Who did you vote for? - Official Election Results Thread

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Is it though? Right now any connection, even a loose one, to the federal liberals is a negative in Alberta. They need to distance themselves from the federal party and the federal party's history - a name change is the best way to start.

I only passively follow provincial politics, but having that name alone is enough for me to start forming an opinion on them. It's a sad truth, but a fact nonetheless. You're going to have to try twice as hard to show that you're not cut from the same cloth as the federal liberals to appeal to the average Albertan voter.

Imagine what the uninformed voter here thinks about it. All they know is that for well over a decade our prov. economy has never been so strong, that it was the PC's in power, and that the federal liberals are painted as evil, money hungry crooks that want to pilfer Alberta's riches. If you start to draw any kind of parallel whatsoever between the provincial and the federal libs, it's fairly easy to cast your vote elsewhere (or into the same place you've sent it the last 2 elections). In fact, I'd be willing to bet that in the next election, if things are close, the PC's will draw that parallel and give the libs an even worse shallacking than what you saw today.

Changing the name would hold a lot more weight than you might think.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Slava

I agree that the stigma is a tough one to break. I realise that we haven't done much of a job of separating the two entities and that a dramatic step could be required. But really if we could just not bother trying to create the separation and focus on proving that voting Liberal is really not as terrible as some people think than I think its a better use of our time.
!

Let me flip it around on ya.

What are the advantages of NOT changing the name?

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Part of the problem then. I probably have the TV on for about 2-3 hrs per day on various channels (hockey mostly), or maybe running in the background or what not - and I don't recall seeing a single Liberal ad, but I do remember seeing Stemach and the no plan for AB ones.

Seriously, it isn't as if I live under a media rock - I don't think it is unreasonable to expect Taft to try to get something out to me that makes me recognize him.

Maybe try to switch it up and instead of advertising on pretty much only channels which already give you airtime (like global), during a newscast nonetheless, you should put some dollars into other channels. Get your name out there Taft.

I agree with you.

I saw Hinmann attack ads. I was actually surprised how many of those I saw; for a fringe party they seemed to have an awful lot of money to throw at commercials.

I saw Stelmach ads. I thought the cheese was flowing pretty quickly from those.

I saw the negative ads with the "person on the street" saying how Ed didn't have a plan and was just spending like crazy, etc. They always said something like "by Albertan's for Change" (or something like that). I wouldn't have known who paid for that, except I read a newspaper article that mentioned how the Alberta Federation of Labour had sponsored the negative ads that were being aired.

I still can't recall a Liberal ad. If I did see one, it sure didn't make an impression.

[FlamesAddiction]

The separation of provincial Liberal parties and the federal Liberal party cannot be understated. Even from year-to year, the parties change. Generally, the idea is the same for both. They are supposed to be a centrist party that leans left or right depending on the situation. Sometimes this translates to "dithering", and many of the times it makes leftists and rightists dislike them.

In practice though, we have seen everything from leftist to rightist Liberal parties. For example; the BC Liberals under Campbell is one of the more right leaning governments in the country. Federally, Paul Martin was considered a fiscal conservative and a right leaning Liberal. The versatility is seen as a strength, but the lack of clarity and direction is a disadvantage.

The Conservative party is a lot less versatile. It's not very often that you'll find a left leaning Conservative, but at least their message is usually clear.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Aeneas

Did you listen to Taft's concession speech?
He started off listing the groups that support and vote for the Liberal party. Educators, medical professionals, arts groups, etc. last on the list was business leaders. Went on to say the Liberals would carry on the fight for the average Albertan. I think it was clear the average Albertan did not support him.

That's exactly it. The Alberta Liberals became a 'Public sector' protest party after Ralph Klein instituted his 5% clawback in wages back in the 1993-1997 years and the Lawrence DeCore types left the party. Everybody who was angry about that bought Liberal memberships in droves and went on to shape the party and it's policies.

