2013 Calgary Municipal Election Thread

[jammies]

Voter apathy is a tacit endorsement of the status quo. Angry citizens don't stay home on election day.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Slava

It is The Sun, but they do make a good point here. It is pretty bad that such a small percentage of people actually take the time to vote. I don't think its Nenshis fault (or any particular candidate), but 35% and under is pretty deplorable.

Yep the point is valid. There is no way you can spin this low turnout as a positive for Nenshi. It basically shows that in the eyes of Calgarians he was the best of a bad bunch and many don't support him but like me aren't going to vote for complete clowns. Hard to spin apathy into anything but the fact that Calgarians expect better from Nenshi in his 2nd term.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by jammies

Voter apathy is a tacit endorsement of the status quo. Angry citizens don't stay home on election day.

Nor do adamant supporters where there was a clear lack of for Nenshi.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GGG

Maybe I am cynical but I can see why most people dont bother to vote especially in Wards with no real challegers. Nenshi and DCU were going to win and my school board choices didnt have any deal breakers so me voting last night did absolutely nothing. I can see why people just dont bother.

Also the cynic in me believes that even in the competitive wards the results it doesnt really matter who we elect. The minor shift to the right that occured really only changes the tax increase from 5% to 3%. Day to day over the next 4 years will change little. And if things do go screwy we can fix it in four years when outrage will drive turnout.

So I see why people stay home and certainly dont fault them for it.

Oh I can see the point here for sure. Like you say in our neck of the woods all of the races were a foregone conclusion, and when the polling hours are 10am-8pm on one day sometimes you just get busy or whatever. It probably makes no difference.

I guess that I just feel like people should be more involved in general. I think that with more involvement you get more ideas of how things should be done and that discussion and debate is what drives things forward (amongst other factors). I do agree that the other 65% who didn't vote probably would've voted in the same proportions as those who did though, so it probably doesn't change the outcome very often if at all.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

The "it's not THAT much money" argument is often used, but seldom right.

A 5% or 10% increase in taxes is a lot of money, particularly if one's income is not increasing by a corresponding amount.

A 5% or 10% increase in taxes is a lot of money, particularly if coupled with a similar increase in previous years.

A 5% or 10% increase in taxes is a lot of money, particularly if the increase is just the start of future increases, and the increase simply now sets a new "floor" on what future tax rates will be.

A 5% or 10% increase in taxes is a lot of money, particularly when the tax monies are used to provide a service that will be funded not only by taxes but by user fees as well (so if you want to actually use the service that your increased taxes paid for in the first place, you have to pony up even more money).

You know, for all the talk from Calgary Sun-reading yop-gobblers about how awful Nenshi has been because property taxes increased since he was elected, can anyone articulate specifically how their quality of life has declined in those three years because their property tax bill went up? I'm only speaking anecdotally from personal experience here, but I watch my personal finances very closely, and I certainly haven't experienced any meaningful loss of after-tax purchasing power under Nenshi's mayorship.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

The "it's not THAT much money" argument is often used, but seldom right.

A 5% or 10% increase in taxes is a lot of money, particularly if one's income is not increasing by a corresponding amount.

A 5% or 10% increase in taxes is a lot of money, particularly if coupled with a similar increase in previous years.

A 5% or 10% increase in taxes is a lot of money, particularly if the increase is just the start of future increases, and the increase simply now sets a new "floor" on what future tax rates will be.

A 5% or 10% increase in taxes is a lot of money, particularly when the tax monies are used to provide a service that will be funded not only by taxes but by user fees as well (so if you want to actually use the service that your increased taxes paid for in the first place, you have to pony up even more money).

But, hey, maybe you are correct and those who don't like paying an additional 5% or 10% in taxes should just "move on with life." Perhaps they should just "move on" in general to somewhere else.

