Calgary Federal Politics

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by fusili

Well, it's all said and done now. I think all groups fought hard and ran good campaigns and all should be respected for that. Unfortunately, we have a candidate that I do not think is a good representative for the riding.

This election does demonstrate how much "vote-splitting" needs to be addressed. While I prefer a mixed member proportional system, I do agree with Malcolm that something like a Instant Runoff Vote is a good idea. The question is, why didn't the Liberal Party do anything about First Past the Post when they had massive majorities in the 90s? The other issue is the question of whether the left can really unite. I, for instance, would vote Conservative over NDP (holding my nose the entire time), and I am not alone.

The one thing that really upset me in the race is the horrible vitriol that was directed at the Turner campaign (which I was deeply involved with) and the Greens in general from the Liberal Party in particular. The level of condescension and anger directed at Turner supporters was pretty off-putting.

What I think the Federal Liberal Party in Alberta needs to understand is that they are not entitled to the "progressive vote" here. In order to gain people's support, they need to speak to your values and respect their thoughts. Calling people "dirty hippies" or "Tory hipsters" doesn't bring people to your cause. Imagine if Stephan Harper and Peter Mackay used such language against each other when trying to merge the Alliance and PCs.

In the end, it was a very interesting time in Calgary's federal political history.

Fighting separatism. The pledge was no major changes as the country had just fought two constitutional battles.

One reason I support runoff versus other reform methods is I don't believe it to be a major enough change to need authority of the people to implement unlike the proposed changes in Ontario and BC that were major enough to need votes. That being said, the UK held a vote on implementing IRV, but I don't think that was necessary.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Fighting separatism. The pledge was no major changes as the country had just fought two constitutional battles.

One reason I support runoff versus other reform methods is I don't believe it to be a major enough change to need authority of the people to implement unlike the proposed changes in Ontario and BC that were major enough to need votes. That being said, the UK held a vote on implementing IRV, but I don't think that was necessary.

IVR is a great start to address the fact that many MPs are elected with a minority of voters. I would definitely support it.

[Radley77]

I'm interested in a Liberal leadership race that includes Martha Findlay and Marc Garneau. Justin Trudeau might as well be Thomas Mulcair. The left have to stop acting like a bunch of fringe anti-pipeline, anti-tanker parties and instead work on developing rigorous processes to support development. Also there is a need for environmentalists to reduce focus on source issues and turn to a more important objective of embedded resiliency in our built environment (i.e.: SE LRT funding). A lot of people have mentioned to me about how FPTP is broken, but I think the bigger issue is the lack of a uniting progressive voice that resonates across the country (i.e: what is the kind of policies that will get more than 50% of the vote in Vancouver, Calgary, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto).

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Doug

How so? All the opposition parties pushed for more stimulus and complained over the modest cutbacks proposed by the Conservatives. No one will ever convice me that a larger federal government would be anything but bad news for Calgary given its current demographics and economic mix.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but I've bolded the place where your argument breaks down.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Allan83

If they’re smart they should pay attention anyway. This election wasn’t going to change the balance of power. It was about sending a message, and given that Crockatt’s vote fell to 37%, that should send a message. Hopefully it will give Harper the leverage to get rid of the extreme right wing fringe, like Anders and Crockatt, and move towards becoming more PC.

There should be messages here for the other parties as well. The Liberals can win in the west, but they have to develop a national perspective, and they have to get rid of their own narrow extremists like David McGuinty.

The Greens I think are held back by Elizabeth May, but I’m not sure that message was clearly sent by this by-election.

For the NDP Mulcair is a disaster. He is rapidly tearing down what Happy Jack built up. They barely got 1,000 votes total in Calgary Centre, and their vote dropped way off in Victoria as well.

Good read. Message sent.

[LFRENCH]

[QUOTE=Allan83;5915262]

For the NDP Mulcair is a disaster. He is rapidly tearing down what Happy Jack built up. They barely got 1,000 votes total in Calgary Centre, and their vote dropped way off in Victoria as well.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure this is the fault of Mulcair, Denise was extremely recognized and respected in the community. When you have a long time candidate retire, then a bunch of relative new faces with policies that sometimes overlap that is recipe for dropping support.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Fighting separatism. The pledge was no major changes as the country had just fought two constitutional battles.

