Alberta PC's way out front

[GP_Matt]

Electoral reform is an interesting idea and worth talking about but I think it should be done slowly and with full public discussions and a referendum.
Personally, I am not a big fan of proportional representation. I think that each MLA should represent his/her constituents first and the party second (if at all). Under a PR system you would have some MLA's who represent both constituents and possibly parties while other MLA's would be elected under the PR system and would represent parties but no geographic group of constituents.
I am not sure what the results of instant run-off voting would be though. My guess is that the more centrist party would win almost every seat. If you had three parties running say the Cons, Libs and NDP then you could see a result where 45% of the people vote conservative, 30% vote liberal and 25% vote NDP. Most NDP would have the liberals as their second choice so when their second choices are considered the Liberals will win. The same would happen if the NDP were up and the Cons down after the first round votes are counted. The only way the NDP or Conservatives could win is if the Liberals come in third.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Electoral reform is an interesting idea and worth talking about but I think it should be done slowly and with full public discussions and a referendum.

Personally, I am not a big fan of proportional representation. I think that each MLA should represent his/her constituents first and the party second (if at all). Under a PR system you would have some MLA's who represent both constituents and possibly parties while other MLA's would be elected under the PR system and would represent parties but no geographic group of constituents.

There are systems that combine constituent representation with proportional (or roughly proportional) results...

Mixed Member Proportional (which I think is what you're talking about actually) would give us one MLA per constituent, with top-up MLAs to reflect the popular vote.

Single Transferable Vote uses large constituencies and an instant run-off system within those constituencies that each have more than one MLA. So not only would you have an MLA respresenting your constituency, you'd likely have one from the party you supported.

Either system would be miles better than First Past The Post (the current system) or Instant Runoff Voting (which is actually a great system, but only for single position elections like the mayoral one).

[darklord700]

I would like to see more plebiscites in the future. I don't trust any corrupted politician from any party to look after my welfare. For big ticket issues, like sales tax, education,
0.05 law, I would like to vote on it.

It wasn't possible in the past but with the advent of internet, I don't see what we couldn't do more plebiscites now.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by darklord700

I would like to see more plebiscites in the future. I don't trust any corrupted politician from any party to look after my welfare. For big ticket issues, like sales tax, education,
0.05 law, I would like to vote on it.

It wasn't possible in the past but with the advent of internet, I don't see what we couldn't do more plebiscites now.

Can't see anything that would go wrong with people voting from their computers in the comfort of their own homes. Unless you count enterprising individuals voting from everyone else's computer as well...

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by darklord700

I would like to see more plebiscites in the future. I don't trust any corrupted politician from any party to look after my welfare. For big ticket issues, like sales tax, education,
0.05 law, I would like to vote on it.

It wasn't possible in the past but with the advent of internet, I don't see what we couldn't do more plebiscites now.

Except I don't trust a more direct democracy. In fact I barely trust the sandwich artist at Subway to not fata up my sub and I'm standing right there.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by darklord700

I would like to see more plebiscites in the future. I don't trust any corrupted politician from any party to look after my welfare. For big ticket issues, like sales tax, education,
0.05 law, I would like to vote on it.

It wasn't possible in the past but with the advent of internet, I don't see what we couldn't do more plebiscites now.

You would think, but then you look at California and direct democracy doesn't look so appealing...

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by darklord700

I would like to see more plebiscites in the future. I don't trust any corrupted politician from any party to look after my welfare. For big ticket issues, like sales tax, education,
0.05 law, I would like to vote on it.

It wasn't possible in the past but with the advent of internet, I don't see what we couldn't do more plebiscites now.

The problem is that the masses are generally not very educated on issues and vote with their guts not having a firm comprehension. As was stated by Vlad look at California and their propositions with anything and everything, you don't even need to leave Canada to see how awful plebiscites are look West and look what they did to a much better tax in BC in the HST, they had the masses without any economics background voting on the tax. I don't trust my barber to perform my surgery.

