I am writing this to explain how in the NDP,  Jack Layton has limited control over who the candidates are. 

Unless one has studied political science, one may be unaware of the differences in the structure of our political parties.  In the Canadian political system, there are two types:  Cadre and Mass. 

In the former, “cadre” the power begins at the top – any leader of a cadre party, or, the group that governs that particular party, has the right to decide in any riding, who the candidate will be.  Hence you will have the effect of “parachuted candidates”, sometimes getting the nomination to run during an election over a party member who is popular among the constituents of that riding.  The Conservatives and the Liberals are both “cadre parties”.

In “mass” parties, it is the opposite:  power begins at the bottom, at the grassroots level.  The party members in each riding have an open, democratic vote as to who the candidate will be and there cannot be ‘parachuted candidates’, against the wishes of the party members.   The NDP and the Green Party are ‘massed-based’ parties.  Potential election candidates can be screened before a vote at the constituency level, but if the candidate wins a vote by their riding association, they become the candidate and that is that…

The NDP have lost a few candidates in this campaign, because this is the way candidates are chosen.  It is a shame that some candidates who decide to run, in ridings where they are respected, knowing that if they manage to make it to the campaign, their personal views on such things as marijuana laws could set off a crisis within the party they are running for because of their personal views.  But I personnally applaud those who run, even if they are eventually forced to resign because the media finds some issues “scandalous” and unworthy of an audience.  I believe it is the right of citizens to run in an election to educate the public and reform things that may be needing reform.

But in a democracy, there should be an open forum and the will of the electorate to decide who to vote for,  and for what reasons, should be left up to those in the riding level, especially in a mass party.

A lot worse today then they were yesterday and yesterday it wasn’t very good…As has been reported on tonight’s The National, the NDP Candidate, Dana Larsen, was sacked today. If you’re interested in the details, I recommend catching a repeat of the show on Newsworld (or CBC if it’s still early where you live). In short, it involved copious amounts of drugs and a video camera. Frankly, Jack Layton didn’t have much of a choice – smoking a little pot is one thing, this was another entirely. On the one hand, I think that this is a loss for the politics of pot (not something near and dear to my heart, but something worth a good debate). On the other hand, it gives the NDP an opportunity to reassess their goals, strengths and weaknesses in the riding. Should they consider a candidate from North or West Vancouver that may grow support at the south end of the riding, while risking some support in their more traditional strength on the Sunshine Coast? Alternatively, they can choose a candidate with connections to unionists in Squamish in the hope of regaining a more traditional voting bloc. Or, they can stick with the status quo and choose a Sunshine Coast resident in the hopes of consolidating their support in the only part of the riding where they have shown consistent strength in the last two elections.

My feeling is that if the NDP want to stay relevent in the riding, a task which may be difficult anyway given three legitimate (if uninspiring) candidates now with almost a two week head start, they should choose the latter option. This election does not seem to be fertile ground for NDP gains in this riding (they never do, really – the big NDP gains in West Van – Sunshine Coast – STSC during the 2004 election are attributable to new boundaries). The NDP need a strong local (to the Sunshine Coast) candidate to maintain a foothold until next time. Even a strong candidate at this point would be hard pressed to maintain the 20% that the NDP managed in both 2004 and 2006. So, where do these freed votes go?