One reason I support runoff versus other reform methods is I don't believe it to be a major enough change to need authority of the people to implement unlike the proposed changes in Ontario and BC that were major enough to need votes. That being said, the UK held a vote on implementing IRV, but I don't think that was necessary.

How do you prevent a Stelmach situation where a candidate without a significant portion of the first choice votes wins?

I would think you'd have to take the top two first choices, then redistribute everyone else's votes

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

How do you prevent a Stelmach situation where a candidate without a significant portion of the first choice votes wins?

I would think you'd have to take the top two first choices, then redistribute everyone else's votes

I don't think it really matters how many people you move forward to multiple rounds. you aren't (especially since IRV discourages splinter parties) going to have a 10 way split like in some internal party races.

Whether it is two people, three, or r-1 won't change things much.

Remember, the candidate 'coming up the middle' still has to end up with majority support. For the third place percome to come in first, the fourth rank or further candidates totals have to add up to more than the gap between 3rd and second and split perfectly. Not impossible, just not likely.

I don't see anything wrong with multiround instant runoffs, both the federal Liberals and Conservatives do it that way, or a single round runoff, the way the provincial PCs do it now. Both are huge improvements from the status quo.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Radley77

I'm interested in a Liberal leadership race that includes Martha Findlay and Marc Garneau. Justin Trudeau might as well be Thomas Mulcair. The left have to stop acting like a bunch of fringe anti-pipeline, anti-tanker parties and instead work on developing rigorous processes to support development. Also there is a need for environmentalists to reduce focus on source issues and turn to a more important objective of embedded resiliency in our built environment (i.e.: SE LRT funding). A lot of people have mentioned to me about how FPTP is broken, but I think the bigger issue is the lack of a uniting progressive voice that resonates across the country (i.e: what is the kind of policies that will get more than 50% of the vote in Vancouver, Calgary, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto).

The Green party should emphasize ecological economic models - build a green economy (Public Transit, incentives to green industries, consumer tax breaks on local low-carbon products).

They need to reform their May-style environmentalism - Green's need rethink their foreign policy, Oilsands are here to stay, development of resources must continue, etc.

A strong part of this model is a sense of local autonomy and local benefits that would appeal to much of the country, besides only the Gulf Islands. I don't mind the title "tory-hipsters".

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by artvandelay

Attention yes - part of me wanted to see a Conservative defeat because I think they would come back with a far superior candidate for the next general election. But I highly doubt we would receive any additional funding. Other than a few missteps (cough...G20...cough), this government has been quite equitable with the distribution of infrastructure funds across the country.

Overall I do agree with you, however my issue is that Calgary is in a position where our MPs are accountable to the party and the PM rather than this city and their ridings. This may be true in lots of places accross the country, but here in particular. With the PM located here and several key allies / cabinent posts here, they have shown they will fight for the PM and the party. Where was the complaints from our MPs when they pulled the rec centre funding? Even if it was a miscommunication on how the fund was supposed to work, someone should have represented the ridings instead of all sounding off about how the mayor got it wrong. Right or wrong the ridings got screwed and none of our MPs said anything about it.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by fusili

Well, it's all said and done now. I think all groups fought hard and ran good campaigns and all should be respected for that. Unfortunately, we have a candidate that I do not think is a good representative for the riding.

Overall Turner ran the best campaign and got the best momentum. The Turner4yyc campaign should hold their heads high.

One lesson learned for the Turner4yyc camp, you have to be prepared to state why your candidate is the best of the progressives and also state why the other progressive candidates are not well represented. Yes Pollyanna, this means taking a stick to the other candidate’s platforms, party policies, and getting into the mudslinging business.

