This forum is a good example of groupthink

There is plenty of scientific evidence. The most recent was produced by Elections Canada.
It was done just after the 2000 election and is available on their web site.

If we have the system in place, why do we have so few people coming to the GPC web site to discuss policy?

In fact why do we have so few people that show up at any policy discussion event, let alone participate in anyway with the party?

So we must do something to engage the members to show up at their local level and either vote for the delegates to attend and represent their wishes, as well as communicate back to the same people while at the event or meetings. This is done so that their is an understanding of why an issue must be voted for or against despite the original wishes of the people that sent a delegate.

Most people I know are not so involved and myopic on an issue that they can not see the need for some form of compromise if they are kept in the loop as to the rationale of the compromise.
Are you telling so few people who profess to be interested in politics to the point of becoming a member don't want to make or take the time to be involved further? It might be that they try to get involved but are turned away for many reasons, primarily because the GPC does nothing to invite them into the process. Or they cannot find the opening to the process to get started.

The GPC also does little beyond the WIKI or TIKI, to provide them with a process to participate on their time schedule.

Good leadership does not mean consensus must lead to making everyone happy with the decision, but it does mean picking a path that is acceptable to the most people to the point where the decision makers can go ahead with the action that comes from the decision. Good leadership also means that the vast majority of people in the group have confidence in the leaders that they can agree to disagree with a decision taken, and not get in the way of the progress of the issue.
Waiting for everyone to be happy will mean inertia.

If there are people in the party that are unable to participate directly in
decision-making for whatever reason, what makes you think they will take the time to make sure they are represented, choose delegates or representatives that they trust to accurately defend, or to express their interests and worldview?

If there is no process for them to do this on their own time schedules, then they will just not participate. You also have to add a system of tangible benefits for them to realize from their participation. This is not changing them into something they are not, it is in fact trying to get them to the table so we can engage them. It also means the party or group are actually hearing them and reacting in some way to their concerns, even if it is to tell them it is not possible.

Right now they are not at the table with the GPC, because there is no effort by the party's management to build a table.

"Elections" are the end of the process in getting people to the table.

It is from the point they plunk their $10 down for a membership to the "elections" is the problem.