April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[SebC]

If we're going to have citizen initiatives, some kind of proportional representation anyone?

[GP_Matt]

It is weird that there are no candidates listed for Fort Saskatchewan Vegreville yet. I know the WRA candidate, Shannon Stubbs has been campaigning there since before Ed stepped down so it is likely just a delay in posting. I wonder what would happen if no one got their paperwork in on time? Would they just leave the seat empty and fill it in a by-election?

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by SebC

If we're going to have citizen initiatives, some kind of proportional representation anyone?

It would likely be brought up but I don't see it passing.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by First Lady

You allow referendums and people (with enough signatures) can bring any issue forward.

Originally Posted by Danielle Smith

any initiative must first be vetted by a federally appointed judge to determine whether or not it is constitutional.

Owned.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

It would likely be brought up but I don't see it passing.

Better than 50% on the first referendum in BC. If we get a minority government that would probably be the best opportunity for it to pass here.

[Russic]

It'll take a lot of liquor to get me to vote for the Wild Rose Party, but this release is very pleasing to see. For a bit there I was going from cautiously concerned to fully freaked out.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by First Lady

* heavy sigh *

By the end of this there will be "exclusive" photos of Danielle biting heads off of kittens.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by SebC

Owned.

I'm okay with that.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by SebC

Better than 50% on the first referendum in BC. If we get a minority government that would probably be the best opportunity for it to pass here.

If it had to go to a judge first though it seems likely that they would apply the same measure of success of 60% plus a majority in 60% of the ridings.

I don't think the rural ridings in Alberta will vote for a system that increases the size of their riding. There might end up being one or two ridings with 5-10 seats north of Edmonton. Southern Alberta would be similar.

My issue with the system is that it would likely result in more party/big money politics than we already have. No one candidate could cover a large riding with a ground campaign so they would have to turn to more donors and a campaign full of media buys. (That and an increased likelihood of minority governments)

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

It is weird that there are no candidates listed for Fort Saskatchewan Vegreville yet. I know the WRA candidate, Shannon Stubbs has been campaigning there since before Ed stepped down so it is likely just a delay in posting. I wonder what would happen if no one got their paperwork in on time? Would they just leave the seat empty and fill it in a by-election?

They still have 4 more days... interesting question though. Or what if the only candidate to file was the Communist one and they were acclaimed.

[GP_Matt]

The Liberals have a lot of paperwork to file in the next 4 days if they want to run a full slate. Nice to see that the Wildrose currently has the most candidates.

[Jacks]

I'm amazed that it took this long for the abortion boogeyman to be brought up. We will surely be hearing about US style two tier health care next.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I'm okay with that.

Are you also okay with having defended a policy simply because you believed it to the position of the Wildrose Party, even though it was ridiculous enough that the party leader promptly shot it down?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I'm amazed that it took this long for the abortion boogeyman to be brought up. We will surely be hearing about US style two tier health care next.

Yep.

I noticed a report earlier saying that the Wildrose Party is in favor of private delivery.

Comparables to the US will be made in 3, 2, 1...

[Azure]

Originally Posted by SebC

Are you also okay with having defended a policy simply because you believed it to the position of the Wildrose Party, even though it was ridiculous enough that the party leader promptly shot it down?

Did she defend it?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Azure

Did she defend it?

Looks to me like a defense, granted not a particularly effective one...

Originally Posted by First Lady

This has been just twisted (by the left) to put the Wildrose in the worst possible light.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by SebC

Are you also okay with having defended a policy simply because you believed it to the position of the Wildrose Party, even though it was ridiculous enough that the party leader promptly shot it down?

Citizen initiated referenda is policy, she didn't defend it, she clarified application.

[Slava]

I do partly feel like its a shame that the Wildrose has to answer questions about abortion. The thing is when you advocate for conscience rights you know its not that far-fetched. I think that issue will come up again and again, and rightly so.

The problem with the new court is twofold to me. First just by making sure its there, you know people are going to be denied services that they ought to be provided. Second, the recourse seems a bit silly. Someone is denied something (could be a number of public services) and now they have to go to court. Does this mean they need a lawyer and the whole expense? How long does that take and how long until the potentially wronged party receives the service? Who pays to compensate for that delay?

I really can't get my head around this. I heard the blogger who brought this up last week (and it was posted here earlier) on the radio. She summed it up simply by saying that they (WRA) won't clarify this position because if they admit they're in favour they lose the moderate votes, and if they come out against it they lose the ultra-conservative votes.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

I do partly feel like its a shame that the Wildrose has to answer questions about abortion. The thing is when you advocate for conscience rights you know its not that far-fetched. I think that issue will come up again and again, and rightly so.

The problem with the new court is twofold to me. First just by making sure its there, you know people are going to be denied services that they ought to be provided. Second, the recourse seems a bit silly. Someone is denied something (could be a number of public services) and now they have to go to court. Does this mean they need a lawyer and the whole expense? How long does that take and how long until the potentially wronged party receives the service? Who pays to compensate for that delay?

I really can't get my head around this. I heard the blogger who brought this up last week (and it was posted here earlier) on the radio. She summed it up simply by saying that they (WRA) won't clarify this position because if they admit they're in favour they lose the moderate votes, and if they come out against it they lose the ultra-conservative votes.

To who?

Sounds a lot like Liberal sabre rattling to me.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Slava

I do partly feel like its a shame that the Wildrose has to answer questions about abortion. The thing is when you advocate for conscience rights you know its not that far-fetched. I think that issue will come up again and again, and rightly so.

The problem with the new court is twofold to me. First just by making sure its there, you know people are going to be denied services that they ought to be provided. Second, the recourse seems a bit silly. Someone is denied something (could be a number of public services) and now they have to go to court. Does this mean they need a lawyer and the whole expense? How long does that take and how long until the potentially wronged party receives the service? Who pays to compensate for that delay?

I really can't get my head around this. I heard the blogger who brought this up last week (and it was posted here earlier) on the radio. She summed it up simply by saying that they (WRA) won't clarify this position because if they admit they're in favour they lose the moderate votes, and if they come out against it they lose the ultra-conservative votes.

What I don't get is that conscience rights are written right into our charter of rights (Canadian) and without them we are putting the rights of others over and above others. I find that very easy to understand. Yet others seem to think it's okay to trample on rights of some simply based on the profession they choose.

It's like when waitresses were complaining about workplace smoking. Did everyone demand they change jobs? No, we changed the laws to protect them.