Originally Posted by fusili

This election does demonstrate how much "vote-splitting" needs to be addressed. While I prefer a mixed member proportional system, I do agree with Malcolm that something like a Instant Runoff Vote is a good idea. The question is, why didn't the Liberal Party do anything about First Past the Post when they had massive majorities in the 90s? The other issue is the question of whether the left can really unite. I, for instance, would vote Conservative over NDP (holding my nose the entire time), and I am not alone.

I believe it was documented here on this forum that Turner was pulling in a lot of small C conservative supporters. Using this assumption, I believe the result would have been the same under IVR, that is first round Turner supporters would be second round Crockatt supporters (for a variety of reasons, Anybody but liberals, Liberal bad karma from McGuinty/Trudeau comments, return home after the protest vote).

The liberals did not support changes to first past the post because it would have led to their defeat. The Reform party was holding court in rural BC, AB, SK, MB with greater than 50% margins. Rural ON and suburban ON were liberal but less than 50%, second and third place were conservative spots (either PC or reform). Under some form of FPTP alternates, the Liberals would have lost majority status for sure and likely been removed from power with a Reform minority government. Turning to QB, the Parti Quebecois would have an even greater support as they would retain ridings with greater than 5% support plus add numerous votes from PC and NDP defeated candidates. The liberals in QB might pick up a riding or two in MUC but would lose badly in rural QB. Atlantic Canada would likely see further Liberal support.

Your last sentence is the reason the liberals and NDP will never unite. The majority of Liberal support would go to conservatives rather than NDP. Alternately the NDP move to centre and the left of the NDP party goes to Greens. We would then be back to Conservative in power, Liberal/NDP as OLO, Green Party as the third place party.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by fusili

This election does demonstrate how much "vote-splitting" needs to be addressed. While I prefer a mixed member proportional system, I do agree with Malcolm that something like a Instant Runoff Vote is a good idea. The question is, why didn't the Liberal Party do anything about First Past the Post when they had massive majorities in the 90s? The other issue is the question of whether the left can really unite. I, for instance, would vote Conservative over NDP (holding my nose the entire time), and I am not alone.

Why would they? Back then the Liberals were still in full-on "Natural Governing Party" mode. The PC-Reform split was doing them wonders in Ontario. How else could the Liberals have swept rural Ontario? By contrast, IVR might just have returned enough PCs and Reformers (as the case may be) along with a few Dippers here and there to upset their majority.

It seems that no party once it has managed to get a majority government in a first-past-the-post system is all that inclined to do something about it. That includes the NDP provincially where they have had a number of opportunities over the years to change the system.

The Reform Party once held such views as well, but once they were taken over by the Ontario PC Party (yep, that's right - the Conservative Party of Canada is the result not of the Reform Party or Canadian Alliance taking over the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada but rather of the Ontario PC Party taking over both) that idea went out the door along with most of the other democratic reform ideas it once had. Senate reform anyone?

The one thing that really upset me in the race is the horrible vitriol that was directed at the Turner campaign (which I was deeply involved with) and the Greens in general from the Liberal Party in particular. The level of condescension and anger directed at Turner supporters was pretty off-putting.

Yep, that sounds like the Liberal Party. The "entitlement culture" runs deep in the Liberal Party as they regard any non-Tory vote as should-be-theirs. They don't even seem to be able to understand that the Green Party can and sometimes does draw off some Tory voters who were never Liberals anyway.

What I think the Federal Liberal Party in Alberta needs to understand is that they are not entitled to the "progressive vote" here. In order to gain people's support, they need to speak to your values and respect their thoughts. Calling people "dirty hippies" or "Tory hipsters" doesn't bring people to your cause. Imagine if Stephan Harper and Peter Mackay used such language against each other when trying to merge the Alliance and PCs.

The Federal Liberals need to learn that lesson generally, not just in Alberta. Talk to the other province where the Federal Liberals have long behaved that exact same way, except substitute "progressive" with "federalist": Quebec.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Dado

Yep, that sounds like the Liberal Party. The "entitlement culture" runs deep in the Liberal Party as they regard any non-Tory vote as should-be-theirs. They don't even seem to be able to understand that the Green Party can and sometimes does draw off some Tory voters who were never Liberals anyway.