They've been fighting that same battle every election since. They also do such a bad job of selling to the public too. In health and education they use metrics that speak from the perspective of an employee in such sectors. Ie when talking about K-12 education the first point of focus is on class sizes and they rarely mention anything about improving graduation rates or standardized test scores. In reality as a parent of a K-12 student do you give a damn how many students a teacher has to manage if high school graduation rates and test scores are still high? Heck where I come from that's called being more efficient.

In health care the most prominent position mentioned in any Liberal platform over the years is nurses and other support staff. Ie train more nurses, competitive wages, more full-time positions, "Staff-patient" ratios, yada, yada, yada. Their key measuring sticks are not about quality of care, cost of care, or timeliness of care, but rather how good a job they do at providing employment opportunities.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Let me flip it around on ya.

What are the advantages of NOT changing the name?

You might lose the support of Educators, medical professionals, arts groups, etc?

In all honesty, I'm a born and raised Calgarian, and I've been taught pretty much my entire life to be so anti-liberal that even the thought of voting for them provincially (no matter how different they may be from the feds) conjures up visions of the NEP and my dad coming home one day wondering if we were going to lose our house that month.

We almost lost our business during the PC implemented electricity deregulation last election, and I STILL couldn't vote Liberal.

Change the name, and do a better job of getting your message out. Admit that you made a mistake not doing it earlier, and then hammer that message through peoples skulls every chance you get. Don't use it as a campaign slogan, but every time one of your candidates has a microphone you distance yourself from the federal party. That's the only way in my mind that the "Liberals" will ever win in this province.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Let me flip it around on ya.

What are the advantages of NOT changing the name?

Well there is some name recognition there (for better or for worse!). I think that voters do recognize that the Liberal name stands for certain things*. This is important to voters coming from other provinces where the stigma is either non-existent or even the reverse. There is also a historical significance in some ways...they are certainly not a flavour of the week organization which other political opportunists could be accused of. I don't know...maybe there are no real advantages. I guess I'm of the mind-set that hard work conquers all, so we just need to work harder in general.

(*I recognize that this is setting up a million jokes, so let me just take a moment to rattle off a couple before all of the Tory hacks do..."corruption", "incompetence", "pork-barrel politicking"......and the list goes on to no end!)

I would definitely not be in favour of a new party at this point...it would be just another vote-splitting problem at this point, which already costs enough seats; but don't even get me started on that one!

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I agree with you.

I saw Hinmann attack ads. I was actually surprised how many of those I saw; for a fringe party they seemed to have an awful lot of money to throw at commercials.

I saw Stelmach ads. I thought the cheese was flowing pretty quickly from those.

I saw the negative ads with the "person on the street" saying how Ed didn't have a plan and was just spending like crazy, etc. They always said something like "by Albertan's for Change" (or something like that). I wouldn't have known who paid for that, except I read a newspaper article that mentioned how the Alberta Federation of Labour had sponsored the negative ads that were being aired.

I still can't recall a Liberal ad. If I did see one, it sure didn't make an impression.

They had an ad, played it countless times last couple of days, unless it was just produced towards the end. And actually it ran countless times all day yesterday too. I guess they changed rules about running ads on actual day of election? Shows a close up of Taft, and their slogan, time for change, and he says changes around something that Stelmach said and adds a new connotation on that by saying they can do it, and then he lamely said something like are you ready, and not with much enthusiasm either. I just got the impression it would be next to impossible to light a fire under Taft.

Obiously it never made much impression on me because outside of "time for a change", I cant remember the rest of the words from the ad.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by redforever

They had an ad, played it countless times last couple of days, unless it was just produced towards the end. And actually it ran countless times all day yesterday too. I guess they changed rules about running ads on actual day of election? Shows a close up of Taft, and their slogan, time for change, and he says changes around something that Stelmach said and adds a new connotation on that by saying they can do it, and then he lamely said something like are you ready, and not with much enthusiasm either. I just got the impression it would be next to impossible to light a fire under Taft.

