Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
They’re nearly identical. The policy “differences” are negligible, and certainly not enough to differentiate them for the average voter. And I hate to say it, but they quite likely won’t be winning seats. They might win a seat each, but plural seats and balance of power talk seems extremely unlikely. I know the polls have been wrong before, but there hasn’t been a poll with these guys anywhere near multiple seats, or enough to hold a balance of power unless it’s a government short of a majority by one seat. The projections are far greater than that (by something like 20 seats).
|
Think about what you're saying here
They don't get your support because they care more about policies than they do about winning.
The ucp care so little about policies they are willing to scrap them if it means attaining power. Whatever it takes to attain power, for powers sake.
To cowboys point above that the liberals and Alberta party should've merged, why? To compromise their political beliefs to Garner more power? Are we better off with fewer political parties who are willing to do whatever it takes to seize the reigns, or are we better off with diverse political parties and views that give citizens options that reflect their own desires?
The ucp is a naked admission that while there were substantial differences between PC and wildrose, the most important thing was attaining power. Differences can be put aside in the pursuit of power.
Rather than change policy platform to appeal to more voters, just combine entities to pool votes, political integrity be damned. Give voters less choice so you can scoop up a larger share. That's anti-democratic.
We are all worse off with less representation.