Before getting too excited one should have atteneded one of these events in the past. Even if such a resolution passed, the rank and file might still not like the idea.To date the NDP have lost a number of possible seats by arguing the women first idea. They also have paper that says equal numbers of committe members and so on. But it does get some publicity. The provicne might well look at the results of having two femaile leaders ijn the federal party and notice the number of resulting seats. all citizens in this country have the right to vote and the same must apply to candidates. WE saw a riding locally that some women members pressed for a female against at least two male candidates who appeared far better qualified. She got there and basically stopped working to try to get elected. Her attendence at their campaign office was a seldom event. I do know folks who worked that riding and some were quite vocal about her lack of effort.
People first forget the gender.

"She got there and basically stopped working to try to get elected."

Would this person's first name be "Mary" by any chance? Just thought I'd ask.

What I object to in these resolutions, now passed by a two-to-one margin, is the totally arbitrary power they grant to the Party Executive. The Executive will now have the authority to declare that a certain candidate is "harming the party", revoke their candidacy, and then replace them with a central office appointee! After all, what's the point of another nomination meeting if the first one produced a non-conformist trouble-maker?

I wonder how candidates, including incumbents MLAs and MPs, will feel about expressing their thoughts on policy issues with this kind of completely unchecked discretionary power being held by unelected backroom party officials?

Of course, all the MLAs and MPs signed a document saying they support these resolutions 100%, so obviously, they must all be completely comfortable with them. Right?