Obiously it never made much impression on me because outside of "time for a change", I cant remember the rest of the words from the ad.

Even you describing it doesn't remind me of anything.

That's one bad ad.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Slava

I would definitely not be in favour of a new party at this point...it would be just another vote-splitting problem at this point, which already costs enough seats; but don't even get me started on that one!

Maybe just a new qualifier in front of "Liberals"?

When the Conservative party wanted to project the idea that they were socially open minded and modern, they added "Progressive" to their name. Then when they wanted to distance themselves from the Mulroney baggage, they changed it to "New".

Maybe the Liberals could add one... like; "Western" ... or even "Progessive".

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Even you describing it doesn't remind me of anything.

That's one bad ad.

Exactly, as I said, never made an impression on me since I cant even remember the phrase of Stelmach that Taft tried to turn around.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Maybe just a new qualifier in front of "Liberals"?

When the Conservative party wanted to project the idea that they were socially open minded and modern, they added "Progressive" to their name. Then when they wanted to distance themselves from the Mulroney baggage, they changed it to "New".

Maybe the Liberals could add one... like; "Western" ... or even "Progessive".

Or how about the "We're not the federal . . . "

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Maybe just a new qualifier in front of "Liberals"?

When the Conservative party wanted to project the idea that they were socially open minded and modern, they added "Progressive" to their name. Then when they wanted to distance themselves from the Mulroney baggage, they changed it to "New".

Maybe the Liberals could add one... like; "Western" ... or even "Progessive".

Or "Boring with nothing to add except change so we can be in power for years Liberals".

[redforever]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Or how about the "We're not the federal . . . "

lol, or perhaps Liberal does not rhyme with Trudeau?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Or how about the "We're not the federal . . . "

The Flames Party (Southern Alberta only).

[moon]

Originally Posted by Slava

I have to comment on the Liberal Party of Alberta vs. the Federal Liberals as well. Suffice it to say that the Liberals are not as well received as we would like in Alberta...but changing the name is grasping at straws.

I think they have gone away from it more recently but it didn't help when the Provincial Liberals were running the same candidates as the Federal Liberals. I imagine that in many ridings it is tough to get good candidates for either Liberal but when voters see the same name and then the same candidate it isn't exactly helping Provincial Liberals spread the idea that the parties are different.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Azure

To expand on my comment about European countries and the two-tier system....
But hey....what do I know?

Azure, what your point with that article fails to mention is the level of access as the issue, rather than the quality of care. I am not denying the quality of care the American system can provide; it is a matter of capacity and wealth that is in question where one is better off with a universal system, such as those implemented in Canada, UK, France, Norway, and others. Infact, the article confirms that, much like the Norweigan and French health care models, privatization is limited to specialized clinics and treatment options, and as such, has small inroads into the publicly-administered system. This is just confirming what I have already said.

Still, Americans have one of the highest GDP per shares with their system, and what is their level of satisfaction? It's definitely not near the top, although the quality of health care probably is. For every family that can afford American-style privatized health care, there are probably five other families have much difficultly affording it altogether.

Universal health care works for all; private healthcare works for some. It is a matter of managing the capacity and budget issues that are the primary concern.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

In other parts it was horrific to say the least. Unless you voted PC your votes are unaccounted for and voices are really not heard. I will be drafting a bill to push for electoral reform, or at the very least a citizens panel on electoral reform. PC's get 54% of the vote and 86% of the seats...not democracy at all, no matter how you define it!

Actually, it is. The FPTP system may be a horribly innefficient system (which Liberals seem to have no problems with on the federal side, I might add), but it is still democracy. All the hyperbole in the world won't change this.

That's not to say that reform isn't warranted. PR would be a very good thing for Alberta (preferably not BC-STV, however), but I hope that you (Liberal supporters in general) will also be drafting plans to help the Liberals become a voice people want representing them rather than hoping a new electoral system gives you more with no extra work.

