Who did you vote for? - Official Election Results Thread

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I'm curious to find out exactly why so many people under the age of 50 are incredibly anti-Liberal, as some people around here are (and CP is probably mostly uner 50). Tron admitted that it was practically beat into him when he was growing up that the Liberals created such chaos through stuff like the NEP, was anyone else raised like this? Not that it's a bad thing, I'm just keen to know the effect it's had on younger generations.

I grew up in a conservative household, but never have I associated early 80's federal politics with modern-day centrist provincial politics.

I should hope what happened 25 years ago is not the be-all, end-all for political choice in this country, especially with a generation now removed from that entire incident.

I don't know if my beliefs are the norm for Albertans my age or if I'm actually unique. When it comes to the government I feel that they should be financially responsible. The less government the better in my mind.

Socially I strongly believe in freedom of choice. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of sexual orientation (this includes gay marriage, if two gay people want to get married its none of my business). I believe that religion has no place in government and that religious groups should have no influence, out side of voting like every other citizen, on government policy.

I also feel that criminals should be treated as such. Why on earth a person like Jim Roszko was not behind bars is beyond me.

I really don't think the Liberals, Provincially or Federally, have anything really to offer a person with my beliefs. Outside of not caring if gay people want to get married or not.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

You said in 2 different posts that the mere IDEA of voting Liberal made you sick, even though the PCs nearly cost you your family business.

And you said these ideas were ingrained in you by you family.

Maybe it is condescending, but is it wrong?

(Edit: not trying to be a jerk. Just pointing out how it looks like a straight line from point A to point B)

I didn't say it made me sick, only that it caused a lot of trepidation when the time came for me to decide who to vote for. Maybe it was poorly worded, but I didn't ever say I wouldn't vote liberal because my old man told me it was bad. I formed that opinion of the liberals (federal) on my own, and my posts were merely trying to draw a parallel between the 2 (prov. and fed). I tend to take offense when someone tells me I think that way because my daddy told me to.....not that I drew my own conclusions.

I guess what people would call "my daddy syndrome" I can call "my liberal" syndrome?

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Also, the Conservatives are the incumbant. Anyone with a base understanding of politics knows that if you want to unseat the incumbant, one of two things generally has to happen: they have to fail spectacularly, or you have to become an undeniable alternative.

Is that really the case though? For the first time since Joe Clark, Canada now has a minority government in Ottawa, which suggests that there was no overwhelming majority and no spectacular failure. Infact, the biggest (percentage wise) was the NDP, who increased their seat count by over 50% in the 2006 election, and they aren't even considered a threat when compared to the Reds and Blues.

I think the idea of a spectacular upset is more appropriate for an election in Alberta, but not necessarily Canada. All things considered, if the Libs came out on top yesterday in Alberta, then yes - that would be a spectacular victory (or a tremendous deathblow to some).

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by fotze

Can we get Trons status of #1 Goaltender changed to 'Has My Daddy Syndrome".

Only if yours gets changed to "Feeds my daddy"

[Tron_fdc]

I should maybe point out that I don't support either Conservative or Liberal parties, and the old man (for what it's worth) is a pretty big contributor to the provincial PC's. i could care less, to be totally honest.

I'm a bit of a joker by nature, so I usually end up either spoiling my ballot or voting rhino whenever I see them listed.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by fotze

Can we get Trons status of #1 Goaltender changed to 'Has My Daddy Syndrome".

Yes. Yes we can.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Yes. Yes we can.

I'm sooooo not holding back on any more drive by's.

Maybe someone can start a wikipedia entry so everyone knows what it means?

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

I should maybe point out that I don't support either Conservative or Liberal parties, and the old man (for what it's worth) is a pretty big contributor to the provincial PC's. i could care less, to be totally honest.

I'm a bit of a joker by nature, so I usually end up either spoiling my ballot or voting rhino whenever I see them listed.

I concur. Whenever I see a Marxist-Leninist on the ballot, I tend to take my vote too far left and vote for them. It's funny when you look at the papers the next day with the results, because you see that you and about 10 other people all made a comedy vote. Perhaps one person takes it serious...haha...

