Klein's old riding may go Liberal?!?

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I wonder what it'd be like if there were two rounds of voting... We could have all the candidates in the first round, then just the top two in the second round. Maybe people wouldn't be so apprehensive about voting for who they really want to win?
I need to think about this more, but it's just an idea.

I've wanted to see a system set up along that line for years. This first past the post system we have in Canada in which candidates and entire governments get elected with only 35 or 40 per cent of the popular vote is seriously messed up IMO. The down side of course is the expense of staging two votes, and keeping voters interested enough to come out and vote. As far as voter interest goes, I can see a two vote, runoff system actually engaging voters and resulting in higher voter turnout. More people might turn out on the second ballot to vote against a really undesirable outcome since their vote won't be watered down by third and fourth parties drawing off votes.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Incinerator

Here's your Tories alternative:

http://www.albertaalliance.ca/index.htm

Problem is most of their candidates are 22 year old Plumbers. Not that I have anything against 22 year old plumbers but I don't think they have what it takes to run the province.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

I've wanted to see a system set up along that line for years. This first past the post system we have in Canada in which candidates and entire governments get elected with only 35 or 40 per cent of the popular vote is seriously messed up IMO. The down side of course is the expense of staging two votes, and keeping voters interested enough to come out and vote. As far as voter interest goes, I can see a two vote, runoff system actually engaging voters and resulting in higher voter turnout. More people might turn out on the second ballot to vote against a really undesirable outcome since their vote won't be watered down by third and fourth parties drawing off votes.

The expense is worth it...it is one of the fundamental ideas in our society, so if it costs us an extra million to make things better its a steal of a deal.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

If the AA can control their "gays and abortionists" rhetoric, they'll have my protest vote. I don't think the Alberta Liberals could run the PTA at an elementary school.

[Resolute 14]

And that is the problem.

Taft is good at whining, but hasnt shown me anything else.

There are only two possible reasons why I would vote NDP: Either you put $1 million cash in my hands as I walk into the voting booth, or you put a gun to my head as I walk into the voting booth.

Then you have Stelmach, and the anti-Calgary PCs.

Its almost AA by default, as they are too young to have really screwed up.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

Its almost AA by default, as they are too young to have really screwed up.

Maybe that's just the kind of change that'd prompt some accountability. Instead of the same old politicians that have already learned how to lie and steal, get some young people in there to actually act based on their freshly formed ideologies.
What's the worst that happens? Hell, the way Klein ran the show in his last two terms, it was his way or the highway. Isn't that basically a dictatorship?
We hated Cretien doing it in Ottawa, but we allow the provincial PC to do it year after year.

[Bobblehead]

I would kind of like to see a set of documented policies before I gave support to a party. To vote for them otherwise would be like seeing a car ad in teh classifieds and purchasing it sight unseen.

[FireFly]

Well I voted AA in the last election because I didn't like my Conservative candidate, who won anyways. I'd like to point out that Alberta is actually due for their ~30 year changing of the guard... I can see tradition holding true again. Conservatives go too Liberal and a new, more conservative party takes hold again.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Well I voted AA in the last election because I didn't like my Conservative candidate, who won anyways. I'd like to point out that Alberta is actually due for their ~30 year changing of the guard... I can see tradition holding true again. Conservatives go too Liberal and a new, more conservative party takes hold again.

How exactly are they doing this?

I think they have become an "old boys club" and there is some questionable awarding of contracts, but I'm not sure what Liberal policies to which you are referring.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

How exactly are they doing this?

I think they have become an "old boys club" and there is some questionable awarding of contracts, but I'm not sure what Liberal policies to which you are referring.

More to the lack of vision and the willingness to just throw money at an issue instead of solving the problem than to actual policies.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by FireFly

More to the lack of vision and the willingness to just throw money at an issue instead of solving the problem than to actual policies.

Spoken like a true conservative.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by FireFly

More to the lack of vision and the willingness to just throw money at an issue instead of solving the problem than to actual policies.

I agree with most of that.

