Pandora's Box, Aka "who Are You Looking At In The Election"

[Smitty]

Well, I for one am looking at the Alberta Party.

 

http://www.albertaparty.ca/

 

What about you?

 

 

Smitty

[ÜberFly]

Evergreen or communist!! Haven't decided

[Smitty]

I was going to add choices like:

 

6. "I don't give a damn Party"

7. "I don't vote Party"

8. "Trout Party"

9. "Native, non-introduced, non-exotic Trout Party, aka founded by Taco, aka WTF Party"

10. "Screw 9, its all about Brook, Tigers, and Cutbow Party"

 

But I thought I'd keep it half-serious for now.

 

 

 

Cheers,

Smitty

[ÜberFly]

Mike,

 

But I am half serious!!

 

The only "leader" (politician) I have respect for is Sherman, and I'd vote for him (alone) if I could but our current system doesn't allow that. And I wish we had proportional representaion (which the Evergreens propose but they are never getting in) And I hate everyone else!! And if I don't vote, I can't bitch!! So I guess I'm going to split the vote (protest vote)!!

[Guest 420FLYFISHIN]

have yet to see anyone who really gives a dam about AB! Both economical and environmental. But i did like the old days when it was a Conservative Ab and a Liberal Fed.

[bigbowtrout]

I just wish the Natural Law Party had someone running in my area. Just love that yogic flying.

 

Peter I think you should call Raj up. He'll be super happy to know he has at least one fan LOL

 

 

[SanJuanWorm]

I wish we'd start a "Common Sense Party"

[Bowbiker]

I really liked the headline in yesterday's Sun:

 

ALBERTA GONE WILD

 

 

Regards,

Dick Seymour

[Smitty]

Ok, I will ask some serious questions:

 

How many of us are or were PC supporters? (I would guess...probably lots.)

 

How many of us, self labelled as conservatives, have been happy with the way the province has gutted SRD (starting with Getty)? (I would guess...few of us).

 

So here's my request: set aside - just for the moment - from the endless debate AB citizens love having over, say, health, education and the province's economy.

 

 

This forum is about fishing, so my question is, all the support that seems to be flocking towards the Wildrose, I ask you:

 

"Do you really think the Wildrose will enact policies favorable to fish and wildlife, and the protection of their habitat?"

 

 

Because on one hand, I understand their support; If you are a "conservative" disaffected with the PC's, its the simple and seemingly logical alternative to just find a conservative alternative. On the other hand, I don't understand how outdoorsy types would even think of supporting the Wildrose.

 

Have a I missed something? Has Danielle Smith made some scintillating promises in regards to the SRD budget, fish, wildlife, and habitat for this province?

 

So, keeping in mind that those specific "outdoorsy" perspectives, my challenge to you:

 

Wildrose Party supporters, defend your position.

 

 

Smitty

[gentlemang]

I am not too sure who I am going to vote for yet.

But I definately know who I am not voting for and that is the NDP. I do not agree with the party's principles!

 

[scel]

Ok, I will ask some serious questions:

 

How many of us are or were PC supporters? (I would guess...probably lots.)

 

How many of us, self labelled as conservatives, have been happy with the way the province has gutted SRD (starting with Getty)? (I would guess...few of us).

 

So here's my request: set aside - just for the moment - from the endless debate AB citizens love having over, say, health, education and the province's economy.

 

 

This forum is about fishing, so my question is, all the support that seems to be flocking towards the Wildrose, I ask you:

 

"Do you really think the Wildrose will enact policies favorable to fish and wildlife, and the protection of their habitat?"

 

 

Because on one hand, I understand their support; If you are a "conservative" disaffected with the PC's, its the simple and seemingly logical alternative to just find a conservative alternative. On the other hand, I don't understand how outdoorsy types would even think of supporting the Wildrose.

 

Have a I missed something? Has Danielle Smith made some scintillating promises in regards to the SRD budget, fish, wildlife, and habitat for this province?

 

So, keeping in mind that those specific "outdoorsy" perspectives, my challenge to you:

 

Wildrose Party supporters, defend your position.

 

 

Smitty

 

I am not a conservative supporter, but I am thinking of voting conservative, just so the wildrose party does not get into power.

 

I would like to know too. I have been involved in forming public policy for almost a decade. I find the wildrose unfocussed and delusional. They will not help our environment, nor will they help Albertan Security. I feel that they are just preying on disheartened people. I do not feel that the wildrose policies are really going to benefit the Albertan populace.

