1 See Atkinson, Michael M., “What Kind of Democracy Do Canadians Want?” this Journal 27 (1994), 717–46.Google Scholar

2 Blais, André and Gidengil, Elizabeth, Making Representative Democracy Work: The Views of Canadians, research study of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing (Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1991), 79, 42, 19.Google Scholar

3 Macivor, Heather, “The Leadership Convention: An Institution Under Stress,” in Maureen, Mancuso, Richard, Price and Ronald, Wagenberg, eds., Leaders and Leadership in Canada (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1994), 24.Google Scholar

4 Perlin, George, “Attitudes of Liberal Convention Delegates Toward Proposals for Reform of the Process of Leadership Selection,” in Herman, Bakvis, ed., Canadian Political Parties: Leaders, Candidates and Organization, research study of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing (Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1991), 86.Google Scholar

5 Ibid., 84.

6 Carty, R. K., “Transforming the Politics of Party Leadership,” paper presented to the annual meeting of the Atlantic Provinces Political Studies Association, St. Mary's University, 1994, 18.Google Scholar

7 Keith Archer has demonstrated that recent Alberta elections have seen a decline in the level of support for the government, and that much of the one-party dominance in the province stems from electoral system distortion. See Archer, Keith, “Voting Behaviour and Political Dominance in Alberta, 1971–1991,” in Allan, Tupper and Roger, Gibbins, eds., Government and Politics in Alberta (Edmonton: University of Alberta Press, 1992Google Scholar).

8 Courtney, John C., The Selection of National Party Leaders (Toronto: Macmillan, 1973), 78Google Scholar (emphasis added).

9 As quoted in Courtney, John C., “Leadership Conventions and the Development of the National Political Community in Canada,” in Carty, R. K. and Ward, W. P., eds., National Politics and Community in Canada (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1986), 96.Google Scholar

10 See MacIvor, “The Leadership Convention,” 24.

11 Stewart, Ian, “The Brass versus the Grass: Party Insiders and Outsiders at Canadian Leadership Conventions,” in George, Perlin, ed., Party Democracy in Canada (Scarborough: Prentice-Hall, 1988), 156, 157.Google Scholar

12 Perlin, “Attitudes of Liberal Convention Delegates,” 61. The description of convention delegates which follows focuses exclusively on the Liberal and Conservative parties. The New Democrats and the Reform party have a different basis of representation at their conventions.

13 Carty, R. K., “Choosing New Leaders: The PCs in 1983, the Liberals in 1984,” in Howard, Penniman, ed., Canada at the Polls, 1984 (Durham: Duke University Press, 1988), 74.Google Scholar

14 Ibid., 60.

15 Courtney, “Leadership Conventions,” 94.

16 Perlin, “Attitudes of Liberal Convention Delegates,” 66.

17 MacIvor, “The Leadership Convention,” 20.

18 George Perlin, Allen Sutherland and Marc Desjardins, “The Impact of Age Cleavage on Convention Politics,” in Perlin, ed., Party Democracy in Canada, 192.

19 See, for example, George Perlin, “Party Democracy in Canada: Conclusion,” in ibid., 307.

20 Malcolmson, Patrick, “Two Cheers for the Leadership Convention,” Policy Options 13–10 (1992), 24.Google Scholar Or as Perlin puts it, delegates possess the ability “to make informed and wise judgements about the competence of leadership candi-dates” (“Attitudes of Liberal Convention Delegates,” 66).

21 Information on participants in the process was obtained from a survey of second-ballot voters. Using lists provided by the party, second-ballot voters were identified and surveys were sent to 2,728 of the more than 78,251 voters. A total of 943 usable responses were obtained, and these respondents proved quite representative both in terms of reported vote and region of residence. A systematic sample stratified by constituency was drawn from party lists. Additional information on the sample design is available on request. The survey was funded by a grant from the Central Research Fund of the University of Alberta and could not have been carried out without the support of the Progressive Conservative party of Alberta and the invaluable assistance of Brenda O'Neill.

22 Blais and Gidengil, Making Representative Democracy Work, 7, 8. They also identify unionization, language and religion, but data on these variables are not available for the Alberta cases.

23 See Archer, Keith and Hunziker, Margaret, “Leadership Selection in Alberta: The 1985 Progressive Conservative Leadership Convention,” in Carty, R. K., Lynda, Erickson and Blake, Donald E., eds., Leaders and Parlies in Canadian Politics (Toronto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1992), 80–100.Google Scholar

24 See Schumacher, Stan, “Reforming the Leadership Convention Process,” Round Table Discussion on Leadership Selection, Canadian Parliamentary Review 16 (1993), 8.Google Scholar

25 The party produced quite an extensive manual for those working on the process. This manual was quite widely available and explained in detail the intricacies of the voting process. Many of the provisions in the manual were modelled on materials used in Alberta general elections.

26 Schumacher, “Reforming the Leadership Convention Process,” 8.

27 For a discussion of the 1985 convention see Archer and Hunziker, “Leadership Selection in Alberta.”

28 Hunziker, Margaret, “Leadership Selection: The 1985 Alberta Progressive Conservative Leadership Convention” (unpublished MA thesis, University of Calgary, 1986), 86, 88, 89, 92.Google Scholar

29 The data on 1985 delegates presented in the tables is taken either from ibid., chap. 4, or Archer and Hunziker, “Leadership Selection in Alberta,” 85–92. The actual phrasing of questions and response categories are available from the author.