And then you are not even factoring in the increased costs associated with this type of system, look as to how much a provincial election costs, now do that a couple of times a year... it would be hard to pay for that because no one is going to vote for themselves to be taxed.

[darklord700]

I am not arguing against that the majority might not be the smartest persons in a region. I certainly think the BC HST referendum result was wrong. However, isn't majority rule the most fundamental principle of democracy?

I clearly see how dangerously ineffective the current electoral system is from the last PC leadership election. A thousand or so last minute votes from the unions and the whole PC party had gone rogue since then.

[VladtheImpaler]

The problem with direct democracy is these 2 fundamental truths:

1) The people want more services
2) The people want to pay less taxes

Reconcile that.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

The problem with direct democracy is these 2 fundamental truths:

You raised a good point. The current system creates a disconnect between decisions and costs. People want more benefits, how the government is paying for it, most people don't care. Most people don't even care if the costs justify the benefits they got.

We spend a lot on healthcare but our healthcare quality ranks pretty low among developed countries is proof of that.

You can't do that in a household because you care about not declaring bankruptcy or not going into debt. But for a country, that's not the same. Just look at Greece, most people still wanted more benefits even when the country is at the brink of being insolvent.

We should run the country like a condo association. You want a bigger swimming pool, everybody ponies up your share right here right now. Now let's see if you still want that swimming pool.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by darklord700

We should run the country like a condo association.

You mean where general apathy amongst the population results in a situation where the board/government is comprised of few competent people with a desire to improve their homes and are overwhelmed by the incompetent and the power mad?

Sounds like our governments are already run like a condo association.

[Knut]

Hey.. PC supporter here.

But only because they are ardent backers of my profession and are helping us to expand our scope of practice.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by darklord700

You raised a good point. The current system creates a disconnect between decisions and costs. People want more benefits, how the government is paying for it, most people don't care. Most people don't even care if the costs justify the benefits they got.

We spend a lot on healthcare but our healthcare quality ranks pretty low among developed countries is proof of that.

Our healthcare system ranks at 10th out of 17 peer countries - so about average according to the Conference Board of Canada. There are inefficiencies but what the report recommeneded was more emphasis be placed on primary/preventative health care and it highlights the growing obesity issues.

You can't do that in a household because you care about not declaring bankruptcy or not going into debt. But for a country, that's not the same. Just look at Greece, most people still wanted more benefits even when the country is at the brink of being insolvent.

We should run the country like a condo association. You want a bigger swimming pool, everybody ponies up your share right here right now. Now let's see if you still want that swimming pool.

There are a lot more issues in Greece than people just being greedy, they had shady economics in order to get into the EU to start with and then with the recession in 2008 the house of cards came tumbling down.

Lets use your analogy of the condo association - would you vote in favour of helping someone pay their heating bill if it is at the expense of your private swimming pool? Heck lets bring it one step further, would you kick someone out of your condo/put them in the tool shed out back because you and your buddies on the condo board disagree with some of their beliefs and practices?

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Hesla

Hey.. PC supporter here.

But only because they are ardent backers of my profession and are helping us to expand our scope of practice.

Clearly you're not a teacher or a front line health care worker then.

[albertGQ]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Clearly you're not a teacher or a front line health care worker then.

He's an optometrist. Go ahead. Ask him anything

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Lets use your analogy of the condo association - would you vote in favour of helping someone pay their heating bill if it is at the expense of your private swimming pool?

That's exactly my point. It is easy to say we want to help everybody so no one is left behind. But at what costs? My point is right now these benefits are not being costed in by the taxpayers when they vote or support a party.

Say Redford gave hundreds of millions in her first few days as the premier to the teachers, firefighters and the disabled. I'm OK if you support that. But if I break out the cost to you of Redford's largeness to be a night out with your date at a restaurant. Are you still going to support that? Maybe or maybe not.