Of course, if they do that, and no one comes in to replace them here, Calgary will likely need to increase the taxes even more on the remaining population to provide the existing level of services, which may cause even more to leave, which would increase the tax levels even more. I'm sure that is a sustainable way to fund a city.

In fact, I think Detroit went down that path.

No, what happened in Detroit is called "Extreme White Flight" which will never happen in a Canadian city.

[Cuz]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Yep the point is valid. There is no way you can spin this low turnout as a positive for Nenshi. It basically shows that in the eyes of Calgarians he was the best of a bad bunch and many don't support him but like me aren't going to vote for complete clowns. Hard to spin apathy into anything but the fact that Calgarians expect better from Nenshi in his 2nd term.

On the flip side, I don't think low voter turn out can be embraced as a positive for any candidate. I am more inclined to agree with jammies

Originally Posted by jammies

Voter apathy is a tacit endorsement of the status quo. Angry citizens don't stay home on election day.

[Cuz]

Originally Posted by Slava

Oh I can see the point here for sure. Like you say in our neck of the woods all of the races were a foregone conclusion, and when the polling hours are 10am-8pm on one day sometimes you just get busy or whatever. It probably makes no difference.

I guess that I just feel like people should be more involved in general. I think that with more involvement you get more ideas of how things should be done and that discussion and debate is what drives things forward (amongst other factors). I do agree that the other 65% who didn't vote probably would've voted in the same proportions as those who did though, so it probably doesn't change the outcome very often if at all.

Very good point about voter turn out. People often incorrectly assume that election results would be different had more people turned out, but you can look at it the same as polls before an election; the people who did turn out are the ones being sampled. While this sample may not necessarily be representative of the population in general, it does provide a good enough snap shot of the population's will.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Cuz

On the flip side, I don't think low voter turn out can be embraced as a positive for any candidate. I am more inclined to agree with jammies

That's not the flip side, that's my point. It's certainly not positive for anyone involved including Nenshi.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Nor do adamant supporters where there was a clear lack of for Nenshi.

A clear lack of for Nenshi? The 2nd place guy, Lord, doesn't have ANY adamant supporters that I've seen - even here, people wanted to vote against Nenshi, not for anyone in particular. For all these supposedly disgruntled people who can't stand Nenshi, about 8% of the city actively voted against him, or 1 in 12 people. There's no way anyone can successfully spin that as a rejection of the mayor.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by fotze

No one in politics has ever been like that.

Did you forget about Ric McIver already? The guy wasn't called Dr. No just for funs.

Originally Posted by fotze

There has to be a balance. Lean to far to either side and it is not good.

There absolutely HAS to be some folks on council who ask "Uh, and what does that cost?" or "Are we sure we should do this?"

I agree there has to be someone on the other side, but my point is that just saying NO without any alternative or reason to back up your statements, does not mean you're fiscally responsible. I want to see some actual reasons, and more importantly, alternatives. Choosing not to have a plan is in fact pretty fiscally irresponsible.

The reason for the tax hikes, and the developer subsidies, is because they address a long-term funding issue. We always hear about how rich everyone in this city is...yet there's never any money to build anything. These increases are trying to address that need. Now if the "fiscal hawks" have a better way of increasing this revenue without raising taxes....go ahead, suggest something. But just saying No to everything only ignores the issue.

Btw, where were all these fiscal hawks when Nenshi tried to streamline the budget of the Police Force? Or are they only hawky on certain issues?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by jammies

A clear lack of for Nenshi? The 2nd place guy, Lord, doesn't have ANY adamant supporters that I've seen - even here, people wanted to vote against Nenshi, not for anyone in particular. For all these supposedly disgruntled people who can't stand Nenshi, about 8% of the city actively voted against him, or 1 in 12 people. There's no way anyone can successfully spin that as a rejection of the mayor.