That said, when I lived in Calgary Centre-North, I was surprised that almost 500 people voted Marxist-Leninist a few years ago. Of course, the Rhinoceros Party was extinct then, but have since been revived and will hopefully take the next election.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I'm curious to find out exactly why so many people under the age of 50 are incredibly anti-Liberal, as some people around here are (and CP is probably mostly uner 50). Tron admitted that it was practically beat into him when he was growing up that the Liberals created such chaos through stuff like the NEP, was anyone else raised like this? Not that it's a bad thing, I'm just keen to know the effect it's had on younger generations.

I grew up in a conservative household, but never have I associated early 80's federal politics with modern-day centrist provincial politics.

I should hope what happened 25 years ago is not the be-all, end-all for political choice in this country, especially with a generation now removed from that entire incident.

I'll admit I am socially liberal on many fronts. But as a born and raised Albertan I have absolutely no desire to ever vote liberal on the federal level. The disgust that people in this province have for that party is well deserved. They pander to Quebec and Ontario based on the distribution of seats. Propping up money losing companies like Bombardier and Air Canada to retain votes. Our tax money is constantly spent elsewhere with very little coming back our way. Look at the two lane highway by Lake Louise as an example, if that was in Ontario or Quebec it would have been twinned 15 years ago. Its outside of provincial jursidiction being in a national park, otherwise we would have given up waiting and done it ourselves years ago. They baby criminals to the point where our justice system is an insult to many victims and their families. People kill and end up on the streets in a matter of months, judges hand down ludicrious sentences for things like sexual assault, manslaughter, vehicular homicide, criminal neligence cauing death. No wonder gangsters like Vuthy Kong are back on the streets driving around with bullet proof vests, guns, and crack. Our military is in shambles, our boys in Afghanistan are severely under equipped and are paying for it with their lives. We don't even have decent tanks, subs, helicopters, and our fleet of fighter aircraft is borderline at best. Last but not least every liberal leader in recent memory is a millionaire easterner who lives by a double standard compared to the average Canadians.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Is that really the case though? For the first time since Joe Clark, Canada now has a minority government in Ottawa, which suggests that there was no overwhelming majority and no spectacular failure. Infact, the biggest (percentage wise) was the NDP, who increased their seat count by over 50% in the 2006 election, and they aren't even considered a threat when compared to the Reds and Blues.

I think the idea of a spectacular upset is more appropriate for an election in Alberta, but not necessarily Canada. All things considered, if the Libs came out on top yesterday in Alberta, then yes - that would be a spectacular victory (or a tremendous deathblow to some).

The failure of the Martin Liberals was more to do with a looooooooooooooong tradition of abuse that many voters finally had enough of, coupled with the reunification of the right.

Point is, people who feel they are being represented well by their representative are more likely to stick with them. Even if they have some concerns, the opposition still needs to prove that they are undeniably the better alternative.

This election was a show of that. The PCs have slipped lately, especially in Calgary/Southern Alberta, but nobody revealed themselves to be a superior alternative. Thus, the PC's retained their advantage in the South, and Stelmach's popularity in rural areas and Edmonton decimated the opposition in the North. Stelmach became the better alternative to the Liberal and NDP incumbants. Taft et al failed to do the same here.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

I'm sooooo not holding back on any more drive by's.

Maybe someone can start a wikipedia entry so everyone knows what it means?

lol sorry, didn't mean it specifically at you. Anyway, your daddy forgave me!

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Flame On

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...

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.