30 Hunziker, “Leadership Selection,” 93.

31 Flanagan, Tom, “A Comparative Profile of the Reform Party of Canada,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, University of Prince Edward Island, 1992.Google Scholar

32 It is possible that the level of Reform supporters’ participation in the leadership process is underestimated by this study. As will be shown later, second-ballot Reform voters were quite likely to have voted for one of the minor candidates on the first ballot. The reported first-ballot votes of respondents underestimates sup-port for these candidates suggesting that many of their first-ballot backers did not participate on the second ballot. It seems likely that a significant number of federal Reformers might have decided not to vote on the second ballot when their preferred options were no longer available.

33 One example of this occurred in the 1992 Nova Scotia Liberal tele-vote. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation convened a panel representing the three main Nova Scotian parties. The Conservative representative on the panel made much of the fact that he was going to cast a vote for the new Liberal leader thus attempting to ridicule the integrity of the process. However, research on state primaries in the United States suggests that voters vote in the primary of the party they generally support. See Jewell, Malcolm E., Parties and Primaries: Nominating State Governors (New York: Praeger, 1984), 204–05.Google Scholar

34 See Malcolmson, “Two Cheers for the Leadership Convention,” 24.

35 Ibid., 25. However, Jewell in his examination of American gubernatorial nominations notes that “It is not necessarily true that party leaders always know better than the voters and choose the strongest candidate” (Nominating State Governors, 194).

36 Hunziker, “Leadership Selection,” 116.

37 Gibbins, Roger and Hunziker, Margaret, “Issues and Leadership Conventions: The 1985 Progressive Conservative Leadership Convention,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, University of Manitoba, 1986, 5.Google Scholar

38 Despite this, 83 per cent of the voters professed themselves satisfied with the forums. One respondent said he did not need to attend a forum because he could see what he needed on television.

39 Hunziker, “Leadership Selection,” 116.

40 Jewell, Nominating State Governors, 262.

41 Since so few of the delegates attended candidate events or all-candidate forums, exposure to speeches must have been channelled through the media. Of course, the voters who watched coverage of the first ballot on television would have heard brief speeches from the three finalists.

42 Frederick Fletcher, “The Mass Media and the Selection of National Party Leaders: Some Explorations,” in Perlin, ed., Party Democracy in Canada, 118.

43 Perlin, “Party Democracy in Canada: Conclusions,” 307.

44 Jewell makes a similar point with respect to American state primaries (Nominating State Governors, 194).

45 Malcolmson, “Two Cheers for the Leadership Convention,” 24.

46 Janine Brodie, “The Gender Factor and National Leadership Conventions in Canada,” in Perlin, ed., Party Democracy in Canada, 179.

47 For a fuller discussion of gender differences in this process, see David K. Stewart, “Gender and Intra Party Politics: An Examination of the 1992 Alberta PC Leadership Election,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the Atlantic Provinces Political Studies Association, St. Mary's University, 1994.

48 See Perlin, “Attitudes of Liberal Convention Delegates,” 61.

49 See Perlin, Sutherland and Desjardins, “The Impact of Age Cleavage.”

50 Archer and Hunziker, “Leadership Selection in Alberta,” 86.

51 Hunziker, “Leadership Selection,” 66.

52 Studies of primary voting in the United States indicate that older voters are much more likely to participate (see Jewell, Nominating State Governors, 162).

53 See Perlin, Sutherland and Desjardins, “The Impact of Age Cleavage,” 191.

54 Ibid., 199.

55 Stewart, Ian, Adamson, Agar and Beaton, Bruce, “Pressing the Right Buttons: The Nova Scotia Liberals and Tele-Democracy,” in Ian, Stewart, ed., Roasting Chest-nuts: The Mythology of Maritime Political Culture (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1994), 145.Google Scholar In the Nova Scotia tele-vote the increase in the proportion of women was a modest 2 percentage points.

56 This is consistent with the evidence from American primaries which indicate that education is positively associated with voting (see Jewell, Nominating State Governors, 176).

57 Perlin, “Attitudes of Liberal Convention Delegates,” 66.

58 Ibid., 67.

59 Schumacher, “Reforming the Leadership Selection Process,” 9.

60 As quoted in Alberta Report, December 14, 1992, 6.

61 See Stewart, David K. and Carty, R. K., “Does Changing the Leader Provide an Electoral Boost?” this Journal 26 (1993), 313–30.Google Scholar

62 See Hanson, Laurence, “Contesting the Leadership at the Grassroots: The Liberals in 1990,” in Carty, R. K., ed., Canadian Political Party Systems: A Reader (Peterborough: Broadview Press, 1994), 432–33.Google Scholar

63 Carty, “Transforming the Politics of Party Leadership,” 6.

64 Perlin, George makes a number of excellent suggestions for reforming conventions in “Leadership Selection in the PC and Liberal Parties: Assessing the Need for Reform,” in Hugh, Thorburn, ed., Party Politics in Canada (6th ed.; Scarborough: Prentice-Hall, 1991), 217, 218.Google Scholar

65 For a strong defence of conventions and a different perspective on universal bal-lots, see Courtney, John C., Do Conventions Matter? (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1995Google Scholar). Further work on universal ballots should make use of the literature available on American primaries. However, this literature can only be applied to the Canadian experience with caution. For instance, the emphasis placed on momentum and early victories in the presidential nomination process in the United States is of little use to students of provincial leadership selection. Even the literature on state primaries needs careful consideration, since factors such as simultaneous Republican and Democratic primaries, incumbency and state registration of voters clearly differentiate the American examples from what has taken place to date in Canada.