Ongoing YYCCC (Chu + Farkas) Transgressions Threat

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The problem is the alienation and resentment of a large chunk of the electorate in the West today. Yes, demagogues exploit that resentment. But they don’t conjure it up out of thin air. We need a way to restore trust among the less educated and socially mobile that our institutions are still operating in their interests, and not solely in the interests of a technocratic elite who they are growing to hate (and who in turn increasingly regard them as contemptible lumpenvolk).

Not sure that's ever going to be remedied as long as Ontario and Quebec determine the fates of Western Canadians.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Not sure that's ever going to be remedied as long as Ontario and Quebec determine the fates of Western Canadians.

Sorry, I meant West as in North America/ Europe / Australia.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The issue isn’t the candidates. People who resent the expert class are going to find some way to lob bricks through the edifices of authority. And there’s nothing stopping educated professionals from playing the demagogue for political gain.

The problem is the alienation and resentment of a large chunk of the electorate in the West today. Yes, demagogues exploit that resentment. But they don’t conjure it up out of thin air. We need a way to restore trust among the less educated and socially mobile that our institutions are still operating in their interests, and not solely in the interests of a technocratic elite who they are growing to hate (and who in turn increasingly regard them as contemptible lumpenvolk).

Sorry, when did the 'less educated' have trust in our institutions? Seems to me that throughout Western history, the powerless have not trusted the powerful, often for good reason. It seems like this is a feature in the system rather than a bug. In order to get the result you're describing, we wouldn't be going back to the good old days when everyone was happy (because it's never existed) but rather it would require a massive restructuring of the entire system and a massive shift of our culture, economic systems, social systems, political systems, etc.

[PepsiFree]

The only difference is now people can be collective in their unhappiness and distrust.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

... it would require a massive restructuring of the entire system and a massive shift of our culture, economic systems, social systems, political systems, etc.

... which is impossible without a revolution, gigantic disruption of lives, livelihoods, mass-murder and propulsion of loud/violent/evil people to the top of the power pyramid in the process; as has been convincingly proven many times in modern history.

It is so easy to proclaim "the system is all f...ked and we are doomed anyway" from the sidelines. Yet, small progressive improvements and tweaks to the existing democratic systems-in-place are possible, realistic and should be aimed at.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

... which is impossible without a revolution, gigantic disruption of lives, livelihoods, mass-murder and propulsion of loud/violent/evil people to the top of the power pyramid in the process; as has been convincingly proven many times in modern history.

It is so easy to proclaim "the system is all f...ked and we are doomed anyway" from the sidelines. Yet, small progressive improvements and tweaks to the existing democratic systems-in-place are possible, realistic and should be aimed at.

It's true that progressive improvements are possible.

But what you're proposing isn't an improvement, imo, and makes the breakdown of the system considerably more likely.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Sorry, when did the 'less educated' have trust in our institutions? Seems to me that throughout Western history, the powerless have not trusted the powerful, often for good reason. It seems like this is a feature in the system rather than a bug. In order to get the result you're describing, we wouldn't be going back to the good old days when everyone was happy (because it's never existed) but rather it would require a massive restructuring of the entire system and a massive shift of our culture, economic systems, social systems, political systems, etc.

What we’re seeing is not business as usual. Globalization, demographic change, and the loss of establishment control over information have overturned the playing board.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/201...e-new-populism

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...t-martin-gurri

[KelVarnsen]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Disagree completely. If anything, the society would be much better served if it discriminates harder against unqualified people running for public offices. The qualifications should include:
- Age limits (35 at the beginning of the prospective term to 65 at the end of the term);
- Degree from accredited university which includes at least some education in finance, law and history;
- Minimum 10 years of real work experience (i.e. blogging, podcasting and Instagram influencing would not count);
- No past bankruptcies;
- No criminal convictions for serious crimes (e.g. drunk driving or a bar fight at age of 18 is not the same as financial fraud, rape or murder in your past);
- Some proven history of volunteering and community service.

This is like a job posting HR would post without knowing a damn thing about the job.

[81MC]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Disagree completely. If anything, the society would be much better served if it discriminates harder against unqualified people running for public offices. The qualifications should include:
- Age limits (35 at the beginning of the prospective term to 65 at the end of the term);
- Degree from accredited university which includes at least some education in finance, law and history;
- Minimum 10 years of real work experience (i.e. blogging, podcasting and Instagram influencing would not count);
- No past bankruptcies;
- No criminal convictions for serious crimes (e.g. drunk driving or a bar fight at age of 18 is not the same as financial fraud, rape or murder in your past);
- Some proven history of volunteering and community service.

Right now, good salary, good pension and perks that come with Canadian public offices, are way too attractive to people without any meaningful skills, knowledge, talent and experience. And the apathy of Canadian voters towards elections , in general, is making it happen. This is hurting us all.

When accredited post secondary education is free, and all the issues surrounding imbalance in factors influencing admissions is correct, maybe requiring an accredited degree would be acceptable. As it is now, this is counter to the very idea of democracy.

