April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by zuluking

It shouldn't be, as the MLA is supposed to be representing the will of his/her local constituents, not their own personal perspective. In this case, more free votes should translate to a better representation of all Alberta constituents rather than whipped votes.

However, the key word is "shouldn't".

Supposed to be yes, in practice. No.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Personal stance matters if there are more free votes in the legislature. If WRA want to allow this, personal stance is more important to be aware of as a constituent.

Free votes in Leg means voting constituent views, not personal views.

[First Lady]

Just added the Edmonton Journal Platform Tracker on first post.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Free votes in Leg means voting constituent views, not personal views.

Yeah, sure it does.

[dhc-2]

Originally Posted by Hatter

I've always voted PC in the past, but the .05 law broke the trend for me. I'd support a complete change to make .05 the legal limit if science supported that the benefits would outweigh the increased cost and burden on the justice system, but allowing police officers to perform the role of judge and jury without due process. I believe that infringes on our charter rights and cannot be accepted. Hopefully the WRA would repeal said law.

Does this increased cost outweigh the cost of drunk drivers getting into accidents and damaging property, maiming people and causing needless deaths? Our insurance rates go up, emergency services are tied up, hospitals, rehab clinics, etc. etc. There are plenty of increased costs because of impaired drivers as well.

Obviously until a study is done we do not know which cost is higher. Even if it ends up costing the justice system more to have this law in place, I will support it because it will decrease the number of drunks behind the wheel. There is no excuse for that idiocy.

I wouldn't go so far as to say our charter rights are being infringed. We know the law, that blowing .05 can get our licenses suspended or our vehicles impounded. I don't know about you but that hasn't changed my life one bit. I can with confidence say that I will never run afoul of this law. It's not rocket science, really. Would there be a better way to word this law, or a better way of going about implementing it? Probably, but in its current state it's good enough. Certainly, if I had voted PC in the past, this would not change my mind. Frankly the legal limit should be 0.00.

Also a quick comment on the 'judge/jury' remark - they already do that when they give out speeding tickets for instance, nobody seems to think that's violating our rights. What's the difference in this case? Again the simple solution here is don't speed.

As far as 'innocent' people being screwed by this law - yes, I'm sure the breathalyzer could be faulty. But really what are the chances - first of all you'd have to be doing something pretty fishy to get pulled over on the suspicion of impaired driving in the first place. Then the breathalyzer would have to be faulty, and then, if you really hadn't been drinking, I'm sure you could offer to take a blood test, take a field sobriety test, call your lawyer, whatever. Personally, I do not drink and drive and this law will not change my life one bit. What it will do is get more impaired drivers off the road. I'm all for that.

[corporatejay]

Ms. Smith, I really want to vote for your party, but you aren't winning me over with these types of statements:

“I think Ms. Redford doesn’t like Alberta all that much,” said Smith. “She doesn’t like who were are. She doesn’t like our character. She wants to change it. I think that’s going to be the ballot question. I think that’s the question what people are going to have to ask in the next election. Do we need to be changd. Do we need Ms. Redford to change us? Do we have anything to be embarrassed about. I think the answer is a resounding ‘no.

C'mon, of course Redford loves Alberta, that's typical Republican B.S. about not loving 'Merica. Cut it out.

http://blogs.calgaryherald.com/2012/...anielle-smith/

[Yeah_Baby]

Redford now has my vote. I don't like Alberta very much some days either. And frankly it needs to get changed.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by dhc-2

Does this increased cost outweigh the cost of drunk drivers getting into accidents and damaging property, maiming people and causing needless deaths?

The point is that the people who cause accidents between 0.05 & 0.08 are a tiny portion.

Originally Posted by dhc-2

I wouldn't go so far as to say our charter rights are being infringed.

You don't think that you should have the right to defend yourself in court?

Originally Posted by dhc-2

Also a quick comment on the 'judge/jury' remark - they already do that when they give out speeding tickets for instance, nobody seems to think that's violating our rights. What's the difference in this case?

If you get a speeding ticket they don't take your car away and you can defend yourself in court.

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Thanks for the feedback. I think the party recognizes we can't be everything to everyone.

In any election you will never find a party/candidate that matches everything you believe in. The best you can hope for it one that is as close as possible and one you have confidence in.

