Fine. But people are crazy if they think it is more democratic that our PM gets elected by 100,000 members of a private organization.
That's an interesting take.
I have 'issues' w/the internal processes of most parties in respect of how they pick leaders, but I wouldn't have said this was one of them.
****
Here's why.
If I decide to offer people the choice of voting for the Northern Light party, in which you get to support my platform, written by me, you have a good faith reason to think I believe
in those ideas etc...
I'm not sure how it enhances democracy if AFransen can join the Northern Light party, along with a few of his friends, out vote me, and change the policies and maybe even the leader, but then run under my banner.
Does that enhance democracy?
I tend to think democracy is best served by having a clear set of ideas from which to choose; and the different teams of people whose character and competency one can judge, and then decide where to place your vote.
****
The greatest weaknesses in democracy, in this country, as I see it, would be that
a) People don't get the outcome they do vote for; because of First-Past-the-Post
b) Party campaigns can be funded disproportionately by the affluent, which can affect which policies make it from platform to enactment.
c) Internal to parties, leadership candidates and policy planks alike can be decided by anyone buying a membership of convenience in the year (sometimes only weeks) prior to a vote.
That last one to me, along with other political donations (non-campaign) and what can be spent on nominations are a hindrance to democracy.
Waiving any membership fee wouldn't hurt; but when the fees are generally nominal and usually there are policies to waive them for low-income members, I tend to think that's reasonable enough.
Its when $800 tickets to fundraisers buy 'access' to members of the cabinet or party higher-ups that democracy suffers more.
Free membership doesn't get the 'average Joe/Jane' anytime talking to the party leader or a current or prospective cabinet member.
****
I'd add to that, I wouldn't mind seeing a bit more 'direct democracy' these days. To be clear, I don't want the lets have a referendum for anything and everything one sees in some U.S. States.
I'd rather a system that imposed a relatively high barrier to entry, and vetted constitutionality etc. but allowed for voting directly on 1 or 2 key issues every few years.