April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[GP_Matt]

If it is obvious before the vote that a certain candidate has beliefs that don't align with yours then by all means don't vote for them. Not voting for a party because a candidate in a different riding has beliefs that don't align with yours seems like you are buying into the hidden agenda angle that is being played up a bit. My point was that if your candidate had a hidden agenda then you will have the option to throw them out through a recall.

Keep in mind the way local candidates are selected. The normal path is that a local nomination contest is announced. Potential candidates are then able to put their names forward by filling out a biography type form and submitting that along with a list of party supporters within the riding, ie a list of signatures. From there, all candidates who submit their application are interviewed by a local candidate nominating committee made up of a few members who are active on the board of the local riding and a few members from the general membership. They interview the candidates and pass their recommendations onto the party stating which candidates they think should be allowed to run and their reasons. The party then makes the final decision, but will almost always allow a candidate that has been approved locally to run. (Usually if they disallow a candidate it is because of knowledge that the party has that the CA may not know, like active membership in the Alberta separatist movement or some other crazy group)

From there the candidates have two weeks to campaign before their local members vote.

Just because one candidate got through the system who perhaps should not have does not mean that all of the candidates have the same belief system.

[Knalus]

The amount of discussion about this topic is frankly a little silly. Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, shame on you. Just look at how the party of Stockwell Day and the ever so scary Preston Manning is doing right now with their majority. This talk about the Wildrose is identical. It's unfounded in it's level of fear, and misguided in nearly everything else.

Fact of the matter is the PC party has shown in the last 5 years, and even more so in the last 6 months, it has lost that core competency to govern. Some people are trying to instill that concern in others by repeating it over and over. This government is far more responsible for fiscal matters than it is for some minor issues of conscience and social policy. And honestly, looking at BOTH social and fiscal policy, it's clear the PC's no longer deserve to govern.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

That is one of the beautiful parts of the voter recall idea. If it does turn out that they had a hidden agenda we can initiate a voter recall and kick them out.
Really, I think politicians need to put their personal views aside when they are elected. At that point they are there to represent the entire constituency and should do so.

Recall is just a bad policy though. Are there examples where its been implemented and used effectively? The one that I can think of was removing the California governor and ending up with the "governator". The problem is that with a requirement for 20% of the signatures or some lowball number there is always going to be that many people against the candidate; I could start a petition the day after the election and get 20% because its obvious that no one will have over 80% of the support in any riding in the province.

I know that the counter is to set the bar higher....but then you hit a point where the bar is so high that you might as well not have recall. Its just a silly policy IMO.

Originally Posted by Knalus

The amount of discussion about this topic is frankly a little silly. Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, shame on you. Just look at how the party of Stockwell Day and the ever so scary Preston Manning is doing right now with their majority. This talk about the Wildrose is identical. It's unfounded in it's level of fear, and misguided in nearly everything else.

Fact of the matter is the PC party has shown in the last 5 years, and even more so in the last 6 months, it has lost that core competency to govern. Some people are trying to instill that concern in others by repeating it over and over. This government is far more responsible for fiscal matters than it is for some minor issues of conscience and social policy. And honestly, looking at BOTH social and fiscal policy, it's clear the PC's no longer deserve to govern.

Well looking at the Wildrose social and fiscal policy they hardly deserve a passing glance, yet the polls seem to show a dead heat at this point.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Let me say the number one reason I'm not voting Wildrose is cause I think their numbers are crap, and that I don't think they can deliver all their promises (improving services while cutting namely). The number two reason is I don't think Danielle Smith is very trustworthy, and that shes a coward for refusing to stand up for any issues for fear of alienating any voters.

I agree there are scare tactics going on, but isn't the Wildrose engaging in the same thing? Everytime an issue comes up, its some elitist left-wing, eastern Canadian conspiracy or fear mongering. Both sides are engaing in fear mongering, its just each side disagrees with the other that calls fear mongering. But make no mistake, the Wildrose and PCs are equally guilty of fear mongering.

