Calgary Civic Election Poll #3: The race heats up

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Its tough because you're both correct. No, not all young people are apathetic in voting, but results do show they are indeed a whole lot less inclined to vote than the old fogies.

Which is why the elderly get things like $35 for a transit pass, FOR THE WHOLE YEAR. Its not a low income benefit, its a benefit for managing to not die for 65 years in a row. (Low income seniors get it for $15/year)

By comparison, my adult transit pass is 85.25/month, for a total of $1023 per year.

The seniors pass is 96.5% off the regular rate.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Like the wealthy don't have enough control over government already.

I'm not saying we should do that, it was directly to the post above where myk said young people shouldn't get heard anyway because they contribute less.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Its tough because you're both correct. No, not all young people are apathetic in voting, but results do show they are indeed a whole lot less inclined to vote than the old fogies.

Not only that but young people are also very moble in terms of what city they live in. If you're a married 40 something with kids, you're more likely to stay in Calgary over the long term and be a repeat voter than a single 20-something, an example of which is Muta's pledge to move away should McIver get elected. Therefore if you're a mayoral candidate not named McIver and you want his vote in 2013 you better get elected now in 2010!

[Slava]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Maybe we should allocate votes by the amount of property taxes a person pays. I'd actually be fine with that, since I pay well over the average in taxes. If we're going to do that, then the seniors who get rebates on a portion of their property taxes shouldn't get the extra votes, as they're not paying their full share compared to us young whippersnappers.

Michael

That would be a great way to have the rich landowners making the decisions for themselves.

As a candidate let me say that I would love it if the youth were more involved. It just doesn't make sense for me to spend a lot of time talking to young voters though when we know that only a small percentage actually bother to vote. Sad truth, but as a candidate your time and resources are limited. You have to apportion these to areas that you think will get you elected!

[kermitology]

FYI votecalgary.ca has a poll up on their website asking who would you vote for mayor. If you're not a Higgins or McIver supporter, I suggest voting to put some pressure on those two.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Slava

That would be a great way to have the rich landowners making the decisions for themselves.

As a candidate let me say that I would love it if the youth were more involved. It just doesn't make sense for me to spend a lot of time talking to young voters though when we know that only a small percentage actually bother to vote. Sad truth, but as a candidate your time and resources are limited. You have to apportion these to areas that you think will get you elected!

Easy for you to say considering that the position you're running for splices the demographic even further by requiring said youths to not only be interested in voting, but also be concerned about primary education, and also not be catholic.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Not only that but young people are also very moble in terms of what city they live in. If you're a married 40 something with kids, you're more likely to stay in Calgary over the long term and be a repeat voter than a single 20-something, an example of which is Muta's pledge to move away should McIver get elected. Therefore if you're a mayoral candidate not named McIver and you want his vote in 2013 you better get elected now in 2010!

That's right I did pledge that, and will seriously consider doing it. I can't stand short-term, non-visionary thinkers like McIver.

[MarchHare]

As a candidate let me say that I would love it if the youth were more involved. It just doesn't make sense for me to spend a lot of time talking to young voters though when we know that only a small percentage actually bother to vote. Sad truth, but as a candidate your time and resources are limited. You have to apportion these to areas that you think will get you elected!

Yeah, that's what I was saying earlier in this thread. Candidates (very logically) allocate their resources to areas where they'll most help their campaigns, so we see a greater emphasis given to issues relevant to middle-age and seniors over younger citizens since the former demographics are more likely to show up at the voting booth. So is it any wonder that many young people feel politically disengaged when very few candidates bother to address issues that are important to them? It's a self-perpetuating cycle.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Muta

That's right I did pledge that, and will seriously consider doing it. I can't stand short-term, non-visionary thinkers like McIver.

At least he has enough vision to realize Race City prevents people from street racing.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

At least he has enough vision to realize Race City prevents people from street racing.

Great.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Muta

Great.

I think its comical you'll move away if McIver wins. I look forward to your waffling on election night.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I think its comical you'll move away if McIver wins. I look forward to your waffling on election night.

What do you mean 'waffling'? I never said I'd do it, I said I'd consider it.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by fotze

That is kind of goofy.

A more fair approach would be to use a formula based 25% on your ability to pay and 75% on what you cost the city.

I am sorry someone who has 3 generations living in their home with 6 vehicles and 24 bags of garbage per week should cost way more than a single person who walks everywhere.

They use a ######ed formula to come up with the value of your house so why not one to estimate your cost to the city. Some sort of formula based upon the following:
1. Distance to your employer to reflect the amount of roads and snow removal and transit you use, how many overpasses are needed to have a decent commute, etc.
2. How many vehicles registered at your home to reflect the same things.
3. How many humans reside in your home (from your census) to reflect the amount of services/roads/police/fire you use, water and waste services.
4. How much water you use? (which I know is reflected in your water bill, but not enough).
5. How much garbage you put out per year.
6. How many pets do you have registered.

You would weight each thing according to their weight in the overall city budget.

I know that will never happen and people will whine about trying to maintain the data for that formula, but it would be nice to have people's cost representeded in their bill.

There are good points here but some of those things are irrelivant.
-Pets are paid for through registration, additional property taxes shouldnt be required because they really dont cost the city anything.
- Number of cars shouldnt matter since you can only drive one at a time.

It should be a sliding scale based on your income(s), number and age of occupants, size of lot and home, and age of your community, and number of nearby services (fire, police ect). Newer communities should pay more to cover the cost of infrastructure. But if some services arent available, they should be credited for that.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

It's a bit of a catch-22. There's no denying that younger people vote in proportionally lower numbers than older citizens, but why is that? Is it because young people are more interested in alcohol, drugs, rock music, video games, etc. than civic engagement? Or is it because most political candidates don't speak to issues important to their demographic because they're too busy trying to win support from the statistically-more-likely-to-vote older citizens?

Honestly, as one of these "younger people" [18], I have to say that the former is correct. Almost nobody in my high school cared much about any election, even federal. There was much more talk about the latest gadget. (In my years at the U of C though, it seems that attitude is less frequent)

[Muta]

Originally Posted by fotze

Ok Naheed Waffli.

Great contribution, chief!

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by fotze

There is dog park maintenance, poo pick up, but ya if the licensing covers that entire cost then that would be eliminated.

I think dog parks should have a user fee. We have a dog, but dont use the dog parks. The green space in our community is paid for through our community fees.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Easy for you to say considering that the position you're running for splices the demographic even further by requiring said youths to not only be interested in voting, but also be concerned about primary education, and also not be catholic.

That is true, but even on a larger scale the campaigns have to be focused on areas where the turnout is greatest.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by kirant

Honestly, as one of these "younger people" [18], I have to say that the former is correct. Almost nobody in my high school cared much about any election, even federal. There was much more talk about the latest gadget. (In my years at the U of C though, it seems that attitude is less frequent)

How many years have you had at U of C as an 18 year old?

[4X4]

Originally Posted by fotze

I wish everything was user fee.

Yah. Why should I pay for playgrounds? I don't have kids. Make those little monsters pay admission for the monkey bars if I have to pay to go to the dog park.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by fotze

I wish everything was user fee.

It will never happen in Calgary, but I wish there was a toll equal to the cost of a transit fare to bring a vehicle into the downtown core.