I agree - I'll be going through the other party platforms as well and I'm sure all of them will have some things I agree with and some I don't. My vote will be based on which party's platform is the most closely aligned with my views, with consideration for the candidate and track record as well. I won't rule out voting Wildrose (or any other party) at this early stage.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Ms. Smith, I really want to vote for your party, but you aren't winning me over with these types of statements:

C'mon, of course Redford loves Alberta, that's typical Republican B.S. about not loving 'Merica. Cut it out.

http://blogs.calgaryherald.com/2012/...anielle-smith/

That was in response to Redford yesterday saying to Calgary Chamber of Commerce that Alberta needed to change it's character.

What of our character needs changing? I would like to hear Redfords explanation of the statement.

[Hatter]

Originally Posted by dhc-2

Does this increased cost outweigh the cost of drunk drivers getting into accidents and damaging property, maiming people and causing needless deaths? Our insurance rates go up, emergency services are tied up, hospitals, rehab clinics, etc. etc. There are plenty of increased costs because of impaired drivers as well.

Obviously until a study is done we do not know which cost is higher. Even if it ends up costing the justice system more to have this law in place, I will support it because it will decrease the number of drunks behind the wheel. There is no excuse for that idiocy.

I wouldn't go so far as to say our charter rights are being infringed. We know the law, that blowing .05 can get our licenses suspended or our vehicles impounded. I don't know about you but that hasn't changed my life one bit. I can with confidence say that I will never run afoul of this law. It's not rocket science, really. Would there be a better way to word this law, or a better way of going about implementing it? Probably, but in its current state it's good enough. Certainly, if I had voted PC in the past, this would not change my mind. Frankly the legal limit should be 0.00.

Also a quick comment on the 'judge/jury' remark - they already do that when they give out speeding tickets for instance, nobody seems to think that's violating our rights. What's the difference in this case? Again the simple solution here is don't speed.

As far as 'innocent' people being screwed by this law - yes, I'm sure the breathalyzer could be faulty. But really what are the chances - first of all you'd have to be doing something pretty fishy to get pulled over on the suspicion of impaired driving in the first place. Then the breathalyzer would have to be faulty, and then, if you really hadn't been drinking, I'm sure you could offer to take a blood test, take a field sobriety test, call your lawyer, whatever. Personally, I do not drink and drive and this law will not change my life one bit. What it will do is get more impaired drivers off the road. I'm all for that.

My cost benefit response had to do with the statistics (found in the thread on this topic) that show the segment targetted by this legislation is the lowest cause of death and injury by a gigantic margin.

Your speeding ticket comparison is not valid, as one has the opportunity to challenge the offense in a court of law. In the case of this new law, the state is able to put punitive measures on an individual (in the form of suspension and impound fees) without one being able to defend themselves in a court of law, as is our right.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Ms. Smith, I really want to vote for your party, but you aren't winning me over with these types of statements:

C'mon, of course Redford loves Alberta, that's typical Republican B.S. about not loving 'Merica. Cut it out.

http://blogs.calgaryherald.com/2012/...anielle-smith/

When you get down to it, both are promoting a change to 'Alberta'.

Smith claims she wants to change how government works. Redford seems intent on changing how people behave.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Ms. Smith, I really want to vote for your party, but you aren't winning me over with these types of statements:

C'mon, of course Redford loves Alberta, that's typical Republican B.S. about not loving 'Merica. Cut it out.

http://blogs.calgaryherald.com/2012/...anielle-smith/

I hate this kind of thing. I love the eelctions, but that kind of tripe makes me just wish for a quick ending.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by dhc-2

Does this increased cost outweigh the cost of drunk drivers getting into accidents and damaging property, maiming people and causing needless deaths? Our insurance rates go up, emergency services are tied up, hospitals, rehab clinics, etc. etc. There are plenty of increased costs because of impaired drivers as well.

Obviously until a study is done we do not know which cost is higher. Even if it ends up costing the justice system more to have this law in place, I will support it because it will decrease the number of drunks behind the wheel. There is no excuse for that idiocy.

There are 10 times more traffic fatalities in Alberta each year where the drivers had no alcohol in their system than ones where the drivers had "some" alcohol but not enough to fall into the impaired category (greater than 0.0 BAC, but less than 0.08 BAC).

I'm all for increasing penalties for dangerous impaired drivers, especially repeat offenders, and giving the police the resources to catch them, but tying up their resources by going after people who are not legally impaired is not the way to do it.

Originally Posted by dhc-2

I wouldn't go so far as to say our charter rights are being infringed. We know the law, that blowing .05 can get our licenses suspended or our vehicles impounded. I don't know about you but that hasn't changed my life one bit. I can with confidence say that I will never run afoul of this law. It's not rocket science, really. Would there be a better way to word this law, or a better way of going about implementing it? Probably, but in its current state it's good enough. Certainly, if I had voted PC in the past, this would not change my mind. Frankly the legal limit should be 0.00.