[MoneyGuy]

I don’t live in Calgary so had to check this Kevin Johnston. Guy’s a lunatic. Thankfully he has no chance but he could do some damage with his crackpot conspiracy theories and stupid beliefs.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I don’t live in Calgary so had to check this Kevin Johnston. Guy’s a lunatic. Thankfully he has no chance but he could do some damage with his crackpot conspiracy theories and stupid beliefs.

he's going to do even more damage just by getting his hands on the voter list information, considering his comments and threats.
If I worked for AHS for example, I'd be terrified of him getting that information.

for civic politics, what need would candidates have for voters lists anyway?
would it really hurt the process to deny access to all candidates?

[Mull]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

he's going to do even more damage just by getting his hands on the voter list information, considering his comments and threats.
If I worked for AHS for example, I'd be terrified of him getting that information.

for civic politics, what need would candidates have for voters lists anyway?
would it really hurt the process to deny access to all candidates?

If I understand how municipal politics work, and I don't, the AB government has 100% full control. They can make a bill tomorrow dismantling our council and elections and they could choose to direct admin the City.

If the City is legally required to send the voters list (apparently the City is seeking seeking legal options, but I haven't read enough, not sure if they have too or not)....

The City should publicly ask for the GoA to draft a bill not allowing the voter list to be sent to all candidates this election, citing threats made by a candidate against the voters.

Add to that this are GoA employees (well AHS, but whatever) being threatened.

In short, if the City chooses their hands are tired, escalate it to the GoA. The GoA hasn't provided City Charters, they want to retain this power, well use it. (edit City charters were provided, but I don't think it changes my point, not sure).

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

he's going to do even more damage just by getting his hands on the voter list information, considering his comments and threats.
If I worked for AHS for example, I'd be terrified of him getting that information.

for civic politics, what need would candidates have for voters lists anyway?
would it really hurt the process to deny access to all candidates?

It wouldn’t hurt if it was set up like police databases, where any searches or unauthorized use gets flagged. Otherwise, if somebody wants to send out mailers, they can just send the graphics and a payment. What else would candidates need?

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

he's going to do even more damage just by getting his hands on the voter list information, considering his comments and threats.
If I worked for AHS for example, I'd be terrified of him getting that information.

for civic politics, what need would candidates have for voters lists anyway?
would it really hurt the process to deny access to all candidates?

I’ve run in several municipal elections and I don’t see the need for voter lists. There are far better ways to connect. Voter numbers are useful, but not names attached to addresses.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I’ve run in several municipal elections and I don’t see the need for voter lists. There are far better ways to connect. Voter numbers are useful, but not names attached to addresses.

When this story broke, I did some thinking about it, and it occurred to me that the fastest and easiest way to 'fix' this would be to have a list that you could give that would be 'address-2 voters', 'address-4 voters', etc.

So you could have an address, and you'd know how many registered voters lived there. Their names or other info wouldn't be shown. But that's a pretty easy fix, so I've been wondering if there's something I'm missing (as I don't know a lot about the back end of elections)

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

When this story broke, I did some thinking about it, and it occurred to me that the fastest and easiest way to 'fix' this would be to have a list that you could give that would be 'address-2 voters', 'address-4 voters', etc.

So you could have an address, and you'd know how many registered voters lived there. Their names or other info wouldn't be shown. But that's a pretty easy fix, so I've been wondering if there's something I'm missing (as I don't know a lot about the back end of elections)

Your idea works for me. Another point I haven’t seen mentioned.... It’d be tremendously useful for school board candidates to know who are public and separate school board voters. That may be available in Calgary but it’s not in my city.

[Bourque's Twin]

I think Jeff Davison is going to announce that he's running for Mayor today. I'm curious to know what everyone's thought are on this. It seems to me that he's trying to position himself in between Gondek and Farkas on the political spectrum.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by Bourque's Twin

I think Jeff Davison is going to announce that he's running for Mayor today. I'm curious to know what everyone's thought are on this. It seems to me that he's trying to position himself in between Gondek and Farkas on the political spectrum.

I don't know much about him. If he takes votes from Farkas (unlikely IMHO) that is good. If he takes from Gondek that is not so good.

[KTrain]

Originally Posted by Bourque's Twin

I think Jeff Davison is going to announce that he's running for Mayor today. I'm curious to know what everyone's thought are on this. It seems to me that he's trying to position himself in between Gondek and Farkas on the political spectrum.

And he has

https://twitter.com/user/status/1392610470402560003

[MegaErtz]

This is a major game changer and we have a real race on our hands now. I'd give all three candidates an equal chance, but the fact that Davison is getting in now tells me that the money Farkas thought was going to be behind him likely isn't anymore. This is a major blow for him.

Davison was the driving force behind the arena deal and he owns it 100%. This has the advantage of taking the heat off Gondek for her yes vote and it also splits the right wing vote down the middle.

I know I was saying just a month ago that I expected Farkas to run away with it in a two horse race with Gondek, but now I'm absolutely convinced that Davison has this in the bag. The biggest winner today is Gondek, as she can legitimately claim to have a path to victory when she tries to raise money.