 

I seriously do not understand why someone would vote Wildrose. Help me understand, people.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

I am voting for whoever first stops robo calling my house daily.

[troutlover]

I am not a conservative supporter, but I am thinking of voting conservative, just so the wildrose party does not get into power.

 

I would like to know too. I have been involved in forming public policy for almost a decade. I find the wildrose unfocussed and delusional. They will not help our environment, nor will they help Albertan Security. I feel that they are just preying on disheartened people. I do not feel that the wildrose policies are really going to benefit the Albertan populace.

 

I seriously do not understand why someone would vote Wildrose. Help me understand, people.

 

 

Well said. I agree completely.

[Smitty]

And yet, if the unscientific poll above is to be believed, the Wildrose would win handily. Interesting.

 

Smitty

[Castuserraticus]

Still undecided but it seems the Tories keep screwing up. Redford was all whiney about political interference in the US when Keystone was blocked after regulatory approval. Sandra Jansen is now trying to interfere in our local regulatory process over a license for a well to be drilled NW of Calgary.

It seems some acreage owners, who moved into an area with active oil operations are whining now that more activities are planned. Those pumpjacks that worked within the airport limits for decades weren't just decorations.

[dryfly]

Excellent poll smitty. Thanks.

 

Okay, so only 24 have voted (hardy Gallup stuff), but what I find incredibly confusing is that when there is an "eco-enviro-climate-regulatory-enforcement-habitat-forestry" thread here people tend to want to burn the federal and provincial PCs at the stake. "They don't protect the rivers, forests, riparian areas, etc etc etc...."

 

Yet given the platforms of the parties, WRP might be considered to be less eco-friendly than the PCs. WRP is way more to the economic right and more social conservatives ... way more so than the PCs. According the party platorms the AB PCs are middle of the road and only slightly to the economic right.

 

So if find the poll results not consistent with common comments on the forum.

 

Lordy! Don't tell me you guys think Danielle is a hotty and yer voting with yer hormones? Say it ain't so.

[ÜberFly]

Clive,

 

There is no Evergreen Party option!!

 

And for the record, only the AB Liberal party brought up the logging of the castle issue in the Legislature!!

 

 

P

[Ricinus]

WRP might do well south of Red Deer. Up here she-Danielle- keeps suffering from foot in mouth syndrome. In any event, hopefully more people will get out and vote unlike the last time.

 

Mike

[CopperJonny]

No other sensible choice ......Liberal !( without the unibrow) So what they flub'd a couple billion on the registry , now we know ! At least it was in good faith .... Funny , the PC's are going for this Jet Fiasco , knowing full well WE will be losing tens of Billions more than originally planned ......Aside from that ...the manipulation of regulations and Acts to help inject those few Drunken Cats with even more fat ! (pipelines and oilsands) Is a disgrace !! ...... at the cost of our wilderness .

As well as attacking the near helpless and aging seniors , who not only helped vote them in , the first place .......Also put their entire lives into helping build and maintain this nation of ours .......Its dispicable , and anyone who doesnt see that , should set an appointment with an opthamologist..

And " Oh , We want to do whats good for Canadians !" ( NGP) yet terminate 19,000+ positions in their budget , trying to make ends meet ! How about a standing applause for these bunch of winners !!

DEMOCRACY SUCKS !! Its just better than the other choices.....

[ÜberFly]

Johnny... Don't confuse the federal parties with the provincial parties!! Totally different!!

 

 

No other sensible choice ......Liberal !( without the unibrow) So what they flub'd a couple billion on the registry , now we know ! At least it was in good faith .... Funny , the PC's are going for this Jet Fiasco , knowing full well WE will be losing tens of Billions more than originally planned ......Aside from that ...the manipulation of regulations and Acts to help inject those few Drunken Cats with even more fat ! (pipelines and oilsands) Is a disgrace !! ...... at the cost of our wilderness .

As well as attacking the near helpless and aging seniors , who not only helped vote them in , the first place .......Also put their entire lives into helping build and maintain this nation of ours .......Its dispicable , and anyone who doesnt see that , should set an appointment with an opthamologist..

And " Oh , We want to do whats good for Canadians !" ( NGP) yet terminate 19,000+ positions in their budget , trying to make ends meet ! How about a standing applause for these bunch of winners !!

DEMOCRACY SUCKS !! Its just better than the other choices.....

