April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[Slava]

Originally Posted by kn

I'll be voting tomorrow. I think it's a convenient alternative now that you don't have to have an excuse.

I think they should just have the full polls open for a few days to let more people vote.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think they should just have the full polls open for a few days to let more people vote.

Might be a problem with that logistically speaking perhaps. I know when I voted on Thursday I had to cast my ballot in a much smaller room than where they normally hold the polling station (a gymnasium). There were only 4 voting booths set up for all the different areas.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Might be a problem with that logistically speaking perhaps. I know when I voted on Thursday I had to cast my ballot in a much smaller room than where they normally hold the polling station (a gymnasium). There were only 4 voting booths set up for all the different areas.

I understand that, and I have almost always voted in the advance poll for one reason or another. Thing is this isn't 1912 where these issues should be a major concern. We should be able to organize balloting to run from say Monday to Friday and announce results on Saturday.

I know that means a week of voting, and yes it might cost more, but this is the very foundation of our society. We should be willing to pay for that. Then the major issue is the irritation and annoyance of the political parties bothering us for a week to go vote...but if we get a turnout of say 75-80% that is totally worth it.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I can't remember who said it, and I'm too lazy to get back through the thread to find out, but whoever predicted the Wildrose would peak too soon was correct. I'd say the TV debate was the peak, and everything since has been sliding downhill. Now I can realistically see the PCs squeeking out a bare minority. Still might be difficult, but much more possible than a weke ago.

The comments about Danielle not condeming Leech or Hunsperger and how it invites that type of behavior is 100% correct. As a leader she has to set the example and she chose to essentially do nothing. If you steal $100 from the till at work and your boss sees you and does nothing, is it just gonna stop at the $100? Danielle is a great politician, I don't think anyone is denying that. But leaders lead by example, and her example was weak.

At this point barring any unforseen ridiculousness this weekend, I'll give the Wildrose the barest of minorties, winning 39 seats to the PCs 38. And I pray nobody in the PCs is souless enough to immediately cross the floor.

Edit: And Danielle's scripted, 2 days later defense doesn't help matters either

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Slava

I understand that, and I have almost always voted in the advance poll for one reason or another. Thing is this isn't 1912 where these issues should be a major concern. We should be able to organize balloting to run from say Monday to Friday and announce results on Saturday.

I know that means a week of voting, and yes it might cost more, but this is the very foundation of our society. We should be willing to pay for that. Then the major issue is the irritation and annoyance of the political parties bothering us for a week to go vote...but if we get a turnout of say 75-80% that is totally worth it.

The problem of low voter turn out isn't because people just don't have time to do it. Its appathy, particularly in the younger generation. Having the polls stay open longer won't change that.

With your suggestion, we would get the same or similar turn out... it would just cost more.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I can't remember who said it, and I'm too lazy to get back through the thread to find out, but whoever predicted the Wildrose would peak too soon was correct. I'd say the TV debate was the peak, and everything since has been sliding downhill. Now I can realistically see the PCs squeeking out a bare minority. Still might be difficult, but much more possible than a weke ago.

The comments about Danielle not condeming Leech or Hunsperger and how it invites that type of behavior is 100% correct. As a leader she has to set the example and she chose to essentially do nothing. If you steal $100 from the till at work and your boss sees you and does nothing, is it just gonna stop at the $100? Danielle is a great politician, I don't think anyone is denying that. But leaders lead by example, and her example was weak.

At this point barring any unforseen ridiculousness this weekend, I'll give the Wildrose the barest of minorties, winning 39 seats to the PCs 38. And I pray nobody in the PCs is souless enough to immediately cross the floor.

Not a Wildrose fan eh?

You could be right but perhaps your opinion/guesstimate might be skewed by a little wishful thinking? These bumps in the road are all recent events and many people don't follow current events on a daily basis.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I would actually feel the same if Wildrose members crossed to the PCs. Its a gutless move for political benefit. You were elected by the people of your riding as a member of one party, and amazingly not everyone voted for that specific member themselves but rather the party, which I think will be especially true in this election with strategic voting. If they switch is should result in an automatic recall and by-election.

And where the comments and poor response hurt her most is in this city, which a week ago was a Wildrose runaway and now could be closer to an even split. The rural areas are going Wildrose regardless, so those comments had minimal effect there.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Rerun

The problem of low voter turn out isn't because people just don't have time to do it. Its appathy, particularly in the younger generation. Having the polls stay open longer won't change that.