My point is most voters don't know or care much how much every political decision cost at this moment.

Most people would like to help every homeless people on the street, that's a very easy decision to make. But would I give up my cable TV to help pay for my unemployed neighbor's heating bill? That's a much tougher decision to make because there's a price tag associated with it.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by darklord700

That's exactly my point. It is easy to say we want to help everybody so no one is left behind. But at what costs? My point is right now these benefits are not being costed in by the taxpayers when they vote or support a party.

Say Redford gave hundreds of millions in her first few days as the premier to the teachers, firefighters and the disabled. I'm OK if you support that. But if I break out the cost to you of Redford's largeness to be a night out with your date at a restaurant. Are you still going to support that? Maybe or maybe not.

My point is most voters don't know or care much how much every political decision cost at this moment.

Most people would like to help every homeless people on the street, that's a very easy decision to make. But would I give up my cable TV to help pay for my unemployed neighbor's heating bill? That's a much tougher decision to make because there's a price tag associated with it.

See, I don't see it as that drastic of a choice. I get where you're coming from. But if we're taxed higher, wages should reflect that.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by darklord700

That's exactly my point. It is easy to say we want to help everybody so no one is left behind. But at what costs? My point is right now these benefits are not being costed in by the taxpayers when they vote or support a party.

Say Redford gave hundreds of millions in her first few days as the premier to the teachers, firefighters and the disabled. I'm OK if you support that. But if I break out the cost to you of Redford's largeness to be a night out with your date at a restaurant. Are you still going to support that? Maybe or maybe not.

Okay I will break this down for you a bit - AISH used to be (and still is at the current time), $1,188 per month, plus 400 dollars of earning potential on top of that before it was clawed back. How much does an apartment cost in the cities of Calgary and Edmonton where people on AISH are centralized because that is where community services exist? I would estimate that a one bedroom apartment costs anywhere between 700-800 dollars per month as a pretty conservative estimate. Then factor in that people also need to pay utilities, food, recreation, clothing and other basic amenities that are required to live and it just isn't possible with the prior levels of funding. Just because something costs money doesn't mean it is a bad thing. I am sure that if one of your children was born with a lifelong, chronic illness, which prevented them from working/being able to thrive, you wouldn't see the problem with raising the amount of money.

I never heard about increasing the amount of money for firefighters, which is odd because that is funded by the municipalities.

I agree in part with your asssessment with education, it was done in a hasty manner, that being said investing in the education system isn't a bad thing. Having a well educated population is essential for further growth. I know I am not going to convince you of anything, but it are those people who you are supporting through your tax dollars later who are going to support you in the future as you age and require the health care system more as well as other services which are funded at least partially by all levels of government.

My point is most voters don't know or care much how much every political decision cost at this moment.

And your answer is to give the uninformed masses even more sway?

Most people would like to help every homeless people on the street, that's a very easy decision to make. But would I give up my cable TV to help pay for my unemployed neighbor's heating bill? That's a much tougher decision to make because there's a price tag associated with it.

If everyone gives up part of their cable package then they can offer support programs to help unemployed neighbor get a job so he can pay his own heating bill and is able to live a healthier life. It isn't about starving yourself for your fellow man it is about small sacrifices which are beneficial for the common good.

Lets say you decide to keep your cable bill, the guy doesn't get heating, he develops frostbite as a result, consequently he has to get a foot amputated due to a lack of resources. This costs the health care system more, your neighbor more and you as a member of society more in the long run.

[First Lady]

Another (very small) poll out.

Wildrose has SAIT vote: Poll

Best take away from this; it looks like students are engaged. With only one of the 25 saying they weren't going to vote.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Another (very small) poll out.

Wildrose has SAIT vote: Poll

Best take away from this; it looks like students are engaged. With only one of the 25 saying they weren't going to vote.

Looks like spending money to buy student votes isn't working when even the students prefer WR.