Two Tory MLAs crossing to Wildrose Alliance

[bcb]

Originally Posted by Azure

There is a school in the US that is operating different from the public system and their students are getting fabulous results.

I can't remember the name though.

Either way, the education debate reminds me a lot of the health care debate. Instead of sitting back and being open to looking at different countries and what their education system is like and maybe implementing some of their ideas, people seem content with 'its good enough' because they fear we'll become a lot like the US. Which I agree doesn't have a very good public education system.

Our system is pretty good, although I have my own opinion on the stupidity of some of the things that are taught, and I do think some things need to be improved, but still, pretty good.

A stronger focus on offering more diversity for one, and more technological advances through the province. Especially with IPTV so that kids can take classes that their school can't provide a teacher for.

Also, physical education needs to be changed(if it already hasn't) to provide more enjoyment to the kids and to also offer more opportunities. Making kids practice soccer, volleyball and badminton for hours on end isn't giving them very good exercise, nor is it making what used to be a very fun class.....fun. More emphasis needs to be put on playing the actually game and getting more kids involved.

I think there probably are issues with the education system that need to be addressed. I also happen to agree that there should be choices for parents. Be that private or public schooling. I don't really agree with a high level of government funding for the private system though. There are regulations that should be in place, but if a school wants to be private, it shouldn't be funded like a public school. I do agree with public funding for education and think that its necessary that we as taxpayers invest a lot of money in our future. The benefits will be massive down the road. As a very rich province, provided our money is handled right, we have the ability to do that and need to continue.

I agree. There are legitimate things that need to be addressed. But simply pumping money into an alternative system won't make those issues go away.

[SebC]

As far as I'm concerned, "alternative education" is mainly just code for religious education, which I don't think should get public funding. There public benefit just isn't there to justify subsidies. Sadly, Catholic and Prostestant education are constitutionally protected, but at least the Protestants decided to leave religion out of their system.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

As for your comment about preparing our teens for the real world, it doesn't. More and more graduates can barely read,

Where do you get this idea?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Where do you get this idea?

I have seen it on many news programs as well Roy Green show had a segment with a bunch of educators on showing a HUGE increase in highschool graduates across the country that can only read and write at a grade six level. And I am not talking about a small amount here it was something like 10%.

I can also relate some of it to my own experiences in the real world.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Where do you get this idea?

From the posts of the younger members of this board.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

Recall is just a dumb idea. I once thought that I would be in favour of this until I realised a few issues. Most of the ridings are somewhat competitive and getting the requisite number of signatures isn't really that shocking (say you have a competitive riding where the first past the post results are 38% to 30% for the first two...the second place finisher will likely get enough signatures to recall the guy who just won!).

I also don't know about the Tories "daring" to support this. If that bill contains a 10% of the signatures kind of figure then maybe the WRA ought to be careful what they wish for...that is a really low number. (In California IIRC the figure is 12% of those who were eligible to vote in the previous election).

I think the original plan by the Alliance was one third of the voting eligible population. Not sure what the bill they will submit will set as the threshold.

However, your reasoning is badly flawed. The second place finisher having 30% of the vote would not come close to having enough signatures for a recall for several reasons:
1. He was only supported by 30% of the 50% of the population that bothered to vote, not 30% of the overall population.
2. To assume that everyone who voted for that candidate would automatically support a recall is, in a word, stupid.
3. The time, cost and effort required to create, organize and pass a recall petition would be enormous. It would only pass if there was sufficient reason to do so.
4. If a losing candidate or one of their supporters started a recall petition simply for losing the election, they could not hope to get enough support to get it through. The average voter may be dumb, but he isn't so dumb as not to realize that that is just a very petty and selfish move.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

My question is will these 2 parties split the traditional PC voters and leave room for the other parties to gain seats?

Minority similar to the federal parliament in the making?

A minority would not be a bad thing. Especially if it was coupled with fixed election dates. It certainly would help government be more representative of the voting habits of the population.

It certainly can happen though. If an election were held today, there certainly would be several seats that the Liberals would win despite their support levels being stagnant.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I think the original plan by the Alliance was one third of the voting eligible population. Not sure what the bill they will submit will set as the threshold.

However, your reasoning is badly flawed. The second place finisher having 30% of the vote would not come close to having enough signatures for a recall for several reasons:
1. He was only supported by 30% of the 50% of the population that bothered to vote, not 30% of the overall population.
2. To assume that everyone who voted for that candidate would automatically support a recall is, in a word, stupid.
3. The time, cost and effort required to create, organize and pass a recall petition would be enormous. It would only pass if there was sufficient reason to do so.
4. If a losing candidate or one of their supporters started a recall petition simply for losing the election, they could not hope to get enough support to get it through. The average voter may be dumb, but he isn't so dumb as not to realize that that is just a very petty and selfish move.

I read that the threshold will be 1/3. In that case what is the point here? If we can hardly get much more than that out for an election in the first place this law will never be used. Basically its a pointless exercise. Why wouldn't the Tories support this?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Slava

I read that the threshold will be 1/3. In that case what is the point here? If we can hardly get much more than that out for an election in the first place this law will never be used. Basically its a pointless exercise. Why wouldn't the Tories support this?

I don't completely agree with recall but the point is to not make is so easy that anyone can be recalled but make it possible that if someone F's up enough and pisses enough people off there is at least a mechanism to remove the person instead of waiting for years to have another election.

[Resolute 14]

Exactly. The threshold can't be set low or it is open to abuse.

