Liberal MLA Kent Hehr calls for merger of the left

[iggypop]

Liberal MLA Kent Hehr is calling on all “progressive” politicians and supporters in the province to come together in a single, big tent party to have a chance at beating the Redford Tories.

Although he acknowledged it will be difficult to gain traction for his idea, Hehr said he was spurred to speak out after seeing the results of the Calgary Centre byelection last month.

In that closely watched contest, progressive parties received more than 60 per cent of the popular vote but support was split between Liberal Harvey Locke and Green candidate Chris Turner, and, to a lesser extent, New Democrat Dan Meades.

Conservative candidate Joan Crockatt won the day.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Li...#ixzz2EiU9jyb0

Any way this is realistic? Anyone else want this to happen? Oppose it? What's your thoughts?

[Yeah_Baby]

Or we could have proportional representation. I don't don't which one would be easier to realize.

[OffsideSpecialist]

I don't see how the Liberals and NDP are always lumped together. Fundamentally they are totally different parties. I think it would have been smart for the Green Party to try and take over the socially liberal, fiscally right-wing part of the spectrum that Harris seemed to want to take them, as that group of people doesn't really have a party that matches their interests all that well at the moment.

I don't think proportional representation would be a solution, but I am in favour of instant runoff. It at the very least ensures that the majority of people in a riding are comfortable with their elected representative.

[Azure]

I suppose he means the NDP and Liberals should merge. Not sure how that will actually be possible since the Liberals might be irrelevant in Alberta politics, but they are not incompetent and useless like the provincial NDP party.

If the Liberals could drop the name and get their act together they could be a pretty good opposition party. NDP not so much.

[SebC]

Before this thread gets any further, let me emphasize that he's talking about a merger of the provincial parties, not the federal ones. However, some of the provincial parties are affiliated with the federal ones (though the Alberta Liberals are not).

[Azure]

I was actually talking about the provincial parties.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Azure

I was actually talking about the provincial parties.

I wasn't addressing any particular post, and perhaps you weren't either.

[moon]

Originally Posted by OffsideSpecialist

I don't think proportional representation would be a solution, but I am in favour of instant runoff. It at the very least ensures that the majority of people in a riding are comfortable with their elected representative.

One problem I see with an instant run-off is that turnout is so bad as it is I could see a lot of people a. not voting because their guy is out and b. not voting because once is godd a second time becomes a pain in the ass. Sure it sounds like weak reasons not to vote but if you can struggle to get 30% of people to vote once I shudder to think what the number becomes once you ask them to vote twice.

And when it comes to having people vote preferentially for their candidates, well I think we have seen the problems with that and the two terrible leaders that have come from the PC leadership races.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by OffsideSpecialist

I don't see how the Liberals and NDP are always lumped together.

Exactly, not to mention the Greens and AP.

Provincially I would think the Liberals would be closer to the PC's than the NDP. If those 2 parties merged the fiscally responsible Liberals would probably permanently move the the PC's, I doubt it would negatively affect the PC or WR voter base in the slightest. Even if they convinced all 4 "left" parties to merge they probably still couldn't even form the opposition, I suppose they might win a few seats in the cities but they could just as easily lose some others.

[Mr.Coffee]

One thing I don't really understand very well, is why doesn't anybody create a brand new party. And I'm talking a person with a name, like Kent Hehr for instance. And you create a new party with a blend of socially liberal but fiscally conservative takes, and then you re-brand this party under new name, logo, colours, etc. And then you go social media huge, sort of like what Nenshi did.

Just seems like you might be able to create a lot of momentum, and get a lot of people to jump ship and or populate your party. I guess a little bit like Wildrose, but maybe without the bat-#### crazy chitter chatter stemming from any kind of religious / overtly right allusion, and just a moderate, centrist platform.

I realize this may be difficult, but I feel like it would be immensely successful.

How many years did it take Wildrose to do this (get momentum)?

Alternatively, you have these guys trying to merge a bunch of parties the majority isn't really pumped about.

