MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

Obligatory Mayor bet:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1526310885269987329

#2 is pretty good actually, the other ones are pretty standard. But it's always good to see these bets as it means there is actually something on the line for teams in both cities which is good for Alberta sport.

[corporatejay]

Gondek will probably change the rules of the contest halfway through anyway.

[Yoho]

I wonder who came up with the face paint idea…

https://twitter.com/user/status/1517566785381302272

[81MC]

MFers couldn’t sport their team jerseys for the official announcement?

[OptimalTates]

Kings should follow suit next time they have a chance for the facepaint bet.

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by 81MC

MFers couldn’t sport their team jerseys for the official announcement?

Not sure about Edmonton but this is from Calgary’s announcement:



Gondek sporting the red 2003-07 jersey; not sure what Spencer is doing there.

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Gondek will probably change the rules of the contest halfway through anyway.

Okay, that was funny.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by 81MC

MFers couldn’t sport their team jerseys for the official announcement?

Originally Posted by tvp2003

Not sure about Edmonton but this is from Calgary’s announcement:



Gondek sporting the red 2003-07 jersey; not sure what Spencer is doing there.



Okay, that was funny.

Sohi was out of town at the time so a little tough to do a photo op in a jersey etc.

[getbak]

Just when you think Chu couldn't get any worse...



...of course he has a knock-off jersey.

[tvp2003]

$1.6M spent by a third party advertiser on the last municipal election:

https://livewirecalgary.com/2022/05/...ipal-election/

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

$1.6M spent by a third party advertiser on the last municipal election:

https://livewirecalgary.com/2022/05/...ipal-election/

Money well spent as Calgary's Future managed to get most of their candidates elected and we now have a progressive council.

[timun]

Preferable to the alternative, anyway...

[Wormius]

Is it just me or has council been a lot quieter?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Money well spent as Calgary's Future managed to get most of their candidates elected and we now have a progressive council.

Not really

All candidates came from two PACs who spent the most. A conservative PAC and a progressive PAC. We now have a 2 party system in municipal politics without even a primary system to select Candidates.

These two PACs and their major donate now select Council for us.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

$1.6M spent by a third party advertiser on the last municipal election:

https://livewirecalgary.com/2022/05/...ipal-election/

That's pretty impressive, Calgary's public unions bought city council with their own money.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Is it just me or has council been a lot quieter?

Oh, I wouldn't call a discussion to spend $87 billion by 2050 on climate change being all that quiet. That's $3.1B / year. 2021 total expenses were $3.979B...

wow. Mind you, it's just a discussion, but holy ####.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...mate-emergency

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

Not really

All candidates came from two PACs who spent the most. A conservative PAC and a progressive PAC. We now have a 2 party system in municipal politics without even a primary system to select Candidates.

These two PACs and their major donate now select Council for us.

Did they win because of the money, or did they attract the money because they were able to win? In any case we still get to choose which "party" we support.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by SebC

Did they win because of the money, or did they attract the money because they were able to win?

Well in your first post you state I’m glad they spent so much money because it got us a progressive council. So obviously you believe that money gave them an advantage. The two PAC slates winning and I believe going 1/2 in every race (I’m not 100% sure on the last one) shows that the progressive candidates and conservative candidates not selected by the PACs did not have a chance.

Now did the PACs pick electable candidates, absolutely. However it’s still the PAC picking which candidate is the most electable progressive rather than individuals picking between the most electable progressive. Now this does reduce vote splitting which is good but instead of being the most electable candidate you now need to be the most electable progressive or most electable conservative. Candidates in between no longer have a chance. As this process is carried out in more elections we will see a greater distance between the sets of candidates which overall isn’t good.

In the end if we are going to have party politics at least we should have primaries to narrow down the field.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

Well in your first post you state I’m glad they spent so much money because it got us a progressive council. So obviously you believe that money gave them an advantage.

I think you are referring to calgarygeologist's post - it wasn't mine! I do agree that money creates an advantage. But I also think that they money follows electable candidates. It's mutual reinforcement, and ultimately it's the more popular candidates that get reinforced. The progressive side in particularly tends to emphasize "ABC" and avoiding vote splits.

Also, don't primaries in general create polarization? A "party" establishment usually values electability (i.e. capturing the median voter) more than the party supporters, no?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Oh, I wouldn't call a discussion to spend $87 billion by 2050 on climate change being all that quiet. That's $3.1B / year. 2021 total expenses were $3.979B...

wow. Mind you, it's just a discussion, but holy ####.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...mate-emergency

Wow. That would require property taxes to ~double. Probably this is just to socialize the idea of spending huge amounts of money on this, and they'll end up compromising on only a 40% increase in taxes for this over a 12 year period or something like that.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by SebC

I think you are referring to calgarygeologist's post - it wasn't mine! I do agree that money creates an advantage. But I also think that they money follows electable candidates. It's mutual reinforcement, and ultimately it's the more popular candidates that get reinforced. The progressive side in particularly tends to emphasize "ABC" and avoiding vote splits.

Also, don't primaries in general create polarization? A "party" establishment usually values electability (i.e. capturing the median voter) more than the party supporters, no?

Primaries create polarization so it’s not an ideal solution but it’s better than king making which promotes polarization AND king making.

Also if you had the open California primary model where everyone gets to vote at the best two candidates advance to final Ballot regardless of party and have a ranked ballot for it.

The main point is that King Making is bad. The public is not selecting between electable candidates. A small group of well monied people are.

For example the people in charge deciding whether new neighbourhoods get approved are being selected by the people who want new neighbourhoods. And the people who are selecting councillors are the same groups who would like to see success in union contract negotiations.