But here's the thing to me. This entire election, the media has as always neglected to do their job and properly vett the candidates. Danielle has been the face and focus of the campaign, and now its shifting to focusing on her people more. And sadly I think we're going to discover more Wildrose members with hardline religious views. The Born This Way thing will only energize the gay community, not just in Alberta but across Canada, to look to uncover more of these biggots. There are already 4 or 5 out there, so I'll ask this: If there's a significant portion of Wildrose MLAs (say greater than 25%) with hardline religious views, is that really acceptable?

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Let me say the number one reason I'm not voting Wildrose is cause I think their numbers are crap, and that I don't think they can deliver all their promises (improving services while cutting namely).

I am a Wildrose supporter and I don't think their numbers add up. But who cares? The PC numbers certainly don't add up as well? No way the PC can deliver on all their promises while not increasing taxes.

[darklord700]

http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/04/15...gic-says-smith

“Peter Lougheed said the great thing about Progressive Conservatives is that we not only listen to Albertans, we are Albertans, and we do evolve and we do change and we do embrace change and we do embrace opportunity,” said Redford

Nanny Alli please don't put words in my month. I don't change, I'm the same old ugly right wing extremist that don't care about homelessness as before. I for one certainly don't embrace change, if the change is for you to put your hands in my pocket, sorta speak.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I agree, hence why I won't be voting PC either. Thats the sad thing. If people would actually step back an analyze both party's they'd see they aren't all that dissimilar. Neither of them actually practice what they preach (fiscal conservatism).

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The number two reason is I don't think Danielle Smith is very trustworthy, and that shes a coward for refusing to stand up for any issues for fear of alienating any voters.

This is just not fair. The NDP certainly didn't come out saying they would rob the rich and give it to the poor even though that's exactly their agenda.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Let me say the number one reason I'm not voting Wildrose is cause I think their numbers are crap, and that I don't think they can deliver all their promises (improving services while cutting namely). The number two reason is I don't think Danielle Smith is very trustworthy, and that shes a coward for refusing to stand up for any issues for fear of alienating any voters.

I agree there are scare tactics going on, but isn't the Wildrose engaging in the same thing? Everytime an issue comes up, its some elitist left-wing, eastern Canadian conspiracy or fear mongering. Both sides are engaing in fear mongering, its just each side disagrees with the other that calls fear mongering. But make no mistake, the Wildrose and PCs are equally guilty of fear mongering.

#1: A brief explanation of how the PC numbers line up would be appreciated. I haven't found it. How do they build all those schools again? (Forget this one, you don't care for the PCs either.)

#2: So would a statement from Smith like, "I'm pro-choice and I support gay marriage" make you feel better and prove that she's no coward in respect to talking about prickly issues?

I also missed the WRP making statements about elistist, left-wing, eastern Canadian conspiracies. Please post some links.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by zuluking

I also missed the WRP making statements about elistist, left-wing, eastern Canadian conspiracies. Please post some links.

Go back a couple of pages in this thread.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I'm not voting for any party in this election. The only one I would consider is the Alberta Party. Both the Wildrose and PC fiscal platforms are smoke and mirrors, neither of them will work.

If Danielle Smith is indeed for gay marriage, and didn't decry Mr. Hunsperger, that makes it even worse. She won't even stand up for it when she can! She chooses to go with the party line. If she had a spine she would say such talk is wrong and will not be permitted by my party. Instead she essentially condoned it on religious ground.

Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith is accusing her PC rival Alison Redford of trying to scare her way to a provincial election victory, dismissing such tactics as the kind of fearmongering Eastern Canada has previously directed at Preston Manning and Stephen Harper.

"When Preston Manning had his breakthrough in 1993 he almost swept through Alberta, and Stephen Harper hasn't had any trouble getting votes in Alberta," Smith said Thursday in Calgary. "It's typical of liberal politicians to demonize a conservative party using fear-mongering. I think Albertans won't fall for it."

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Sm...279/story.html

[Slava]

Originally Posted by darklord700

I am a Wildrose supporter and I don't think their numbers add up. But who cares? The PC numbers certainly don't add up as well? No way the PC can deliver on all their promises while not increasing taxes.