I have to comment on the Liberal Party of Alberta vs. the Federal Liberals as well. Suffice it to say that the Liberals are not as well received as we would like in Alberta...but changing the name is grasping at straws. Fact is if the campaign was run properly this discussion wouldn't be taking place. The provincial Liberal campaign should've switched from a theme of "Its Time" to something more like "We're Ready" once the electorate was mobilized towards change (which by my estimation was at about Day 2). With this new theme the focus would go from saying "We need an alternative" to saying "Choose us as the alternative". Basically the message I wanted to see here was "Put us in and we won't screw up a good thing". Fact is that while a large percentage believed that an alternative was needed, no party was able to capture that force and implement it effectively.

I think that "grasping at straws" about describes where the Liberals are at today. Last night was their best shot at making an impact in two decades, and they absolutely blew it. I said it when the result were coming in, but this campaign might have been an even bigger disaster than 1935's "The rest of Canada can't be wrong" campaign.

The only real question for the Liberals now is how long do they give Taft to resign before pushing him out?

The Liberals need a new identity, period. While changing the name alone would be nothng more than window dressing, with a charismatic new leader, a new madate and a new name, centre-left supporters could go into the future with a fresh beginning.

I think you are dead on about how the Liberals failed in the campaign though. The Liberals campaigned on the idea that people want change. They forgot to campaign on why they should change. Given no reason, and no alternative, people stuck with what's been familiar.

Congrats to your guy on winning though.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The only real question for the Liberals now is how long do they give Taft to resign before pushing him out?

The Liberals need a new identity, period. While changing the name alone would be nothng more than window dressing, with a charismatic new leader, a new madate and a new name, centre-left supporters could go into the future with a fresh beginning.

To get that Leader they are going to have to go outside of their own. Obviously none of the current MLA's have close to the personality or charisma. The craziest thing is that out of the 8 elected MLA's Taft might be the most charismatic of them all.

Plus the party leaders have shown that they are way out of touch with the electorate and if left up to them the Liberal are likely to be in the same situation with a leader that doesn't appeal to the voters in any way.

Personally, since I hate the Libs, I hope they stay the course and try to push one of their current dopes or some other party flunky that has been around for the past failures.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Aeneas

Did you listen to Taft's concession speech?
He started off listing the groups that support and vote for the Liberal party. Educators, medical professionals, arts groups, etc. last on the list was business leaders. Went on to say the Liberals would carry on the fight for the average Albertan. I think it was clear the average Albertan did not support him.

Do you know some average albertans that have not been educated, do not require health care and do not like going to the odd movie?
Starting with health and education seems pretty reasonable to me...

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

That's exactly it. The Alberta Liberals became a 'Public sector' protest party after Ralph Klein instituted his 5% clawback in wages back in the 1993-1997 years and the Lawrence DeCore types left the party. Everybody who was angry about that bought Liberal memberships in droves and went on to shape the party and it's policies.

They've been fighting that same battle every election since. They also do such a bad job of selling to the public too. In health and education they use metrics that speak from the perspective of an employee in such sectors. Ie when talking about K-12 education the first point of focus is on class sizes and they rarely mention anything about improving graduation rates or standardized test scores. In reality as a parent of a K-12 student do you give a damn how many students a teacher has to manage if high school graduation rates and test scores are still high? Heck where I come from that's called being more efficient.

In health care the most prominent position mentioned in any Liberal platform over the years is nurses and other support staff. Ie train more nurses, competitive wages, more full-time positions, "Staff-patient" ratios, yada, yada, yada. Their key measuring sticks are not about quality of care, cost of care, or timeliness of care, but rather how good a job they do at providing employment opportunities.

You don't see the correlation between more staff as well as staff retention, and better service? Gee if i have more hospital staff then maybe i won't sit here bleeding out because they can get to me faster.
Yes if school numbers are doing well then are numbers a factor? But with health care we've all heard of the waiting lists and waiting room times, that's directly related to staff numbers.