April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[WesternCanadaKing]

Just voted for the PCs for the first time in my life. Felt so dirty. The same feeling as wanting Vancouver to win when it will help the Flames chances.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Calgary probably would have just gone even deeper into Wildrose Green with another Edmonton area PC Leader.

Honestly Horner, Mar, Redford, it doesn't matter. The PCs were going to saddled with massive baggage anyways.

I agree, hence the "electable" comment. It's unfortunate. Edmonton will support a Calgary-area candidate but Calgary balks at one from the Edmonton area.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by WesternCanadaKing

Just voted for the PCs for the first time in my life. Felt so dirty.

And so you should.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

But isn't Redford trying to change "The Old PC Way"? I find it weird people blame it all on her like somehow she's been the Premier tha last 40 years. Change doesn't happen overnight, it does take time to get rid of the old way and bring in the new way.

Also no disrespect to Danielle Smith but Redford's resume blows hers away. Like its not even close who has better credentials for the job.

I would have voted for "My Father's PC Party", minus the recent degeneration into incompetence and corruption. It's BOTH the party degeneration, PLUS her specific incompetence that has me loathing the idea that they may get a minority.

A "return to our roots" would have been more effective at getting my vote.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I agree, hence the "electable" comment. It's unfortunate. Edmonton will support a Calgary-area candidate but Calgary balks at one from the Edmonton area.

Having lived in both cites I'm convinced it is more important to Calgarians to crap on Edmonton than for Edmontonians to crap on Calgary.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I agree, hence the "electable" comment. It's unfortunate. Edmonton will support a Calgary-area candidate but Calgary balks at one from the Edmonton area.

By their nature, Calgarians are more trustworthy than Edmontonians. Perfectly understandable.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by WesternCanadaKing

Just voted for the PCs for the first time in my life. Felt so dirty. The same feeling as wanting Vancouver to win when it will help the Flames chances.

Gross, I just threw up a little in my mouth for you.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Isn't that the biggest problem with the Wildrose though? Yet you are willing to dream of a world where this would be a good thing for the PC's, and a bad thing for the Wildrose?

Vote Liberal then. I'm fine with that.

A clean slate of candidates doesn't necessarily mean inexperienced, just not the current slate of candidates who are viewed by many as corrupt and past their best before date. A clean slate could in theory include municipal level workers, ex-MPs etc. It could also included inexperienced members, and to me yes, experience matters so I wouldn't call it a good thing if a substantial portion of their hopeful MLAs had no experience in governance, same I would any party

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

(Edit: for clarity--this post was a response to Senator Clay Davis' post at the top of this page)

Well, her WR opponents want to have it both ways: she's both responsible for the misdeeds of the PCs (some of which date back to the Klein years, such as the no-meet committee business) AND she's a radical-liberal-feminist out to tax you into oblivion and make you pay for universal daycare and cradle-to-grave entitlements.

Well, you can't have it both ways. She's one or she's the other. I have no intention of voting PC anyway, but even I can see that the WR critique of the PCs is utterly incoherent.

Which I guess means that it matches the remainder of their platform.

Here's my challenge to the Wild Rose: if you are truly a populist party, and not the re-incarnation of the old-guard Tories, then you should have no problem coming out strongly in favour of proportional representation.

It's the ideal grassroots form of democracy; it encourages widespread political participation across party affiliations and socio-economic backgrounds, and promotes governance that is truly connected with the foundational norms that are most important to people. It also forces governments to be more conciliatory and less ideological and may in that way discourage the "American-style" negative campaigning that we've seen from the two major parties in this election.

I'll even say this: if you will put forward a serious platform plank, advocating prop. rep., you will have my vote. Until then, my conclusion is that the "change" you represent is the change that you find convenient, not the change that our democracy needs. You're about to win a majority (in all likelihood) in spite of the fact that nearly 60% of Albertans will have voted for somebody else. If that strikes you as fair, then you're not populists at all, but establishment Tories running under a new banner, wrapping yourself in the flag of populism in a cynical ploy to get votes. You're no better than the old Tories, and you may (for all we know) be worse.

First Lady: what can you tell me about Wild Rose's opinions regarding proportional representation? (And don't tell me that I can start a citizen's referendum by collecting a bajillion signatures. I'm talking about meaningful electoral reform here.)

