This barely makes sense as Mr. Walker is an ex-officio. Unlike the rest of the delegates he CAN switch his vote and is not bound on the first ballot.

Why bother voting for someone who you do not want to win?

Here's an idea for Prof. Walker (and any of the hundreds of people in a similar position): Figure our who you think would make the best Prime Minister of Canada and vote for that person.

In the meantime, do whatever you can to help that person, including endorsing them, speaking up for what you believe in.

Otherwise, you aren't just being dishonest with the other delegates on your first vote - you are being dishonest with yourself.

Guy, wow insightful comments...I think Walker is trying to show that he has been campaigning for MI and is keeping his word and providing support on the first ballot, of which he votes and brings votes, and then will take a hard look at the second ballot. If anything, isn't responsible voting making choices, re-evaluating so that we do choose the right person?

I think Walker has already shown he has a fairly strong head on his shoulders when he stood up to Volpe when nobody else in the party was willing to do over the child cash donations, everyone else just kept on business as usual.

Here's an idea Guy Stop the shame and blame and the useless free advice from you, I don't see you in the game or getting involved. But that's for arm chair quarterbacking, really helpful.

Here's an idea for Prof. Walker (and any of the hundreds of people in a similar position): Figure our who you think would make the best Prime Minister of Canada and vote for that person.
"In the meantime, do whatever you can to help that person, including endorsing them, speaking up for what you believe in.

Otherwise, you aren't just being dishonest with the other delegates on your first vote - you are being dishonest with yourself."

Here's a better idea:

Get rid of that compulsory first ballot commitment.

There's probably hundreds of delegate members stuck in that same position.

Proof positive that the Higher Ups in the Party weren't thinking ahead when they came up with that dumb rule.

Incredible. A riding Prezzie who actually knows what he is doing is wrong, admits that Iggy's out to lunch, and yet still votes for him on the first ballot. Is there not limit to the stupidity that has gripped this crew?

Only in the Liberal Party of Canada, sportsfans.

Walker's in a bit of a tough spot. His MP is openly supporting Iggy. Most riding presidents will follow their MP.

It's interesting that Walker is openly questioning - even criticizing - Iffy. Too bad that, as Tsakumis poignantly points out, Walker doesn't realize what options really are available to him to follow his conscience.

Will this affect Keith Martin's support?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. The Liberal Leadership Non-race drones on, with one non-event following another like a daytime soap opera, and attempts to make it interesting are still a total failure.

As someone who lived through the Meech and Charlottetown debates I am frankly amazed at the number of commentators who think that Ignatieff's, or Rae's comments on Quebec's position in the constitution can be made the stuff of serious, urgent debate. Every reasonable Canadian knows that at some point a "distinct society" clause will be put in the constitution, it's really just a question of timing and other details. Every other provincial government essentially agreed to that with the Calgary Declaration of 1997. But, ... the junkies must have news, so news it is when Ignatieff says "nation".

Ignatief cannot win on the first ballot, so voting for Iggy on the first ballot but not on successive ballots is pretty much exactly the same as not voting for him at all. This is just a way for Walker to withdraw his support from the Iggy campaign without creating a big media story (and creating conflict between him and his MP, as interesteing pointed out).

This serves as a good example because the right of anyone, including a public figure, to express their thoughts is a constitutionally protected freedom in Canada. Section 2 of the Charter protects the the things touched on -
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

Regardless of your political affiliations, if you change your mind within or peripheral to them, you have the right to express yourself to that effect. This essentially translates into preserving the democratic state we value so much.