Albertans are looking for a new political party, I think you can bet on that. It's just the alternatives are not that great either.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

One thing I don't really understand very well, is why doesn't anybody create a brand new party.

Because a new party is just as likely to split the vote further as it is to coalesce it. A merger, however, while tough to achieve, can only coalesce it.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

One thing I don't really understand very well, is why doesn't anybody create a brand new party. And I'm talking a person with a name, like Kent Hehr for instance. And you create a new party with a blend of socially liberal but fiscally conservative takes, and then you re-brand this party under new name, logo, colours, etc. And then you go social media huge, sort of like what Nenshi did.

Just seems like you might be able to create a lot of momentum, and get a lot of people to jump ship and or populate your party. I guess a little bit like Wildrose, but maybe without the bat-#### crazy chitter chatter stemming from any kind of religious / overtly right allusion, and just a moderate, centrist platform.

I realize this may be difficult, but I feel like it would be immensely successful.

How many years did it take Wildrose to do this (get momentum)?

Alternatively, you have these guys trying to merge a bunch of parties the majority isn't really pumped about.

Albertans are looking for a new political party, I think you can bet on that. It's just the alternatives are not that great either.

I think a problem with a guy like Kent doing it is no matter what it will be tough to shake the "Liberal" name from anything he does.

Nenshi was able to do it because he had no well-known ties to anyone and was looked at as a "breath of fresh air"/"new guy".

The problem with the merger in my view is that as people have mentioned the Liberals are not that close to the NDP and much closer to the Redford PC's. If anything a reform/PC merger into the Conservatives seems like a much better idea for the "lefties" that are actually "Centrists" in the province to go against the WR who now represent the right. Now there is no incentive for the PC's to do this with the poor showing of the WR in the last election but if next time the WR gets its stuff together and poses a threat to the PC's perhaps we see an unofficial merger in which the Liberals/PC's go for a combined effort in the cities to fight the rural influence of the WR party.

[Mr.Coffee]

both good points

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Or we could have proportional representation. I don't don't which one would be easier to realize.

proportional representation is of course the obvious and most effective means of ensuring democratic representation to a population of constituents. There are precious few arguments against, even fewer legitimate arguments, that don't revolve around the established and indentured need for power and control of the political apparatus for the self serving few who have managed to attain and wield it.

While effective at a national level for the centre-right parties, Tories and reform, the amalgamation of what are otherwise distinct and diverse parties with a variety of cultivated political ideals into a monolithic voting block has been largely disastrous to the Canadian political landscape.

Look no further than down south as an example of what lays ahead for political systems that reduce the political process into a series of votes for a and b.

Given Alberta's distaste for anything but the status quo politically, I think it is highly likely that the rest of the country could see proportional representation be adopted provincially and then profered federally before the Alberta voter is inclined to vote for it.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by moon

I think a problem with a guy like Kent doing it is no matter what it will be tough to shake the "Liberal" name from anything he does.

Nenshi was able to do it because he had no well-known ties to anyone and was looked at as a "breath of fresh air"/"new guy".

The problem with the merger in my view is that as people have mentioned the Liberals are not that close to the NDP and much closer to the Redford PC's. If anything a reform/PC merger into the Conservatives seems like a much better idea for the "lefties" that are actually "Centrists" in the province to go against the WR who now represent the right. Now there is no incentive for the PC's to do this with the poor showing of the WR in the last election but if next time the WR gets its stuff together and poses a threat to the PC's perhaps we see an unofficial merger in which the Liberals/PC's go for a combined effort in the cities to fight the rural influence of the WR party.

You're not wrong, but one problem with this idea is that the merged entity would bear the Orwellian moniker "the liberal progressive conservative party."

[Resolute 14]

I like the abuse of stats, as if merging all of these parties means every voter goes to the new merger. It was the same theory behind the leaders of the attempted coup at the federal level spouting off their "54% majority" nonsense. The problem now is the same as it was then: A Liberal voter is voting Liberal, not "Liberal and NDP and Green". You merge three parties that represent three very different ideologies, and you will end up with one party that represents none of them.

