Anyone else find something wrong with this situation?
I've mentioned it before - this entire idea surrounding "free", pretty much anonymous memberships has some serious drawbacks, including falsified names and the fact that simply having numbers doesn't equal up to much when they're just names on paper.
What's more is simply consider the scale of memberships floating around in Alberta right now.
If we assume that the ALP has 27K, the Wildrose Party with maybe 30,000, and the governing Progressive Conservatives with 150K, you would think, hey, the Liberals aren't anywhere near the PCs, but they're keeping pace with the Wildrosers at least (and these are just assumptive numbers based on old reports).
But that still doesn't make the ALP anywhere near competitive when they only have 3,600 dues-paying members, compared to the other two parties where all members pay some sort of fee.
Just consider if, at the bare minimum, all these members for the various political factions paid $10. That's 1.5 million for the PCs and 300K for the Wildrosers. The Liberals, meanwhile? Maybe 36K, despite nearly matching the Wildrosers in memberships.
That's a serious gap that frankly needs to be filled, and should be filled by a hefty leadership race, such as what is currently occurring. Yet, you have these non-fee paying members outpacing paying members by well over 7 to 1. That's ridiculous.
I don't know, you can claim there's interest in the Alberta Liberal Party but what exactly would be the point if they don't serve any other purpose but as names on a piece of paper, whether they vote or not? Involving people in democracy is fun, but you need to get serious too - you can't run a successful, competitive Opposition party when your competitors massively outstrip you on fundraising and dues-paying memberships.