MLP to discuss motion on members' right to vote

First of all, I'm a floating voter. I don't want to be the guiding angelic hands for the MLP. I just wanted to share my opinion. This does not mean that the MLP has to do as I say. Far from it. If MLP's members are happy with the situation as it is, let it be so. There is nothing wrong with it. However, it seems that there are some MLP members who would like to vote for their new leader. If MLP's members consider useless my opinion they can freely ignore it.

Just for some clarifications. I didn't want to imply that there is a contradiction with democratic principles if only the delegates will vote for the new leader. But we have to admit that there will be less participation. According to some theorists of democracy, if there is less participation there is less democracy. Less democracy does not mean no democracy. I opt for more participation.
I hope it's clear now.

i agree that paid members vote in the mlp leader election. if this happens, the mlp will show everyone that it is the most democratic party in malta with facts!!!.i think most of the readers know my opinion...i will vote for DR GEORGE ABELA. I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT THIS MAN IS THE LIFEBOAT OF OUR PARTY.

Personally I believe only the delegates should have the right to vote as long as the delegates where originally elected by all the members of the MLP party! The delegats should then be responsible enough to see who their electorate would like to be the next MLP party leader and vote accordingly! I do not really like anyone from the MLP party, but the rules were clear enough for everyone – changing the rules when the game has already started is equal to cheating … at least that is my personal opinion! I just hope the delegates are not enough stupid to elect ‘Alfred the Second’!

I agree that a wider base is a more democratic one. But with all due respect to people like Ivan Attard who, although are not MLP supporters but yet purport to be the guiding angelic hands for our party and paladins of democracy forget two things. First of all they conveniently forget that in their own party (I am assuming that Mr. Attard is a PN voter but perhaps I am wrong) it is only the delegates that vote. In other instances only the Executive votes. So, are you telling me that the PN is not a democratic party or what? But let's set that aside.

Second of all let us assume that there are around 30,000 to 34,000 paid up members. And let us assume that the Extraordinary General Conference is held in the coming weeks (where we shall be in May); how on earth will the Party entirely change its mechanisms (yes this is a HUGE change in party mechanism) in the span of just a couple of weeks?? What if there are persons that have a membership card but are not listed in Party documents as members and these members are not allowed to vote? Can you imagine the chaos and pandemonium of people crying foul and lamenting about vote rigging? Let us not even consider the financial conundrum such a major change will bring about.

If you want to implement such a huge reformation do it seriously and not 'ejja ha nmorru'. Such a major change, in my book, requires months of discussion and planning.

However, I think that the paid-up members have their own opinion regarding who should be the new leader and if they would have the opportunity to express their preference, they will take the responsibility of their vote. If they are democratic, they should not find any problem in accepting the preference expressed by the majority.
On the other hand, M. Brincat's argument is quite reasonable but lacks some democratic spirit.

Why is this change in the playing field being pressed on for just now? Changing the Statute of the Party for the sake of one candidate is not right or correct and, after all, the Party delegates are there in representation of the members of the Party... What shall we do next? Abolish the post of delegate altogether?

Why wasn't the same argument ever raised when the PN leadership run was on?

Why is this move being proposed? Is it - maybe - because the delegates of the Party may be more knowledgeable on the internal workings of the Party and therefore can read through certain candidates? My fear is that the leadership race shall be voted for using emotion rather than logic.

Taking into account that we have almost 49% of the voting population on the losing side of the election ... I think that the more people will be voting, the more you will have at the losing side.

On the other hand, if only the delegates vote, then the Party Leader would be seen by the non-voting members as being theirs as well, even though they didn't directly vote for him (the since I didn't vote, I didn't vote against him, so he's my leader mentality ...)

I'm not a member of the MLP. However, I would like to share my opinion hoping to be of some benefit to the party.
The MLP is facing a critical situation. The new leader surely will determine the future of the party, and if I may say, also the future of our democracy.
If all the paid-up members will have the right to vote for the new leader, the election will be more democratic and the new leader will reflect better the members' preference. Conseguently, the leader will have a better support. In a democratic party, the more the members participate, the more they feel part of the party and the more they consider the new leader as their own leader.

The irony of the situation with regard to the choice of a new leader for the Malta Labour Party is that the key element is not so much the delegates or indeed the party members, but rather those at present outside the party on whose support the future of the party depends.