You're the type of person who should be most worried about this law. Someone who has had a couple of drinks who blows 0.07 will probably let out a huge sigh of relief and be thankful that he wasn't a little bit higher, and while the 72 hour suspension and impound fee will suck, he'll know he was very close to things being a lot worse.

However, let's say you were driving home from a party where you had nothing to drink and were the designated driver and got pulled into a Checkstop, or pulled over by a cop who saw you leaving a parking lot next to a bar late on a Saturday night. Since you were driving some drinkers home, the cop smelled alcohol in the vehicle and decided to give you a roadside breath test, then you blow 0.05 on because the device is faulty. You'd lose your licence for 3 days and have your car impounded and there would be nothing you could do about it because that's the law.

Originally Posted by dhc-2

Also a quick comment on the 'judge/jury' remark - they already do that when they give out speeding tickets for instance, nobody seems to think that's violating our rights. What's the difference in this case? Again the simple solution here is don't speed.

You can go to court to plead not guilty to a speeding ticket and make your case to the judge. Hell, you can go to court to plead not guilty to Impaired driving with a BAC over 0.08 and make your case in front of a judge.

Originally Posted by dhc-2

As far as 'innocent' people being screwed by this law - yes, I'm sure the breathalyzer could be faulty. But really what are the chances - first of all you'd have to be doing something pretty fishy to get pulled over on the suspicion of impaired driving in the first place. Then the breathalyzer would have to be faulty, and then, if you really hadn't been drinking, I'm sure you could offer to take a blood test, take a field sobriety test, call your lawyer, whatever.

You don't have to do anything more suspicious than driving through a Checkstop. As I understand it, under the change to the law, the Police can impound your car and suspend your licence for 72 hours just for blowing between 0.05 and 0.08, and you don't really have any recourse because it's done on the spot.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Slava

You won't get disagreement from me on that point either. That argument falls apart for the Wildrose though when we have no idea what they would actually spend on anything; that is why a budget document is so necessary.

Before anyone tells me how impossible is, I would note that the Liberals managed to provide this before the election and I fully expect that the NDP will as well. Putting ideology and whether you agree with those budgets the reality is that if they can put this together then we should expect the same from a party that is planning on winning government.

The argument wasn't meant to defend the WRA, but just to make the general point.

[First Lady]

New commercial just released to go along with our first pledge to Albertans. Will start airing today.

http://www.wildrose.ca/balanced-budget-ad/

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Slava

The issue with gay marriage though isn't only that issue. There seems to be a disconnect with how these issues are appraoched by the Wildrose. They're more than happy to point to someone like Redford and say that she is an NDP or the line "REDford" that we've seen in this thread. Then when you point to someone like Link Byfield and his thought that the church should be in charge and tell us who is allowed to be married, the position changes to "letting their MLAs have their own thoughts".

Pretty clearly there is a disconnect there. The Wildrose would rather talk about the personal beliefs of a few on one hand and ignore those same thoughts for their own.

Completely disagree. Redford is making policy decisions geared toward her personal beliefs whereas Byfield writes opinion columns. No disconnect at all. The WRA should absolutely talk about it when policy is being affected by Redford's social engineering bend versus wasting breath over the latest Link diatribe.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Yeah, sure it does.

It may not always happen but it really should. MLA's are elected to represent their constituency . I have spoken with more than one candidate about this and grilled one quite a bit during his application process. He is a religious person and I was concerned that he would let his personal views get in the way of what is best. He has assured us that he will represent the constituency ahead of his church or personal beliefs.

This is also part of why a recall process is so important for candidates. If a candidate is elected on promises and then takes an about face the voters should have the ability to demand a recall.

It may not be perfect but I think it will work. I think that free votes would be more relevant for things that the party supports that would be bad/negative for the riding. As an example, I believe the federal NDP allowed free votes on the gun registry because some rural areas were strongly in favour while some urban ridings were opposed.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by First Lady

That was in response to Redford yesterday saying to Calgary Chamber of Commerce that Alberta needed to change it's character.

She should lay off that stuff, when I heard it on the radio this morning I thought it was pretty nasty. Doesn't matter if that was only a small portion of a larger quote, the media will only report the sound bite.

There is plenty to attack the PC Party about, no need to start character assassinations.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by First Lady

New commercial just released to go along with our first pledge to Albertans. Will start airing today.

http://www.wildrose.ca/balanced-budget-ad/

Good job getting Tom Flanagan on board, I always liked him.