Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

It seems to be muscle memory for most to blame the system of being undemocratic if their preferred party doesn't win even in situations where the result matches the popular vote pretty well. ~53% of voters voted for the UCP, UCP won the most seats and formed a majority government. It's not like there's any real argument grounded in any democratic legitimacy that the NDP should be the legitimate government.

I'm waiting for my personal favorite salty post-election take: 'even though a majority of votes cast went to the winning party, only xx% of eligible voters voted, which means only a small minority (xx%) of the electorate actually cast a ballot for the winning party so therefore 'insert their preferred party' should have won and are the real legitimate preferred choices of the people' as if somehow everyone who didn't vote if forced to would have all lined up materially different and shifted the results.

I think its foolhardy to try to make any prediction on who would win with 100% voter participation, but shouldn't we have a system that encourages a higher % turnout. AP had 10% in 2019 and got no seats, maybe most of that segment didn't even vote this time because, seriously, why bother?

And I'm just in the same boat as most other voters. I am an NDP supporter but in a lot of ways I ended up having to hold my nose because I felt they had moved too far right in an attempt to win the election instead of holding their ideals.

Yes, based on the two party system the ridings number matches the popular vote pretty closely. But I don't think it represents the electorate at all. There is a lot of space between left and right, and FPTP negated most of it.

[Torture]

Guess the three legged stool theory (need two of Calgary/Edmonton/Rural) is officially dead. Or at least, that Calgary leg is looking pretty rickety with less than half the seats/popular vote.

[boogerz]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

68% seems high, i think you mean 58% as quoted in this Nenshi article

It is high, as I mistakenly added the CMA populations. If you use the figures from the Alberta website, it's more like 55% (1.4M in Calgary proper and 1.1M in Edmonton proper). Either way, rural Alberta is still overrepresented

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Torture

Guess the three legged stool theory (need two of Calgary/Edmonton/Rural) is officially dead. Or at least, that Calgary leg is looking pretty rickety with less than half the seats/popular vote.

I wouldn't say the NDP really took Calgary though. Eked out a majority of the seats. If Shandro takes it in a recount then its tied.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Some of you thread cowboys can't seem to separate yesterday's election from a legitimate criticism of FPTP, something that doesn't seem to be a critical reform priority for either provincial or federal governments.

And for the record, the problems of FPTP are routinely accentuated - AFTER an ELECTION. Each. And. Every. Time.

Give your heads a shake.

I mean, your first two posts were basically a variation of "FPTP is terrible" with no detail, in a thread about an election where if you applied a different voting system to the votes cast you'd get the same result, and you were asked for clarification. I get emotions are running high but "Give your heads a shake" isn't a reasonable response to that, imo.

Belsarius had a good explanation of the issues with it in this election that I agree with - as a historical conservative voter I felt pretty homeless, as Smith is a crazy person and I disagree with the NDP philosophically. Some sort of proportional rep system probably would have caused the UCP to splinter into multiple conservative parties and made the AP a more legitimate choice on the left.

I think strict proprotional representation would have resulted in a bigger overall majority by conservative parties as many of this year's NDP voters were voting against Smith not for the NDP, and would have voted for a likely-to-exist red Tory choice in that counter-factual, although then you'd have multiple parties trying to work together to govern which has pros/cons.

But it's also hard to predict what would have happened under some other system. We'd certainly have more chaos, and you'd absolutely have representatives from people like the Pro-Life party in that scenario. It isn't obvious to me we'd get better governance on average with that system.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Torture

Guess the three legged stool theory (need two of Calgary/Edmonton/Rural) is officially dead. Or at least, that Calgary leg is looking pretty rickety with less than half the seats/popular vote.

I guess a 3 legged stool doesn't really stand up when you snap the back leg off 12/26ths of the way up.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I mean, your first two posts were basically a variation of "FPTP is terrible" with no detail, in a thread about an election where if you applied a different voting system to the votes cast you'd get the same result, and you were asked for clarification. I get emotions are running high but "Give your heads a shake" isn't a reasonable response to that, imo.
Bel

You got detail. What more do you want? I have legitimately criticized FPTP before this election, many times. And now after the election.

Your multiple previous posts in response to this appear to be baiting me to conflate the two. Sorry, two different issues no matter how much you want me to use salty tears as a binding agent.

I'm perfectly aware of the popular vote breakdown yesterday. "Give your head a shake" is perfectly reasonable if you can't separate the results of this election from legit criticisms of FPTP.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Muta

lol, that's exactly the mental image I get whenever someone says anything like that!

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

You got detail. What more do you want? I have legitimately criticized FPTP before this election, many times. And now after the election.

Your multiple previous posts in response to this appear to be baiting me to conflate the two. Sorry, two different issues no matter how much you want me to use salty tears as a binding agent.

I'm perfectly aware of the popular vote breakdown yesterday. "Give your head a shake" is perfectly reasonable if you can't separate the results of this election from legit criticisms of FPTP.

I apologize for assuming you were talking about the results of this election in a thread about this election when you said:

the election showed the limitations of classic FPTP.

[Ozy_Flame]

Yes, as most every election in Canada does. Would it make things creamier for you if I put the word "classic" in front of the word "limitations?"

How long will this game continue?

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by #-3

I guess a 3 legged stool doesn't really stand up when you snap the back leg off 12/26ths of the way up.