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

(Edit: for clarity--this post was a response to Senator Clay Davis' post at the top of this page)

Well, her WR opponents want to have it both ways: she's both responsible for the misdeeds of the PCs (some of which date back to the Klein years, such as the no-meet committee business) AND she's a radical-liberal-feminist out to tax you into oblivion and make you pay for universal daycare and cradle-to-grave entitlements.

Well, you can't have it both ways. She's one or she's the other. I have no intention of voting PC anyway, but even I can see that the WR critique of the PCs is utterly incoherent.
)

I disagree - the party is one, and she is the other. Both the old guard, AND the new direction are wrong. Much like how a Liberal can believe that the Conservatives AND the NDP are wrong. You can have it both ways, because I dislike either of the ways things could be (and have been) heading.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

A clean slate of candidates doesn't necessarily mean inexperienced, just not the current slate of candidates who are viewed by many as corrupt and past their best before date. A clean slate could in theory include municipal level workers, ex-MPs etc. It could also included inexperienced members, and to me yes, experience matters so I wouldn't call it a good thing if a substantial portion of their hopeful MLAs had no experience in governance, same I would any party

In a perfect world, no. But this isn't a perfect world, and a clean slate of candidates does indeed mean inexperienced.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

But isn't Redford trying to change "The Old PC Way"? I find it weird people blame it all on her like somehow she's been the Premier tha last 40 years.

She's changing in the wrong way, they are moving away from their Conservative principles and drifting left. Evidence, Liberals are openly backing the PC's and Conservatives have moved in a big way to Wildrose. The PC's have become arrogant and corrupt and have spent everything in sight. 5 consecutive deficit budgets is unacceptable in this province.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Rerun

By their nature, Calgarians are more trustworthy than Edmontonians. Perfectly understandable.

Unfortunately that is my worst fear, and the worst thing that could happen to the province. Regionalism. Ugh.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Jacks

She's changing in the wrong way, they are moving away from their Conservative principles and drifting left. Evidence, Liberals are openly backing the PC's and Conservatives have moved in a big way to Wildrose. The PC's have become arrogant and corrupt and have spent everything in sight. 5 consecutive deficit budgets is unacceptable in this province.

Every party that has even formed government for longer than 45 minutes becomes 'arrogant and corrupt'. The Liberals federally and now the PCs provincially.


Hell, now the Federal opposition is accusing the CPC of the came cronyism that the CPC accused the Liberals of 9 years ago.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I agree, hence the "electable" comment. It's unfortunate. Edmonton will support a Calgary-area candidate but Calgary balks at one from the Edmonton area.

Ed Stelmach and his 72 seats say hi.

[WesternCanadaKing]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

Gross, I just threw up a little in my mouth for you.

Better them than the Wildrose. The million calls I got from them were enough to turn me off their party, and looking at how they are essentially anti-government spending of any kind is worrisome. I don't like ideologically based platforms in the slightest.

I agree with Iowa_Flames_Fan completely though, it is ridiculous that a majority of the population does not have their views supported when a majority government is elected with a minority of votes. With first past the post I have to vote against my interests just to do what little I can to help stop an even worse government from taking over.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Ed Stelmach and his 72 seats say hi.

And how did that turn out for Ed in the long run? You'd think he'd be the one leading the PCs in the next election after a victory like that!

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

.

Here's my challenge to the Wild Rose: if you are truly a populist party, and not the re-incarnation of the old-guard Tories, then you should have no problem coming out strongly in favour of proportional representation.

Not proportional representation but perhaps a step in that direction?

Alberta Wildrose party to allow free votes on all bills

Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/201...#ixzz1stxN1aZO

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Here's my challenge to the Wild Rose: if you are truly a populist party, and not the re-incarnation of the old-guard Tories, then you should have no problem coming out strongly in favour of proportional representation.

It's the ideal grassroots form of democracy; it encourages widespread political participation across party affiliations and socio-economic backgrounds, and promotes governance that is truly connected with the foundational norms that are most important to people. It also forces governments to be more conciliatory and less ideological and may in that way discourage the "American-style" negative campaigning that we've seen from the two major parties in this election.

It also produces endless minority governments which generally means constant campaigning and gridlock in the legislature. Trying to keep everyone happy also means that the tough decisions never get made and spending stays high. We'd still be buried in debt if Klein had to deal with a minority. No thanks.

[Yeah_Baby]

Yeah, I'd rather be debt free than have efficient government services. I look forward the Wildrose Government and Klein Era 2.0