April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[Chump]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Stelmach served one term as premier, whereas Edmonton and area have elected Calgary-area premiers for, what, a couple of decades. Edmonton is far more tolerant of a Calgary premier than Calgary is of a premier from these parts.

I don't think this is really true, during most of the Klein years Edmonton voted pretty solidly Liberal and Calgary has voted pretty solidly PC regardless of who the leader has been.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Chump

I don't think this is really true, during most of the Klein years Edmonton voted pretty solidly Liberal and Calgary has voted pretty solidly PC regardless of who the leader has been.

How solidly Liberal is solidly Liberal?
Other than that year Decore got 30ish seats everything else was a landslide.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Jacks

It also produces endless minority governments which generally means constant campaigning and gridlock in the legislature. Trying to keep everyone happy also means that the tough decisions never get made and spending stays high. We'd still be buried in debt if Klein had to deal with a minority. No thanks.

I didn't say the Wild Rose had to agree with prop. rep. I said they had to agree with it if they want to be considered a populist party.

So fine: they don't support prop. rep. They're also not populists. They should thus stop playing the anti-intellectual populist card when concerned citizens point out that the slate standing behind Danielle Smith is comprised (with a few exceptions) of ideologues and lackwits--and that otherwise they aren't different from the Tories at all.

It's not elitism to ask that people who put themselves forward for public office have some quality that makes them stand out. You can't just put ANYBODY up for election and expect that the drones will fall in line and vote for whatever nincompoop got enough of their friends to turn up to a nomination meeting.

The person who's running in my riding has a resume that is so unimpressive that I would seriously not hire that person to be an executive assistant. She's quite literally less qualified than the idiot in Alison Redford's office who tweeted about Danielle Smith's family status. That's just not acceptable for a party that hopes to form a government. If the Wild Rose can't even attract qualified people, how am I to believe that they can run the province?

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I didn't say the Wild Rose had to agree with prop. rep. I said they had to agree with it if they want to be considered a populist party.

So fine: they don't support prop. rep. They're also not populists. They should thus stop playing the anti-intellectual populist card when concerned citizens point out that the slate standing behind Danielle Smith is comprised (with a few exceptions) of ideologues and lackwits--and that otherwise they aren't different from the Tories at all.

It's not elitism to ask that people who put themselves forward for public office have some quality that makes them stand out. You can't just put ANYBODY up for election and expect that the drones will fall in line and vote for whatever nincompoop got enough of their friends to turn up to a nomination meeting.

The person who's running in my riding has a resume that is so unimpressive that I would seriously not hire that person to be an executive assistant. She's quite literally less qualified than the idiot in Alison Redford's office who tweeted about Danielle Smith's family status. That's just not acceptable for a party that hopes to form a government. If the Wild Rose can't even attract qualified people, how am I to believe that they can run the province?

I hope Leech gets elected and is given the portfolio of Minister of Culture.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

First Lady: what can you tell me about Wild Rose's opinions regarding proportional representation? (And don't tell me that I can start a citizen's referendum by collecting a bajillion signatures. I'm talking about meaningful electoral reform here.)

I don't know if she has responded and don't want to read ahead three pages to find out. But PR was discussed at one of the WRA conventions and it was brought up that it should be a referendum issue and not a campaign issue.

I tend to agree with that. PR is complicated and an important enough issue that it should stand alone. If a party promised PR and lost people would question if they lost for that reason or because of their 30 other policies. It is all well and good to decide that it is a better system, but it will fundamentally change both the way we elect our leaders and the way that seats are distributed in the legislature. I think it would be a bad plan to have a government push this on us without a full debate followed by a referendum.

[Kybosh]

Regardless of the party/candidate you support, election days are a fantastic opportunity to ditch work early.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

I hope Leech gets elected and is given the portfolio of Minister of Culture.

He understands and can speak for every culture, so that would be the perfect portfolio for him.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Most Wild Rose supporters equate the WR party with the federal Conservative party (the WR senatorial candidates even said they would join the federal Conservative caucus if elected) and we know what they are like fiscally and the WR fiscal campaign promisses.... so yes... he can make a pretty good assumption that Smith will keep her hands off his wallet.

The party that increased spending 40% in their first three years (i.e. before the recession)? The party that formed the highest spending government in Canadian history? The party that cut an economically efficient tax (GST) but sneakily increased income taxes (by playing around with the brackets)? The party that is launching the kind of "war on drugs" that has proven costly and ineffective in the US and Latin America? The party that's destroying a $2 billion (start-up cost) gun registry?

Yeah, they're great for our wallets.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I don't know if she has responded and don't want to read ahead three pages to find out. But PR was discussed at one of the WRA conventions and it was brought up that it should be a referendum issue and not a campaign issue.

I tend to agree with that. PR is complicated and an important enough issue that it should stand alone. If a party promised PR and lost people would question if they lost for that reason or because of their 30 other policies. It is all well and good to decide that it is a better system, but it will fundamentally change both the way we elect our leaders and the way that seats are distributed in the legislature. I think it would be a bad plan to have a government push this on us without a full debate followed by a referendum.

Fair enough--but in that case, it's up to the government to put it to a referendum.