Actually, I think it's apt. The 3 legged stool theory assumes Edmonton/Calgary and rural are homogenous. Now that we are establishing that one of the legs might not be homogenous, then I think it means that whoever is on the stool is always at risk of being toppled because the integrity of one of the legs is always compromised.

Originally Posted by Bonded

I wouldn't say the NDP really took Calgary though. Eked out a majority of the seats. If Shandro takes it in a recount then its tied.

NDP won lots of key battles but lost the war in Calgary. But UCP also ceded a ton of territory as well. However, the NDP is still strategically in a good position to take advantage of any weaknesses that UCP decides to expose in the Calgary region.

I don't think we should consider this election as the end of anything. It's looking more like it could be the right environment for the start of newer and improved things for all Albertans politics wise. Time will tell.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by boogerz

It is high, as I mistakenly added the CMA populations. If you use the figures from the Alberta website, it's more like 55% (1.4M in Calgary proper and 1.1M in Edmonton proper). Either way, rural Alberta is still overrepresented

Not by much though. This isn't an overly large problem. It can be resolved by a bit of boundary manipulation and maybe adding 2 urban seats and/or removing one rural seat.

In Calgary, the average population per riding is 50,260 with the smallest riding at 42,715 (Lougheed) and the largest at 65,530 (NE.) For Edmonton, the average is 50,544 with the smallest at 41,800 (Highlands/Norwood) and the largest at 68,950 (South.)

If we look at everything else, which still includes some urban vote, the average is 47,438 with the smallest at 26,715 (Lesser Slave Lake) and the largest at 63,765 (Airdrie/Cochrane.)

In the rural there are two ridings under 40,000 and one over 60,000. In the two cities there are zero under 40,000 and four over 60,000.

So there is some balancing and expansion required but not a drastic expansion.

(Source: Alberta Provincial Electoral Divisions - Summary Tables 2021 with 2023 boundaries)

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

I don't think we should consider this election as the end of anything. It's looking more like it could be the right environment for the start of newer and improved things for all Albertans politics wise. Time will tell.

Please, indulge us. I'm very curious.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Please, indulge us. I'm very curious.

Basically, I do think that politics has quietly been evolving in the last decade. This is a good time to realize this and try to encourage more rapid evolution in politics. The current political climate seems to incorporate a lot of voter dissatisfaction. That could be harnessed to move people of all affiliations to address concerns that would benefit all vs just specific political parties.

There are many aspects that are broken in politics. FPTP is just one of them. IMO, changing how people think about politics and how they engage with people who don't vote the same as them is one of the bigger problems to address first.

I don't care if anyone thinks it's a dumb dream. I'll do what I can if I see an opportunity, to try and encourage and champion environments where individuals who have opposing political affiliations, can sit down, discuss in good faith, agree to disagree and walk away. No fights, just collaboration vs confrontation.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

There are many aspects that are broken in politics. FPTP is just one of them. IMO, changing how people think about politics and how they engage with people who don't vote the same as them is one of the bigger problems to address first.

Good post. My dream would be if we can't have good public social services that everyone benefits from, then people can pick and choose what services they want to pay for their taxes.

Don't like healthcare? Don't pay taxes for it. Pay for your own health somehow.

Don't like education? Don't pay and don't attend. Getting schooling is entirely up to you.

Don't like paying for infrastructure? Then don't pay, and don't use the buses and roads everyone else does.

When the oil dries up, we'll need a new income source but we don't want regressive taxes. How about a consumption tax? And if you don't want to pay it, just don't buy unnecessary things.

I liken it to paying your own RRSP or paying into a Group RRSP. Sure you can make the choice, but the Group RRSP is probably the better option for everyone to benefit. You get the economies of scale.

If you can't be bothered to make these decisions on your own, you can use AI to data mine your life and let it make decisions for you. Give up my personal identity and privacy to pay less, you know?

Weed out the necessities from the nice-to-haves

[Cube Inmate]

Disappointed but not surprised today. What's interesting to me is that while UCP slightly outperformed its vote share, NDP almost exactly matched - 44% of votes and seats (as it stands right now). I thought with the razor-thin margins in some districts, combined with the blowouts in the rural areas, we'd see a bigger discrepancy.

[GGG]

Is there interest in a policy only thread to discuss proposed legislation without using names of parties politicians, polling, scandals, and other things that the political threads have?

Essentially it might be pretty boring but the goal would be only to discuss the policy rather than the play by play of government.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by GGG

Is there interest in a policy only thread to discuss proposed legislation without using names of parties politicians, polling, scandals, and other things that the political threads have?

Essentially it might be pretty boring but the goal would be only to discuss the policy rather than the play by play of government.

It would be hard to do without at least naming the party. Like for links to specifics of the legislation, but yeah, remove the noise of everything else and just discuss the policy as written would be nice.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by belsarius

It would be hard to do without at least naming the party. Like for links to specifics of the legislation, but yeah, remove the noise of everything else and just discuss the policy as written would be nice.

This policy was presented by a party that rhymes with NDC.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by GGG

Is there interest in a policy only thread to discuss proposed legislation without using names of parties politicians, polling, scandals, and other things that the political threads have?

Essentially it might be pretty boring but the goal would be only to discuss the policy rather than the play by play of government.

In theory this seems like a great idea, but I'm not sure where the limitations are when discussing policy that's socially/ideologically driven.

The line will be crossed frequently I would guess. Would be an interesting experiment though.