I'm willing to bet a good portion of the 65% that didn't vote were like me in that they don't support Nenshi but believe Lord was a worse option. I'm not going to vote for a guy I don't care for but I'm certainly not going to vote for someone worse just to stick it to Nenshi. 2/3 of the population abstaining is not a vote of confidence for Nenshi and more notice that we expect better of him in his 2nd term.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Cuz

Very good point about voter turn out. People often incorrectly assume that election results would be different had more people turned out, but you can look at it the same as polls before an election; the people who did turn out are the ones being sampled. While this sample may not necessarily be representative of the population in general, it does provide a good enough snap shot of the population's will.

Claiming specific results would have gone down differently if there was a higher turnout is an intellectually bankrupt point to argue. There's simply no quantifiable way of knowing how it would have impacted the election. It's a purely emotional arguement fueled solely by the bitterness of defeat or from watching the person you didn't support win. Everytime a pundit, commentator, news reporter, or entire newspaper brings it up it highlights exactly where their bias comes from.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Now if the "fiscal hawks" have a better way of increasing this revenue without raising taxes....go ahead, suggest something.

Cutting waste, decreasing government spending, improving efficiencies, better managing tax dollars, no stupid art crap, you know #### like that.

[flamingreen]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I'm willing to bet a vast majority of the 65% that didn't vote were like me in that they don't support Nenshi but believe Lord was a worse option. I'm not going to vote for a guy I don't care for but I'm certainly not going to vote for someone worse just to stick it to Nenshi. 2/3 of the population abstaining is not a vote of confidence for Nenshi and more notice that we expect better of him in his 2nd term.

How is not voting a notice to someone to be better? Like others have said, its a nod toward the status quo.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I'm willing to bet a good portion of the 65% that didn't vote were like me in that they don't support Nenshi but believe Lord was a worse option. I'm not going to vote for a guy I don't care for but I'm certainly not going to vote for someone worse just to stick it to Nenshi. 2/3 of the population abstaining is not a vote of confidence for Nenshi and more notice that we expect better of him in his 2nd term.

We can all make conjectures about the opinions about the 65%, but I'd be willing to bet otherwise. Most people who I know that didn't vote didn't do so because they knew Nenshi was going to win anyway, and were okay with it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Did you forget about Ric McIver already? The guy wasn't called Dr. No just for fun

Btw, where were all these fiscal hawks when Nenshi tried to streamline the budget of the Police Force? Or are they only hawky on certain issues?

I hope now that their are a few more anti spending types on council that he revisits the proposed cuts to the Police force. He finaly had the police beyond the knee jerk 'budget cuts result in less officers on the street, position and had found meaningfull efficiencies.

Then the cuts get rejected. I hope he revisits the issue.

[Muta]

I would actually argue that voter apathy only suggests more citizens declined to vote because they knew their candidate was going to win. Those that wanted to see change are usually the ones more motivated to get out and vote.

I would argue that had more people turned up to vote, Nenshi would have wiped the proverbial floor with his opponent's sweaty ballsacks (including Sandra Hunter's).

[V]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Heh, that's bizarre. I guess everyone woke up and thought, 'we'll I really don't feel like voting, but it's a beautiful day outside so I guess there's nothing to do but stand in a polling station for a while.'

You don't think favourable weather is a driver for voter turnout? That's bizarre.

There is plenty to pick apart in that article, but you picked a pretty odd one.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by GGG

I hope now that their are a few more anti spending types on council that he revisits the proposed cuts to the Police force. He finaly had the police beyond the knee jerk 'budget cuts result in less officers on the street, position and had found meaningfull efficiencies.

Then the cuts get rejected. I hope he revisits the issue.

Sometimes the 'anti-spending' types actually love spending like drunken sailors on law and order policies. A friend of mine who works in law enforcement actually hates Nenshi with a passion, because Nenshi's platform last election dared question the 'dumptruck full of money for police = always good policy' mentality and demanded of Rick Hansen that the police demonstrate the value in increased funding.

Also recall Dr. No only said 'yes' when it came to police budgets.