No, I don’t think that would be the case in Canada. A determined group can muster enough support at the riding level to nominate their candidate, even if others in the party don’t like that candidate’s views. The leader of the party has the option to reject a candidate nominated by the local riding association, but that happens very rarely, because leaders are sensitive to the power of local democracy.
The one refusal I can remember dates back to the early 1960’s, where the PC leader, Bob Stanfield, refused to sign the nomination papers for a candidate who opposed official bilingualism, which the PC’s supported. But the case of the Tea Partiers wouldn’t likely trigger that type of action, because by and large they support the Republican platform: they just do so with much greater fervour and more extreme tactics. If a similar situation arose in Canada, I can’t see the leader refusing to accept a candidate nominated by the local riding association, just because their views are more fervently held that many others in the party.
What are the requirements for belonging to a riding association? Can anyone show up on nomination day and cast a ballot? Are there dues? Are there requirements to attend a certain number of meetings? How large is a typical association?
What I am getting at with these questions, is that I feel that the mere notion of a “riding association” is more party establishment friendly and less insurgency friendly than an American primary where a million people show up at the polls and vote.
The rules for membership and voting will depend on the party, but usually, parties view nominations as an opportunity to drive up memberships, so the rules are generally pretty open to new members signing up shortly before the meeting.
My understanding is that a member just has to live in the riding and pay the membership fee, and then show up to vote at the nomination meeting. In hotly contested nominations, each candidate’s organisation will be extremely active in signing up members. That’s not a bad proxy for their campaigning ability. It’s very much retail politics.
If a particular candidate is very successful in signing up a lot of new members, even at the last minute, and the new members all turn up and vote at the meeting, there’s not much the riding association can do about it. I imagine they would have a credentials sign-in spot, where each person who wants to vote had to show ID, proof of membership and proof of residency in the riding (but I’ve never personally participated in one, so I’m just relying on recollections of news coverage).
There’s sometimes allegations that a candidate who doesn’t have previous strong ties to a riding has signed up large numbers of “instant” members who have no real ties to the party but only to the candidate.
Perhaps the closest analogue in US politics is the caucus system, but on a smaller scale?
Just skimmed the web-pages for the parties on how much their fees are. The Liberals charge $10 a year, the Tories charge $15, and the NDP charge $25 (if you’re in Ontario; their fee varies from province to province, so I picked Ontario as the largest province).
It does sound a lot like a caucus. Which blows my theory, because in the US it’s easier for outsiders and insurgents to commandeer a caucus than a primary. Pat Robertson, Jesse Jackson, Ron Paul–all ran better in caucus states than in primary states.
I no longer know why the US is the only country with “two, only two, and always the same two” parties. Maybe it has to do with the multiplicity of offices we elect. Or maybe we’re just weird.