But I do think that for a long time the focus was to pay off the debt. In doing that, many required maintenance projects were differed. Some things can be delayed, but they cannot be avoided forever. Were there 2 or 3 schools in that had to shut down for varying lengths last year because maintenance on the roofs was postponed and now they were in danger of collapsing? It probably ended up costing more to repair this than it would have to maintain it.

It just reminds me of the old Fram Oil Filter commercials - "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later." It is now later.

I agree that they shouldn't just throw money at the issue. But they do need to create a plan so that these issue can all get addressed in a timely manner (without any pork barreling). I haven't seen anything like a plan.

We need an election so someone can get a mandate and create a multi year plan to address these things.

[FireFly]

That's exactly the point. The conservatives were conservative for a long time. Now that the debt is paid they seem to be floating... they don't have any direction, they don't have a plan, and they're throwing money out there with no thought to how it really needs to be spent, just because they have the money to throw. Slowly and steadily, the conservatives are losing their willingness to conserve.

[Bobblehead]

I don't think that's a "Liberal" thing. That is a "we've been in power a long time and what do we do now?" thing.

But you hit the nail on the head - they are lacking direction.

[Slava]

The fact that it is now time to spend though has a lot to do with the conservatives "losing their willingness to conserve". I think that all of the parties agree that they need to spend money on infrastructure and programming, but their focus is in different areas and some do not seem to have a plan to do this re-apportioning.

I agree that there needs to be an election with a clear mandate given to the winners in what the public would like to see.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I don't think that's a "Liberal" thing. That is a "we've been in power a long time and what do we do now?" thing.

But you hit the nail on the head - they are lacking direction.

Well, in my view it's both. It's certainly not conservative anyways. And shouldn't a new leader bring them a new direction? This is one of the reasons I didn't vote in the Conservative leadership election... none of the final three candidates really had a vision. Again, it's time for Alberta's ~30 year changing of the guard and I look forward to it.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Slava

The fact that it is now time to spend though has a lot to do with the conservatives "losing their willingness to conserve". I think that all of the parties agree that they need to spend money on infrastructure and programming, but their focus is in different areas and some do not seem to have a plan to do this re-apportioning.

I agree that there needs to be an election with a clear mandate given to the winners in what the public would like to see.

You're right, it's time to spend. But it's also time to fix the issues. Being Conservative doesn't mean never opening your wallet, but it sure as heck means spending as little as possible. Yes we need to fix the schools and roads, but we also need to fix the health care system so it isn't a money pit anymore. Now is the perfect time to do some REAL research into how it needs to be done, instead of paying someone to draft a report that says what you want it to. We need to build infrastructure that will last for not just the next 5 years, but that will look into a future Alberta that grows by the city of Red Deer every year.

Anyhew... it's getting off-topic here. I guess my point is that even with Klein in the riding, it was still rather liberal.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by FireFly

You're right, it's time to spend. But it's also time to fix the issues. Being Conservative doesn't mean never opening your wallet, but it sure as heck means spending as little as possible. Yes we need to fix the schools and roads, but we also need to fix the health care system so it isn't a money pit anymore. Now is the perfect time to do some REAL research into how it needs to be done, instead of paying someone to draft a report that says what you want it to. We need to build infrastructure that will last for not just the next 5 years, but that will look into a future Alberta that grows by the city of Red Deer every year.

Anyhew... it's getting off-topic here. I guess my point is that even with Klein in the riding, it was still rather liberal.

I think you've phrased that badly. It's not about spending as little as possible, it's about spending only as much as necessary to accomplish your goals. Contrast that to current policy, which is best described as "spend as much as we can get and hope it'll make everyone happy."

I'm a believer that budgeting should go like
1) Prioritize needs
2) Determine necessary revenue
3) Tax as necessary

If the electorate can't handle the "tax as necessary" part, then they need to understand that spending gets cut. Unfortunately, governments seem to behave rather like individuals, who budget more like:
1) How much money can I get?
2) How can I use it all?

Admittedly, they have to have a stable tax regime, and therefore can't just adjust taxes on a year-to-year basis. However, that doesn't mean that they have to spend all of their revenue.