April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by SebC

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...ry-radicalism/

We'll let history be the judge, not Coyne's opinion of what will happen. Keep in mind that Harper is representing all regions of Canada (except Newfoundland I guess) and can't bring in a budget that would make his Alberta base entirely happy. There is also an Ontario base now that has a say in policy. Compared to the other parties I am confident that they are by far the most Conservative option, best for the economy and will keep spending at reasonable levels. Can't imagine if the NDP had won.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Just got back from voting. The lines weren't nearly as bad as I feared. I was in and out in about three minutes.

Same here. The process really took about 5 minutes for me, and that was because I got unlucky and 3 other people were at the same table because of similar last names. This is during the after-work rush too!

Go vote!

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by J pold

Is anyone else having trouble with the "Where to vote?" page on elections Alberta? It doesn't seem to recognize my address.

I tried to search the site earlier to help a lady find her polling station using my phone, it wouldn't give me an answer either. I just assumed it was a problem with the mobile browser.

[IntenseFan]

Pursuant to the Alberta Election Act, judicial recounts are in the following cases:

1. Tie of two or more candidates (automatically initiated pursuant to section 138 of the Act);

2. Pursuant to the enumerated items in section 144 (initiated on an application to the Court of Queen's Bench by a candidate), which are:

a. Votes were not correctly accepted or rejected; or

b. that a Certificate of Return (which sets out the final official results prepared by the returning officer) does not accurately record the number of votes for a candidate.

EDIT: From my browsing of the Elections Alberta website, seems like the onus is on the candidate to apply under section 144 even where there is a near tie (i.e. one or two votes), claiming that the official results on the Certificate of Return are incorrect. If memory serves, this is different from Federal law, which mandates judicial recounts in the event of a tie, or a very, very close discrepancy.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Is anyone actually voting in the joke senator election thing?

[IntenseFan]

^ I declined the ballot.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Is anyone actually voting in the joke senator election thing?

Nope.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Is anyone actually voting in the joke senator election thing?

I did, though yeah, it is a bit of a joke. It would have helped if we had a vacancy AND Harper promised to honour the vote. That might have put some impetus toward getting people interested in it.

[kn]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Is anyone actually voting in the joke senator election thing?

Yes. I don't think it's a joke and spent the time going through the 13 websites along with listening to a few on QR77 to make a decision.

And no, I just didn't pick all the Wildrose candidates...

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Is anyone actually voting in the joke senator election thing?

Not me.

Until the constitution is amended to have legitimately-elected senators, this is just a stupid exercise. Does anyone really think the PM of the day is going to fill a vacant Alberta senate seat with an "elected" candidate with a conflicting political ideology?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Yeah the Senate elections have been a big time bust. Seen a few signs here or there, but whats the point if its a non-binding vote?

[Yeah_Baby]

I should have written in Clay Davis or Palpatine.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by kn

Yes. I don't think it's a joke and spent the time going through the 13 websites along with listening to a few on QR77 to make a decision.

That was actually very handy, Rutherford interviewed them all (even the Greenie) and they got their chance to plead their case. Even if the senate elections aren't perfect they are one of the steps toward legitimacy.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Sheeiiit, everyone knows they can trust Clay....to pocket the bribes.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I did, though yeah, it is a bit of a joke. It would have helped if we had a vacancy AND Harper promised to honour the vote. That might have put some impetus toward getting people interested in it.

Three previously elected senators have been put in the senate.

Waters, Brown and Unger.


Anyhooo gotta run doing scrutineering tonight. Hopefully count goes smoothly and I get out in time to watch some of the excitement.

[IntenseFan]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Not me.

Until the constitution is amended to have legitimately-elected senators, this is just a stupid exercise. Does anyone really think the PM of the day is going to fill a vacant Alberta senate seat with an "elected" candidate with a conflicting political ideology?

But we don't need the Consitution to be amended. All we need is for the Federal party in power to state that the PM will "consider" the advice of the people of the nominating province when exercising his appointing power (i.e. he will respect their choices). The Supreme Court of Canada has stated this would be ok for the PM to do, so long as he doesn't completely abdicate that power.

One of my big disappointments in the Harper Government is that this has been inconsistent and indeed only the minority of appointments from Alberta. This has also led to voter and indeed candidate apathy (with no Federal party even putting a person up).

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I did, though yeah, it is a bit of a joke. It would have helped if we had a vacancy AND Harper promised to honour the vote. That might have put some impetus toward getting people interested in it.

Harper has already selected an elected Senator from Alberta like he promised, so why wouldn't he do that again? If we waited for a vacancy the seat could remain open for up to 4 years, doesn't make sense.

[IntenseFan]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Three previously elected senators have been put in the senate.

Waters, Brown and Unger.

Haper gets credit for the second and third. Mulroney of all people appointed Alberta (and Canada's) first elected senator, Stan Waters (who was a Reform Party candidate). Sad when Mulroney was almost as big of a senate reformer than the supposed champion of Senate Reform Prime Minister Harper.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Fire

Harper has already selected an elected Senator from Alberta like he promised, so why wouldn't he do that again? If we waited for a vacancy the seat could remain open for up to 4 years, doesn't make sense.

It wasn't a complaint about Harper. From a timing perspective, we need the election to actually directly matter today for it to become serious again.

[IntenseFan]

Originally Posted by Fire

Harper has already selected an elected Senator from Alberta like he promised, so why wouldn't he do that again? If we waited for a vacancy the seat could remain open for up to 4 years, doesn't make sense.

He passed on some other senators in waiting during some other rounds of appointments for Alberta though.

And his own party didn't even put forth a candidate in this one. Seems to me that this is an implicit rejection of this particular senate election (although I could be wrong).