Really? What else would let you make that decision? This just seems so bizarre to me.

Originally Posted by darklord700

http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/04/15...gic-says-smith

“Peter Lougheed said the great thing about Progressive Conservatives is that we not only listen to Albertans, we are Albertans, and we do evolve and we do change and we do embrace change and we do embrace opportunity,” said Redford

Nanny Alli please don't put words in my month. I don't change, I'm the same old ugly right wing extremist that don't care about homelessness as before. I for one certainly don't embrace change, if the change is for you to put your hands in my pocket, sorta speak.

Wow.

Originally Posted by zuluking

#1: A brief explanation of how the PC numbers line up would be appreciated. I haven't found it. How do they build all those schools again? (Forget this one, you don't care for the PCs either.)

#2: So would a statement from Smith like, "I'm pro-choice and I support gay marriage" make you feel better and prove that she's no coward in respect to talking about prickly issues?

I also missed the WRP making statements about elistist, left-wing, eastern Canadian conspiracies. Please post some links.

They build the schools with the surplus money. Its the same money that Smith would use to fritter away with her Dani-dollars program.

[GP_Matt]

Reading this thread it seems that everyone is either voting for the Wildrose or they are against the Wildrose. There has been a lot of speculation that the WRA may have a hidden agenda or terrible social policies but not much in the way of support for the other parties.
I would then like to ask, If you don't think that we should vote in the WRA, who do you propose that people vote for and more importantly, why?

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Slava

Really? What else would let you make that decision? This just seems so bizarre to me.

Voting base on platform and what's being said is like picking a beauty queen in a pageant based on her intelligent. It doesn't happen.

To me, anyone who promises me free annual trip to Vegas with $1000 spending money gets my vote (Ms. Redford, are you reading this?)

Short of that, anyone who doesn't put their hand in my pocket gets my vote.

All these discussions about hookers, gays, abortion, or trotting out a premier from before most of us were born don't matter to me.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Slava

They build the schools with the surplus money. Its the same money that Smith would use to fritter away with her Dani-dollars program.

Are you suggesting that we should only build schools if we have a surplus? I always thought that something like new schools should be budgeted for. We either need the schools or we don't, building them only if we have a surplus makes it seem like an Art Gallery that would be nice to have but only if we have the cash laying around and nothing else to spend it on.

The so called Dani-dollars would only kick in after all budgeted items are paid for and would be combined with cash to municipalities and long and short term savings.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I'm not voting for any party in this election. The only one I would consider is the Alberta Party. Both the Wildrose and PC fiscal platforms are smoke and mirrors, neither of them will work.

If Danielle Smith is indeed for gay marriage, and didn't decry Mr. Hunsperger, that makes it even worse. She won't even stand up for it when she can! She chooses to go with the party line. If she had a spine she would say such talk is wrong and will not be permitted by my party. Instead she essentially condoned it on religious ground.


http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Sm...279/story.html

So Danielle Smith tends to libertarianism and believes in conscience "rights", yet you want her to decry someone for not believing what she believes, regardless of how obvious it may be you, me or her. If she did that, she would then be all those things you're attributing to her here. Instead, you're making up scenarios for her that would require her to actually compromise what she believes in as a governing philosophy. Her approach now is far more courageous (regardless of whether you agree or not - or choose to see it, for that matter.)

To me fearmongering is taking the implausible or impossible and using that as absolutely plausible and possible to scare people into thinking the way you want them to think. There is no basis in fact, like fiscal numbers not adding up or sheer ability (time, resources) to deliver on a promise. It is pure fiction and this is what the PCs are using as a tactic, like the federal Liberals "hidden agenda" and "guns in the street" ads. Drawing an analogy to what was done in prior federal elections is not fearmongering. It's just calling a spade, a spade.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Reading this thread it seems that everyone is either voting for the Wildrose or they are against the Wildrose. There has been a lot of speculation that the WRA may have a hidden agenda or terrible social policies but not much in the way of support for the other parties.
I would then like to ask, If you don't think that we should vote in the WRA, who do you propose that people vote for and more importantly, why?