 

[Smitty]

I thought I'd share my Facebook status (just posted):

 

This is why my friend Martin Tucker advocates sweeping electoral reform in Alberta (and I agree). Fifteen minutes on Elections AB website + an Excel spreadsheet yielded these interesting stats:

 

1. Since 1971, the PC Party has captured 709 out of 889 possible Legislative seats (cumulative total). On average, they capture 80% of the seats per election.

 

2. On average, they capture 80% of the seats with 53% of the votes cast, but 4 times they easily won majorities with less than 50% of the votes cast.

 

3. That only factors in the people who voted. When you factor in people who didn't vote and stayed home (i.e. voter turnout), typically on average only 54% of eligible voters exercise their right/privilege/duty to do so.

 

4. Meaning, for 40 years, The PC's have won 11 straight elections, capturing on average, 80% of the seats with only 28.4% of the eligible voters' votes.

 

Yeah, that's quite the democracy we got going here.

 

Get involved if you want to change this. For sure its frustrating, but what else are you going to do? Apathy breeds complacency, and we'll get exactly the results we deserve. Don't vote? Then don't complain.

 

Peace out.

[dryfly]

This will sound offensive perhaps and I mean no harm.

 

The ONLY thing that counts is "votes cast." Dredging out the "eligible voters" and saying a party won with a low percentage of the eligible votes is a non starter. And using it to show how poor the democratic system is not appropriate. Yet losing parties almost always drag this out (after an election) and holler for representation based on percentage of votes. It is a beneficial statistic to encourage people to vote and that it all it is useful for.

 

"80% of the seats with only 28.4% of the eligible voters' votes."

 

If those that actually voted more or less were representative of all eligible voters (i.e. distribution of party choice was the same for voters and non voters), then a high turnout would have no affect. If a higher percentage of non-voting eligible voters really wanted another party in power, then they only have themselves to blame.

 

The democratic system is indeed flawed, but appears to be far better than alternatives. Too many parties is a major flaw. Oh gosh, this will sound bad....one might make an argument that the higher the turnout the lower the "quality" of the vote. Someone once said, "One flaw of democracy is that votes are counted and not weighed." That sounds snobbish or elitist, but an argument could be made for that. Obviously it will never happen.

 

In this regard, I was gonna say something about the least federal election...but never mind. I don't like flaming crosses on my front lawn.

 

There are potential problems with having four parties in the current election. Both the left and right run the risk of vote splitting. The PCs, WRP or Liberals could win with a low percentage of actual voters.

 

Regards,

 

Clive

 

 

[CopperJonny]

Whoops sorry Smitty , i didnt mean any harm . My bad . All confused haha , been choked lately regarding some stuff , lol . haven't been able to shake the thoughts ......Thanks Pete

[Smitty]

This will sound offensive perhaps and I mean no harm.

 

The ONLY thing that counts is "votes cast." Dredging out the "eligible voters" and saying a party won with a low percentage of the eligible votes is a non starter. And using it to show how poor the democratic system is not appropriate. Yet losing parties almost always drag this out (after an election) and holler for representation based on percentage of votes. It is a beneficial statistic to encourage people to vote and that it all it is useful for.

 

"80% of the seats with only 28.4% of the eligible voters' votes."

 

If those that actually voted more or less were representative of all eligible voters (i.e. distribution of party choice was the same for voters and non voters), then a high turnout would have no affect. If a higher percentage of non-voting eligible voters really wanted another party in power, then they only have themselves to blame.

 

The democratic system is indeed flawed, but appears to be far better than alternatives. Too many parties is a major flaw. Oh gosh, this will sound bad....one might make an argument that the higher the turnout the lower the "quality" of the vote. Someone once said, "One flaw of democracy is that votes are counted and not weighed." That sounds snobbish or elitist, but an argument could be made for that. Obviously it will never happen.

 

In this regard, I was gonna say something about the least federal election...but never mind. I don't like flaming crosses on my front lawn.

 

There are potential problems with having four parties in the current election. Both the left and right run the risk of vote splitting. The PCs, WRP or Liberals could win with a low percentage of actual voters.

 

Regards,

 

Clive

 

I disagree. The stat is useful, for example, in framing an argument favoring mandatory voting, so its much more than a non-starter. Mandatory voting is something I think this country/province should consider.

 

It is true that even if more people voted, the results would likely stay the same. No argument here.

 

And yes Clive, frankly, your "quality of vote" argument does sound...bad.