The "citizen's initiative" idea was first proposed as showing the grassroots credentials of the party. Then, later, when we all pointed out that this could mean initiatives on all sorts of nonsense, we were reassured that it was so difficult to get the requisite number of signatures that we needn't worry--we won't have to worry about any actual citizen's initiatives--the policy has a built-in obstacle that is designed to be very difficult to overcome.

That means two things: first, that obstacle is going to operate equally to prevent sensible and crazy "citizen's initiatives," and as a result we can't rely on it to bring about electoral reform. Second, it's clear that the whole idea amounts to lip service: Wild Rose doesn't actually want a whole bunch of citizen's initiatives--what they want is to be able to bolster their populist image, hoping that none of it will ever come to fruition because voters tend not to read the fine print.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Is it too late to vote for Iowa_Flames_Fan as premier?

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Fair enough--but in that case, it's up to the government to put it to a referendum.

The "citizen's initiative" idea was first proposed as showing the grassroots credentials of the party. Then, later, when we all pointed out that this could mean initiatives on all sorts of nonsense, we were reassured that it was so difficult to get the requisite number of signatures that we needn't worry--we won't have to worry about any actual citizen's initiatives--the policy has a built-in obstacle that is designed to be very difficult to overcome.

That means two things: first, that obstacle is going to operate equally to prevent sensible and crazy "citizen's initiatives," and as a result we can't rely on it to bring about electoral reform. Second, it's clear that the whole idea amounts to lip service: Wild Rose doesn't actually want a whole bunch of citizen's initiatives--what they want is to be able to bolster their populist image, hoping that none of it will ever come to fruition because voters tend not to read the fine print.

There's a reason it's called citizen initiated referenda. The only reason party had to clarify was because the other parties twisted to something else.

I had missed the question, so thanks GPMatt for responding.

The Wildrose has many items under democratic reform, PR isn't one of them.

Generally, its not something that I've seen come up a lot. I don't think the demand is there yet.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I don't think the demand is there yet.

Alberta is too interested in political engagement via populist or libertarian dogmatics.

Not an indictment, more an observation.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by SebC

The party that increased spending 40% in their first three years (i.e. before the recession)? The party that formed the highest spending government in Canadian history?

Say thanks to a minority government (coupled with the recession), expect more of that if we had proportional representation. Now that Harper has a majority notice the difference? the tough decisions are being made because there isn't the threat of another election every week. Cretien, hero of the left, would never have balanced the books without a majority. I'd rather deal with a government I don't like for 4 years of stability than 4 years of yipping like little dogs.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

The "citizen's initiative" idea was first proposed as showing the grassroots credentials of the party. Then, later, when we all pointed out that this could mean initiatives on all sorts of nonsense, we were reassured that it was so difficult to get the requisite number of signatures that we needn't worry--we won't have to worry about any actual citizen's initiatives--the policy has a built-in obstacle that is designed to be very difficult to overcome.

That's because a large portion of the population isn't going to vote for the "nonsense initiatives", legitimate referendums are entirely doable, look at the HST in BC.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Rerun

You left out "after 40 years as the ruling party, their Liberalize sense of entitlement".

Lets not make it 44. Enough is enough.

This is the argument that I don't get at all. On one hand it is the fact that we need change because the party has been in power for too long using an arbitrary number to justify the point... at the same time it is argued that we need a change of power in the province because the Progressive Conservative Party is changing themselves and has shifted towards a more centerist party, which is true.

The question I have is wouldn't a Wild Rose victory be more of a vote against change?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Jacks

His being from the Edmonton area had nothing to do with it. Calgarians voted for Stelmach in a big way. His own idiocy cost him the leadership.

Not really. In 2004, the vote was 50.5% PC and 32.1% Liberal in Calgary. In 2008 it was 46% PC and 34% Liberal (plus 9% Wildrose). That said, his drop in support in Calgary had little to nothing to do with his being an Edmonton area guy, and far more to do with the royalty changes. Calgary is the money centre of Alberta, and really of Western Canada. You start interfering with the money of big business people, they will make you pay. And that, I think, is why Stelmach is retiring instead of running for a second term.


Anyway, two more WTFs, and equal opportunity this time: Wayne Anderson (Wildrose) has a nice little campaign sign garden at the McKenzie Towne bridge at Deerfoot. At least 20 signs in close succession. Ric McIver tried to one-up him though with at least the same number of signs right up Prestwick Blvd. on the way to one of the polling stations.

Nobody compares to Linda Johnson's waste though.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Of course voting for the Wildrose isn't really voting for change. What people have made clear is the "change" they want is how things used to be, just with a "Non-Corrupt" party in power.

[Yeah_Baby]

On a side note I find it amusing that McIver loses the Mayoral race in Calgary and runs as a PC MLA, same with David Dorward up in Edmonton.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Of course voting for the Wildrose isn't really voting for change. What people have made clear is the "change" they want is how things used to be, just with a "Non-Corrupt" party in power.

Exactly. We had a really good thing going here for the longest time. We really live in a great place. There's a good reason for that. The change needed was a clearing away of the corruption and entitlement, not widespread and wholesale change for change sake.

[Jacks]

Anyone have suggestions for the best online results?

The Herald (and Journal) looks to have a pretty cool looking interactive map.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/politics/index.html
Have to see how good it actually works.