And therein lies the sad answer...I don't really think any of the big 4 parties platforms are worthwhile. I said I would consider the Alberta Party, but admitedly haven't examined their platform in depth. But having seen the Big 4's platforms, none of them make me feel better about the MLAs we'll have in Edmonton. The Wildrose budget in theory could work, but it would require oil prices to be at or near record highs, which means we pay more for everything anyways, making it no different than a tax increase, except of course it isn't a direct tax increase.

The PCs cannot finance everything through deficit spending. The Liberal platform isn't awful, but I can't justify a tax increase when oil is where it is. And the NDP platform simply doesn't appeal to me. So really I wish I could tell you who's the best, but to me these are all B-/C+ options. Mediocrity abound.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by zuluking

So Danielle Smith tends to libertarianism and believes in conscience "rights", yet you want her to decry someone for not believing what she believes, regardless of how obvious it may be you, me or her. If she did that, she would then be all those things you're attributing to her here. Instead, you're making up scenarios for her that would require her to actually compromise what she believes in as a governing philosophy. Her approach now is far more courageous (regardless of whether you agree or not - or choose to see it, for that matter.)

To me fearmongering is taking the implausible or impossible and using that as absolutely plausible and possible to scare people into thinking the way you want them to think. There is no basis in fact, like fiscal numbers not adding up or sheer ability (time, resources) to deliver on a promise. It is pure fiction and this is what the PCs are using as a tactic, like the federal Liberals "hidden agenda" and "guns in the street" ads. Drawing an analogy to what was done in prior federal elections is not fearmongering. It's just calling a spade, a spade.

So you're saying standing up for biggots is courageous? I mean I guess in a sick way it kind of is. But standing up for repression to me is not courageous. I appreciate her "libertarianism" (worst term in politics FYI), but she's not decrying hate speech. Thats cowardly to me. If we don't stand up to hate speech, it will only perpetuate.

And screaming about a hidden agenda from the others is designed for one purpose: To stoke fear in your party members. "See, those liberals hate us conservatives! Lets show them!". And the Wildrose ads I've seen for senate are so hilariously awful. They don't actually all advertise the senate candidate, most just say "Vote Wildrose for Seneate and send the PCs a message". Now thats not fear mongering, but its attempting to appeal to people's emotions, which is just as bad. Politics should involved logic and rationality, not emotion. How many good decisions are made in life on emotion?

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Slava

They build the schools with the surplus money. Its the same money that Smith would use to fritter away with her Dani-dollars program.

So in calculating "real" money proposed budget numbers neither the energy dividend or the schools are factored into the planned spend for their respective parties as they are both based on an unknown variable?

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

So you're saying standing up for biggots is courageous? I mean I guess in a sick way it kind of is. But standing up for repression to me is not courageous. I appreciate her "libertarianism" (worst term in politics FYI), but she's not decrying hate speech. Thats cowardly to me. If we don't stand up to hate speech, it will only perpetuate.

And screaming about a hidden agenda from the others is designed for one purpose: To stoke fear in your party members. "See, those liberals hate us conservatives! Lets show them!". And the Wildrose ads I've seen for senate are so hilariously awful. They don't actually all advertise the senate candidate, most just say "Vote Wildrose for Seneate and send the PCs a message". Now thats not fear mongering, but its attempting to appeal to people's emotions, which is just as bad. Politics should involved logic and rationality, not emotion. How many good decisions are made in life on emotion?

Sometimes voting means picking the least objectionable candidate. I don't think disliking all parties is a good reason to avoid voting altogether. If you don't like the parties you should consider voting for an individual candidate in your riding. You have found that some candidates have ideas that don't line up perfectly with the parties and it stands to reason that that would go both ways. Perhaps one of the candidates in your riding will do a much better job representing your riding than the others so you should vote that way.

It saddens me a bit to know that someone who cares enough about politics to join a message board and post 15-20 times a day in a politics thread can't be bothered to vote. Voter turnout in Alberta is already terrible, don't make it worse.