I see a correlation just fine. If the Chinese were waging a ground war against the US, they could get the job done by simply sending more troops over the hill. However if you added an air and sea element and all of a sudden you need less troops to do a more effective job. It's not as simple as throwing more nurses over the hill. If it were that easy the Tories would have already solved it because they've already thrown money at the problem with reckless abandon. It's getting more out of their time with the application of innovations and motivations. Maybe if they had a better administrative services, better diagnostic machines, etc. then triage would run smoother without throwing more expensive variable costs (ie labor/nurses) at the problem. My issue with the Liberal Party is that their solutions seem to only stem from hiring more and paying more which is direct result of the types of people who traditionally have supported them the past 15 years. By measuring themselves primarily on the basis of how many people they have hired and how much they pay them shows who's behind their platform.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Private clinics aren't evil by any means, and I don't want to come across like that; they provide options to ease the burden on a stressed system. However, they are not a pre-requisite for an ideal healthcare system; such universal health care can be provided all publicly if administered and funded correctly.

Huh?

Its been 'tried'....the UK 'tried' it....we've 'tried' it here in Canada....a system that is completely public does not work as well as a system where certain aspects are sent to the private sector.

Every European country who has had a public system has realized that and has responded accordingly....creating the two-tier system.

Frankly I think too many Canadians are afraid that if Health Care in Canada is pushed a bit more towards the private side, we're suddenly going to become like the US. Which isn't true....if anything, we're going to become like some of the European countries YOU alluded too.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Flame On

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.

Well, with both education and health care, the great great majority are getting both a great education and a great medical service. Education numbers show that our children are some of the most highly educated in the world. And with our health care, we have probably made great inroads into various treatments, and statistically speaking, death rates for various illnesses have probably dropped.

However, within education and within health care, the stress level of those providing the services is probably the highest it has ever been. In fact, in my opinion, it is probably at the break point for health care right now.

The province has addressed the major issues within education.

If they don't address the issues within health care immediately, the system might not recover.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Azure, I think the reason why a two-tier system exists is because of capacity issues. If everyone suddenly had a revelation, became more health-conscious, and started exercising on a regular basis, or there was some breakthrough in medical technology, then maybe we wouldn't have to resort to private clinics. There are there simply for capacity issues in the public system. A fluid, well-funded public channel of health care with little litigation and minimal wait times would probably result in a low demand for private doctors.

Private clinics aren't evil by any means, and I don't want to come across like that; they provide options to ease the burden on a stressed system. However, they are not a pre-requisite for an ideal healthcare system; such universal health care can be provided all publicly if administered and funded correctly.

I dont think that is it at all. Health concscious people can get sick, they can get very sick and they can require a lot of medical care. And in regards to a breakthrough, what kind of breakthrough are you talking about? One that will make all our boo boos miraculously go away, one that will help us to live forever?

I think the reason there are capacity issues is because of 4 factors.

1. The overhead of doctors has become so overbearing that some are choosing to close their offices rather than to continue providing medicine. This is exactly what happened to my husband's doctor. He was going to take out another 5 year lease on his office space but when it came up for renewal, it was so prohibitive in cost that he would have basically worked for nothing. So instead he chose to take early retirement.

2. The larger centers in Alberta, in particular Calgary, Fort McMurray and Edmonton, have taken in the largest numbers of people moving to this province. And within the same time period, cutbacks were still going on. And now the centers suffer from a huge backlog of infrastructure and that includes infrastructure and personnel in the medical field.

3. The population is aging, baby boomers are at the stage where they will be requiring more medical care. And that has nothing to do with taking care of themselves. It has everything to do with the fact that with aging, certain medical issues are going to become more of a factor such as knee replacements, hip replacements, osteoarthritis ailments and the like. Those are known issues that come with aging no matter what the lifestyle of the individual.

And for every medical service that seniors require along the lines of replacements etc come prior services of assessment that put a further burden on the limited number of diagnostic tools within the medical community, hence long line ups for assessment and the like.

4. During the cutback years, spaces for doctors and nurses to train were reduced. Now they are trying to open new spaces for medical personnel, it will take years to fill the backlog the cut backs created.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Azure

Huh?
Frankly I think too many Canadians are afraid that if Health Care in Canada is pushed a bit more towards the private side, we're suddenly going to become like the US. Which isn't true....if anything, we're going to become like some of the European countries YOU alluded too.

What?