With your suggestion, we would get the same or similar turn out... it would just cost more.

There are a lot of reasons why people don't vote, but making it easier and more accessible for everyone would be a step in the right direction. Of course it would cost more, but like I said that is a price we should be willing to pay.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Slava

There are a lot of reasons why people don't vote, but making it easier and more accessible for everyone would be a step in the right direction. Of course it would cost more, but like I said that is a price we should be willing to pay.

We shall agree to disagree. I feel the main impediment to a higher turn out is voter appathy and the number of polling days is a very minor concern if a problem at all. You feel that there would be a significant return in number of ballots cast if we could vote 5 days a week instead of the current 4.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Rerun

We shall agree to disagree. I feel the main impediment to a higher turn out is voter appathy and the number of polling days is a very minor concern if a problem at all. You feel that there would be a significant return in number of ballots cast if we could vote 5 days a week instead of the current 4.

I think this is the first time where its been publicized you can actually vote 4, or at least the most publicized I can think of. I hear the advance polls are really busy, and I expect Monday will be as well, so that's good news for both of us. I think four days is fine and just threw out Monday-Friday to make it easy to remember.

In the past with one day though you get people not voting because things happen; weather is terrible, they get sick, or they're just plain too busy with normal life. I'm not saying these are legitimate reasons, but we know they happen, and expanded days means some of these will not.

[Jacks]

Calgary Herald Editorial Board offers split endorsement.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...981/story.html

First time I can remember this happening.

[Senator Clay Davis]

A split endorsement seems kinda lame, but it does speak to the fact that neither of these parties has really distiguished themselves as being worthy of an extended run. They both have questions that need to be answered, and giving either unchecked power seems like a dangerous proposition. A minority would really be in the best interest of the province.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

but it does speak to the fact that neither of these parties has really distiguished themselves as being worthy of an extended run.

Read the article, they have plenty of good things to say about both parties.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Calgary Herald Editorial Board offers split endorsement.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...981/story.html

First time I can remember this happening.

Interesting read. This bit from the WRP endorsement left me scratching my head though:

In addition, one-fifth of any surplus — after all social programs are funded — will be returned to Albertans in the form of an energy dividend, now dubbed “Dani Dollars.”

While controversial, this payment is positive for several reasons. It benefits the poor most of all and leaves less money for the government to waste.



Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Ed...#ixzz1sgnv2YuF

Say what?

[Senator Clay Davis]

leaves less money for the government to waste.

Say what?

[transplant99]

Abacus poll, April 18-19
Overall support:
Wildrose: 41%
PC: 31%
NDP: 13%
Liberal: 12%

Calgary:
Wildrose: 44%
PC: 29%
NDP: 12%
Liberal: 13%

Edmonton:
Wildrose: 29%
PC: 36%
NDP: 16%
Liberal: 17%

Outside both cities:
Wildrose: 52%
PC: 28%
NDP: 11%
Liberals: 6%

[Jacks]

It benefits the poor most of all

Originally Posted by Makarov

Say what?

I think the concept is that (after social programs are funded) surplus cash will help out someone is low income more than someone who is high income. Makes sense and 90% of the people I've heard from like the idea. I still don't like the idea but $300 isn't going to have a meaningful impact on my life. For a family of 4 it is a mortgage payment.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Say what?

Waste money on things that help the poor! What a system...

As for how the plan benefits the poor I think that their logic is that $300 or whatever it would be, makes up a larger percentage of income and would thus have more of a positive effect on the poorest individuals.

That being said I would say reinvesting all of the Dividend thing into programs that assist the poor or prevent someone from becoming poor in the first place (education funding?) would go a lot farther... But this debate has been beaten to death, revived and then kicked a few more times.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Calgary Herald Editorial Board offers split endorsement.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...981/story.html

First time I can remember this happening.

That's a good reflection of how people are feeling as a whole. The review of Redford is pretty compelling and gives some good insight for what to vote for as opposed to the shorter-term reactionary Wildrose. I do wish more of this campaign focused on the big picture and long-range plans for the province though; its a great disappointment to me that we've been bogged down talking about minuscule tax credits and conscience rights when bigger issues lurk in the background.

[Senator Clay Davis]

What benefits the poor, and all Albertans period, is putting that money in the Heritage Fund, which I think a lot of us want to see rather than a dividend, because putting that money in the Heritage Fund will be worth way more in the future.