[Hemi-Cuda]

IMO it would be far better if we used a run-off style election process in this country. first round of elections are open to all parties. once the votes are in, the 2 parties with the most votes go head to head in the final election. that way you don't end up with a party in power who only got 30-40% of the popular vote, and people can vote in the first round for the candidates they side with the most without worrying about their vote being "wasted"

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

proportional representation is of course the obvious and most effective means of ensuring democratic representation to a population of constituents. There are precious few arguments against, even fewer legitimate arguments, that don't revolve around the established and indentured need for power and control of the political apparatus for the self serving few who have managed to attain and wield it.

I can think of a few reasons to avoid PR.
The first being geographical representation. An MLA should represent his constituents first and his party second. It is his job to argue for the region that he represents to make sure that the area gets fair treatment in both policy and spending. Under PR the MLAs represent a party and it removes any local representation.

Another complaint of PR is that it can give too much power to the small parties. It is more likely to result in a minority government which means that for anything to pass the largest party will have to compromise with one of the smaller parties to gain the votes. This sounds good, but what happens when 5% of the population votes for a racist party who now holds the balance of power.

Using the results from the last election and true PR the seat count would have been.
PC's 38 seats
WRA 30 seats
Liberal 9 seats
NDP 9 seats
Alberta party 1 seat

The clear result of this system is that Allison Redford would have been found in contempt of Legislature.

I am not specifically against PR but don't think it is fair to claim that it is the obvious and most effective choice.

[mykalberta]

I personally think this could be accomplished simply with the re-branding of the Liberals. I thought the Alberta party was supposed to be that but maybe the Liberals are to stuborn to give up the "Red".

I dont see a merger working as there would be no equitable split. And in every merger there needs to be a winner and a loser and no party would want to be seen as the "loser"

It could also be a question of money. I dont know the financials of each party but I assume they cant be great.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I like the abuse of stats, as if merging all of these parties means every voter goes to the new merger. It was the same theory behind the leaders of the attempted coup at the federal level spouting off their "54% majority" nonsense. The problem now is the same as it was then: A Liberal voter is voting Liberal, not "Liberal and NDP and Green". You merge three parties that represent three very different ideologies, and you will end up with one party that represents none of them.

As opposed to a parliament that represents none of them? It's better have a party that's in the same ballpark as what you believe that (hypothetically) could actually win than one that represents your views exactly but doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell.

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I can think of a few reasons to avoid PR.
The first being geographical representation. An MLA should represent his constituents first and his party second. It is his job to argue for the region that he represents to make sure that the area gets fair treatment in both policy and spending. Under PR the MLAs represent a party and it removes any local representation.

Another complaint of PR is that it can give too much power to the small parties. It is more likely to result in a minority government which means that for anything to pass the largest party will have to compromise with one of the smaller parties to gain the votes. This sounds good, but what happens when 5% of the population votes for a racist party who now holds the balance of power.

Using the results from the last election and true PR the seat count would have been.
PC's 38 seats
WRA 30 seats
Liberal 9 seats
NDP 9 seats
Alberta party 1 seat

The clear result of this system is that Allison Redford would have been found in contempt of Legislature.

I am not specifically against PR but don't think it is fair to claim that it is the obvious and most effective choice.

On your first point, there are proportional systems that preserve local representation. For examples, single transferable vote and mixed member proportional. Single transferrable vote actually beats what we have now for local reprensentation in that not only would everyone have a local representative, they'd actually have several and likely at least one from a party they support.

On your second point, how is an amount of power that correlates to the amount of vote received "too much"? Say the racists do get 5%: there's a coalition somewhere in the other 95% that doesn't involve them.

At the federal level, first-past-the-post has given us a majority government that represents the right-most 40% of the population. Now that's what I'd call giving too much power to a small party (). Under PR, a majority coalition would at least have to include the median voter, so I'd say that PR actually does a better job at producing moderate governments.

PR is the way to go, the only thing that's not obvious is the form it should take. STV and MMP are both very good systems. (Or we could go with a system I just invented, mixed member single transferable vote!)