Right now, the average population of a riding is about 37,000 people. So to recall an MLA, you would require the support of 12,000 people in the riding. That is feasible if an MLA does something that severely pisses off the population, but is not realistic for any petty, partisan reasons for a recall. It gives the people an option, but not one that can be abused easily.

Not sure it would ever be seriously used, so you could argue that such a law would not likely be effective, but it does give the people an illusion of greater control.

[Ford Prefect]

I think we should be able to use lead to recall MLAs/MPs.

[Azure]

In reality nobody is ever going to actually be recalled. But the fact that the law is in place ought to keep some politicians from straying too far.

[Slava]

I just think that both fixed election dates and Proportional Representation are far more important to provide democracy than recall will ever be. You guys say pretty bluntly that its never going to be used and basically gives the illusion of usefulness...so why bother? Basically its a populist media stunt.

I do find it funny that the WRA would pursue this however, but byelections which are completely democratic (and where recall ends up!) are "too expensive".

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I have seen it on many news programs as well Roy Green show had a segment with a bunch of educators on showing a HUGE increase in highschool graduates across the country that can only read and write at a grade six level. And I am not talking about a small amount here it was something like 10%.

I can also relate some of it to my own experiences in the real world.

But according to you, teachers aren't a reliable source anyway!

In any case, it sound like your evidence is "no evidence at all." I'm sorry, but a news program plus biased anecdotal evidence doesn't prove a thing.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by PyramidsofMars

I don't like this WRA policy to basically legalize hate speech in the name of protecting free speech rights. Groups like the Aryan Guard can already go out and say horrible things and spread hate as long as they choose their words wisely, do we really want an Alberta in which there are no limits on free speech whatsoever?

As much as I despise hate speech, I despise limitations on free speech and censorship as a whole. I have a basic human right to say whatever the hell I want no matter how inflammatory. It is up to the listener to do what they want with it. Imo.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by PyramidsofMars

just in case people are not quite familiar with Section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights and Multiculturalism Act, here it is:
http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/...o_know/720.asp

Take note of the cases and examples discussed and I fail to see why anyone would want it gone unless burning crosses and 'Aryan fests' in Alberta are things you want to see.

Burning a cross is vandalism and illegal.

A white pride rally where there is no open liquor or intent of violence is legal.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by bcb

Alberta has, arguably, the best public education system of any jurisdiction in North America. Our schools are safe, we set high curricular standards, teachers are well trained and students are standardized tested every 3 years.

Omg....

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

But according to you, teachers aren't a reliable source anyway!

In any case, it sound like your evidence is "no evidence at all." I'm sorry, but a news program plus biased anecdotal evidence doesn't prove a thing.

Whats the point in even responding to you??

READ WHAT I FRACKING WROTE

The people who would know would be employers, post secondary educators, police, judges, ect.

The people that were on the program provded several studies and statistics showing the continued decline in the ability for recent highschool graduates to read and write at a high school graduate level. If you want that info go find it yourself, I am not taking hours to seach for this stuff.

You are the expert in everything aren't you IFF. I could tell you that the sun is powered by nuclear fussion but you wouldn't believe me until I provided pages and pages of scientific data, and even then you would claim that the scientists who were involved in those studies are biased, right wing and conservative party members. You argue just for the sake of arguing.

I have never put someone on the ignore list but you are getting mighty close. I know you don't give a crap but every time you post something it makes me cring.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

I just think that both fixed election dates and Proportional Representation are far more important to provide democracy than recall will ever be. You guys say pretty bluntly that its never going to be used and basically gives the illusion of usefulness...so why bother? Basically its a populist media stunt.

I do find it funny that the WRA would pursue this however, but byelections which are completely democratic (and where recall ends up!) are "too expensive".

Is there evidence that a by-election is even necessary, however? If this passes, there certainly would become a mechanism to force a by election if the electorate demanded so (and wouldn't that be ironic?). But aside from that Janice lady in Airdrie-Chestermere (who apparently worked on Anderson's Tory election campaign) and the Edmonton Journal working propaganda for the Tories, there hasn't exactly been much in the way of outcry.

Anyway...

Alberta Liberals spinning their wheels, while a Grit MLA says the defections are good for democracy

Guy Boutiller expects more defections and predicts the WRA could become the opposition. Meanwhile, Ted Morton expects that the right wing split will win the Liberals a lot of ridings next time around.

Rob Anderson has a major axe to grind.

Personally, I think Boutiller overestimates the number of defections that will occur. A couple more, maybe, depending on how Stelmach reorganizes his caucus, but I can't see seven more MLAs jumping to get the party past the Liberals.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Guy Boutiller expects more defections and predicts the WRA could become the opposition. Meanwhile, Ted Morton expects that the right wing split will win the Liberals a lot of ridings next time around.

There most certainly will be more defections if the polls remain the way they do. The PCs needed to eject Stelmach back in the fall if they really wanted to stem the tide. One thing is clear to me: one way or another the premier at the end of the next election will not be Ed Stelmach.

Also laughable that Morton pulls the old "A vote for the WRA is a vote for the Liberals" arguement out the woodwork. In reality if you're the less popular of the two parties in the polls technically it should read "A vote for the PCs is a vote for the Liberals." If right-wing voters are really worried about more Liberal seats they should push even harder en-masse for the WRA and kill off the PCs '1993 Federal Election' style. The longer the PCs are a force the better the chances Liberal candidates will have in urban ridings.