Great. I hope that we have the degree of social health care that I flat out mentioned earlier in this thread. A system that works, and dignifies universal health care as a legitimate institution. I should hope we aspire to follow a similar system that the WHO has ranked 21 European countries ahead of Canada's in their 2000 WHO World Health Report (with the US being way down below Canada at 37th). Don't you agree?

Never did I say private was bad; all I'm saying is that, in a properly-funded public system, we shouldn't need to have to resort to private clinics. If, by and large, the government is insuring health care in private clinics to relieve the stress of longer wait times, then so be it, as I have made blatantly clear in this thread. I just don't think its an absolute pre-requisite. Private clinics have arguably responded as a band-aid to certain aspects of the current system. By no means is it legitimate as a sole provider, and certainly you cannot put a price (and again arguably a profit) on people's health. Thank god for state insurance that provide us the financial backing for such opportunities.

Azure and redforever, please go back and read Lanny's links; I think you might get alot out of it.

Calm down.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by llama64

The only saving grace is that Stelmach so far has been more "Tory" then Klein was.

So.....you lean left on most things as far as I can tell....but the saving grace is that Stelmach is more Tory than RK...Im lost.

I suggest that RK did more good for the Province of Alberta than anyone before or since.

His last 2 years were abysmal...I agree.

However, when he was first elected (beyond ANYONES beliefs he could do so as leader) he ran and was elected on a campaign to save Alberta from itself. He succeeded. At a time when oilprices were not making life easy for any government I might add.

Klein did his part for AB...period.

[Johnny 99]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So.....you lean left on most things as far as I can tell....but the saving grace is that Stelmach is more Tory than RK...Im lost.

I suggest that RK did more good for the Province of Alberta than anyone before or since.

His last 2 years were abysmal...I agree.

However, when he was first elected (beyond ANYONES beliefs he could do so as leader) he ran and was elected on a campaign to save Alberta from itself. He succeeded. At a time when oilprices were not making life easy for any government I might add.

Klein did his part for AB...period.

This is tough to argue - he certainly presided over a period of transition from recession to unprecedented economic growth. He also was a quite a charismatic figure, even myself, a big time liberal, would love to sit down and have a beer with him. But what really did he do that was so great? Do you think there is any truth to the statement that he was simply lucky to have been in power when oil prices shot through the roof? What specifically did he do that was forward thinking and left Albertans in a better position than they would have been if another person was in power? Just asking.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

What?

Great. I hope that we have the degree of social health care that I flat out mentioned earlier in this thread. A system that works, and dignifies universal health care as a legitimate institution. I should hope we aspire to follow a similar system that the WHO has ranked 21 European countries ahead of Canada's in their 2000 WHO World Health Report (with the US being way down below Canada at 37th). Don't you agree?

Never did I say private was bad; all I'm saying is that, in a properly-funded public system, we shouldn't need to have to resort to private clinics. If, by and large, the government is insuring health care in private clinics to relieve the stress of longer wait times, then so be it, as I have made blatantly clear in this thread. I just don't think its an absolute pre-requisite. Private clinics have arguably responded as a band-aid to certain aspects of the current system. By no means is it legitimate as a sole provider, and certainly you cannot put a price (and again arguably a profit) on people's health. Thank god for state insurance that provide us the financial backing for such opportunities.

Azure and redforever, please go back and read Lanny's links; I think you might get alot out of it.

Calm down.

I fail to see what Lanny's links have to do with my comments?

[transplant99]

But what really did he do that was so great

He cut fat where it was needed. In a couple instances it was too much in the wrong spot, but he certainly didnt do what was "popular", instead doing what he said he would. Thats a "great" thing for any politician...no matter who you support.

Do you think there is any truth to the statement that he was simply lucky to have been in power when oil prices shot through the roof?

Towards the end of his office...sure! When he took over however, that was nothing to be "lucky" about.

What specifically did he do that was forward thinking and left Albertans in a better position than they would have been if another person was in power? Just asking.

That legacy is yet to be documented....but I will suggest he goes down as one of the top 2 premiers in Alberta history.

Homeless people shenanagins aside.