At a dinner-party a while ago, I drew some sharp disagreement by commenting that one-member-one-vote is a poor way to select a party leader. While it has the outward form of more intense democracy, it sterilizes the democratic process.

Selecting an internal party leader is a fundamentally different kind of process from fighting an external election for government. One-member-one-vote leadership selection eliminates most of the real politics (in the sense of space for strategy to be played out) and turns it into a kind of mass wager. It reduces the membership to a vast scatter of individuals, and makes it difficult or impossible for the various perspectives and lines of thought to work themselves through in the decision-making process.

To me, politics and democracy are dynamic and collective processes, which are based on active dialogue. That can happen in a delegated convention but not a system where people use their home computer to assemble their personal shopping list. One-member-one-vote is a more individualist and small-l liberal approach in my view.

But the decision to go that way was made long ago and is old news — just like the choice of Mulcair is already old news. Enough hand-wringing from the people who supported other candidates.