim finally got his vote in right now! An hour and 10 minutes later.
For all my issues with the party establishment, they allowed/adopted a one member - one vote leadership campaign which allowed Tom to take on and defeat Brian their chosen candidate. So kudos to all of them for allowing the most democratic approach possible in choosing our new leader.
And I can't help it, i really do like Brad Lavigne and Ann McGrath.
CTV said try voting in French. Tried it. Crashed three times.