The Federal Liberals need to learn that lesson generally, not just in Alberta. Talk to the other province where the Federal Liberals have long behaved that exact same way, except substitute "progressive" with "federalist": Quebec.

Agree. Based on their behavior in this by-election, I am really turned off the Liberals for a long time. Not once did they appeal to any ideas or values of mine. All I was told is that I was being irresponsible by splitting the vote, and I was only kidding myself to even consider supporting the Green party. The message seemed to be "What a loser, why are you not supporting a winning team?" That condescension makes me turn away from them even more. They are a party that has completely lost the humility of a staggering loss. You have to win back people by respecting them, not disparaging their values.

Honestly, if the Conservatives ditch Harper, stop building huge jails, re-institute the long-form census, return funding levels of basic science, and strengthen their environmental record (not just rhetoric), they will have my vote over the Liberals.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

The Green party should emphasize ecological economic models - build a green economy (Public Transit, incentives to green industries, consumer tax breaks on local low-carbon products).

They need to reform their May-style environmentalism - Green's need rethink their foreign policy, Oilsands are here to stay, development of resources must continue, etc.

A strong part of this model is a sense of local autonomy and local benefits that would appeal to much of the country, besides only the Gulf Islands. I don't mind the title "tory-hipsters".

Agreed.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Overall I do agree with you, however my issue is that Calgary is in a position where our MPs are accountable to the party and the PM rather than this city and their ridings. This may be true in lots of places accross the country, but here in particular. With the PM located here and several key allies / cabinent posts here, they have shown they will fight for the PM and the party. Where was the complaints from our MPs when they pulled the rec centre funding? Even if it was a miscommunication on how the fund was supposed to work, someone should have represented the ridings instead of all sounding off about how the mayor got it wrong. Right or wrong the ridings got screwed and none of our MPs said anything about it.

Like it or not, our federal political system (and provincial system for that matter) is based on each party MP/MLA supporting the common party platform over their own constituant desires.

If you want truly independant MP?MLA structure, then you must move to a USA style of federalism that separates legislative and executive functions of government.

[gantenbein]

Originally Posted by fusili

Honestly, if the Conservatives ditch Harper, stop building huge jails, re-institute the long-form census, return funding levels of basic science, and strengthen their environmental record (not just rhetoric), they will have my vote over the Liberals.

In other words, if they became a different party altogether? Became the Liberals or the Clark/Mulroney Progressive Conservatives in all but name?

That would appeal to me, too, but I worry that that ship has sailed. There would be a void to the right of this newly aligned Conservative Party that would end up being filled by a federal Wild Rose/Reform Party. They would gain a lot of old Liberal votes, but lose all their small-c conservative votes. Essentially, it would be an undoing of the Alliance PC merger.

I think we have to recognise that (supposedly) progressive conservatives like McKay and Prentice can/could be every bit as opportunistic and power-hungry as the Liberals have been and entered into a coalition with the devil to win elections. I don't see them going back on that formula.

[gantenbein]

Originally Posted by Cage

If you want truly independant MP?MLA structure, then you must move to a USA style of federalism that separates legislative and executive functions of government.

British MPs have much more freedom to vote according to their conscience and the will of their constituents than our MPs do (under the same Westminster system), and I would argue more than representatives in the States, where many are in the back pocket or corporate lobbyists and private interests. We don't need a completely new system to reduce the power of the party whips.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ When you have many more MPs, it is easier to run a less restrictive system.

[Rusty van Reddick]

There's only one non-CPC riding in Alberta: Edmonton-Strathcona. In the 2011 general election, the CPC candidate there lost to NDP Linda Duncan and in losing received 40.5% of the vote. Yesterday, CPC Joan Crockatt won the Calgary Centre federal byelection with 36.9% of the vote. Despite her win, Calgary Centre is now officially the least Conservative riding in the province.

[gantenbein]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

^ When you have many more MPs, it is easier to run a less restrictive system.

Although when British MPs do go against the party line, they face the foul-mouthed wrath of Malcolm Tucker!