 

I absolutely disagree about having too many parties. Instead of risking gridlock and hyper-partisanship that a 2 party system produces - i.e. the United States, I rather risk coalition fragility than the nonsense that goes on down south. Its seems incredibly out-dated to think you can label everyone under one of two labels. Its incredibly short-sighted actually.

 

As far as alternatives, your argument is too cynical for me; for God's sakes, we figured out how to send a person to the moon, we figured out to put a world of information on an ipod; surely we can figure out methods to improve our democratic system. Its a matter of vision and creativity, and goes far beyond the overly-simplistic constitutional monarchy vs republican system debate. Lots of alternative hybrid democracy theories out there...

 

Proportional representation, or proportional representation with a weighted seat/vote system, there are lots of alternatives that adhere to democratic principles.

 

There are plenty of principles we could look at in terms of reforming the system. In other words, we don't have to abandon democracy to consider improving it; you are offering a false choice there Clive; its like you are saying "this is absolutely 100% the best manifestation of democratic principles and it can't be improved so we're stuck with it". Do I mis-interpret?

 

The bottom line is AB is the poster child for looking at reform; literally hundreds of thousands of votes have been cast, and who they've been cast for and what they stand for have been unheard because of first-past-the-post.

 

Its a gross distortion of reality.

 

 

Smitty

[dryfly]

Aha, and now we have a huge philosophical problem. Some housekeeping first.

 

A lot of parties is probably dysfunctional to the point of confusion...there can be small differences between parties that might otherwise agree on 95% of policies. I agree that two is not a good idea at all. Three might be ideal and four where there are real differences. Some political science types say there are four basic political groupings; left and right economics and left and right "social" concepts..social conservatives or social liberals. So four should cover it, but this all goes to heck when there are so many degrees of each: far this, far that. But having (say) 8 or 10 parties is silly and wasteful and probably dysfunctional. Heck, I think your poll might (just might) indicate this already. Are people thinking the the WRP is so cool without understanding their policies might have an effect on budgets to protect the environment....although that is not clear as they seem to have little policies on, say, "fish."

 

We agree on the offensiveness of "quality" of vote argument...it is tacky, but a reasonably good argument could be made that (say) awareness and objectivity could/should account for something in a vote. However, it is a non starter because it goes against the concept of equality. A dead issue. (I still think your vote is probably more "valuable" than one from say a Wal-Martian... Who knows?)

 

Good arguments might be made for "Proportional representation, or proportional representation with a weighted seat/vote system, there are lots of alternatives that adhere to democratic principles." Maybe...

 

""this is absolutely 100% the best manifestation of democratic principles and it can't be improved so we're stuck with it"." I agree with you that it might be improved but deciding on just how that might be would be difficult especially when there are more than 3 or 4 parties. So then it would be a matter of drawing lines in the sand...no representation without X% of the vote or we'd end up with complete anarchy with every splinter party on the planet demanding a "seat" to represent their vote.

 

But now the thorny stuff. A divergence of minds...

 

"Mandatory voting is something I think this country/province should consider."

 

To me this concept is offensive for basic human rights reasons .. it would infringe in human rights. We 'force' people to do many things in our society, for example, we require people to have drivers licenses. Fine. But forcing someone to vote denies their freedom of "speech," at least figuratively. If I am an anarchist and don't believe in voting then it infringes on my freedom to voice my opinion by not voting ... and forcing me to cast a 'spoiled ballot' is wrong. (BTW, since graduating from U in 1968 I've not voted on 2 or 3 municipal elections and might have missed one provincial election.) I think people should/must vote, but we have no right to force them to vote. If they (anarchists or whatever) rebel, we have the right to take action but we can't force anyone to vote. It is distasteful, even though we agree that a higher turnout would be good...although it might make no difference.

 

Anyway, mandatory voting for me is as offensive as some of the concepts I floated were to you.

 

Change of topic ... smitty, I am still surprised by the trend in the vote here at FFC and no one has commented on this except me. The poll results seem inconsistent with the comments on this forum. Based on a lot of comments here, one might think the WRP would not be favoured by the majority because they are social conservatives to the economic right, whereas many comments here often reflect social liberalism. So the results here are confusing. Of course, forum comments my be a function of social liberals being more vocal and giving a skewed impression of reality.

 

And the results might indicate that males think DS is a hotty. Could happen. In fact, bet on it that her bubbly (sometimes foot-in-mouth) mien is attractive to some male type fly anglers. Methinks tis so.

 

Regards

 

Clive