2023 UCP Alberta election

[Blackadder1916]

We have democracy, but we live next door to a country with a lot more democracy.

• elected executive, who is elected separately from the legislators
• bicameral legislature, both bodies elected, both bodies with real political power
• similar model at state levels (except NE)
• additional state-level elected positions
• frequent elections on fixed dates

FPTP isn't necessarily the problem, particularly if alternate schemes would tend to strengthen the LPC/NDP lock on control of Parliament.

All that describes is more politicking, not necessarily more democracy.

 

[McG]

This. I remain in favour of electoral reform that would add some greater degree of proportionality to our representation, as long as there's some sort of threshold safeguard for party list seats (say, 5 %, similar to how Germany does it?)

I don’t like any system with party lists. The parties are already gatekeepers on who gets to represent voters. With STV, voters can pick an independent or decide to reject a party’s parachuted chosen one in favour of a local party candidate. But it does still give more proportional results.

 

[brihard]

I don’t like any system with party lists. The parties are already gatekeepers on who gets to represent voters. With STV, voters can pick an independent or decide to reject a party’s parachuted chosen one in favour of a local party candidate. But it does still give more proportional results.

Although I don’t agree that it’s an overriding concern, that is a fair criticism.

 

[Quirky]

Trudeau's energy policies then you are against the interests of Canada.

His energy policies are borderline acts of treason.

 

[lenaitch]

We have democracy, but we live next door to a country with a lot more democracy.

• elected executive, who is elected separately from the legislators - Two members (Pres and VP. The Cabinet is appointed)
• bicameral legislature, both bodies elected, both bodies with real political power - I'm not sure more politicians is necessarily a solution.
• similar model at state levels (except NE)
• additional state-level elected positions - To me, that's a bug, not a feature. I prefer a prosecutor or sheriff who focuses on their job not re-election.
• frequent elections on fixed dates

FPTP isn't necessarily the problem, particularly if alternate schemes would tend to strengthen the LPC/NDP lock on control of Parliament.

 

[Lumber]

His energy policies are borderline acts of treason.

In which bass-ackwards world do you live where policies aimed at trying to deal with climate change even comes close to "treason"? Naïve and ineffective, sure, but treasonous?

 

[Lumber]

I guess you could say the same thing about the Sov Act.

Except no one voted for the act other than the MLAs (who we know basically have to vote on party lines) lead by a provincial leader who was chosen by just a tiny tiny portion of the entire electorate. This is a major piece of legislation that should have been platformer as part of a major election.

 

[McG]

Although I don’t agree that it’s an overriding concern, that is a fair criticism.

Most PR advocates seem happy with STV, so we could all be content with that option.

 

[Lumber]

We have democracy, but the large number of people who feel disenfranchised across the country would suggest that we could still have more democracy.

The idea that Toronto & environs form some sort of monolithic block that denies representation to other parts of the country is nonsense. Toronto gets what its biggest minority picks.

FPTP is what is disenfranchising voters. Conservative voters in Toronto lack a voice in Ottawa. Liberal voters in Calgary lack a voice in Ottawa. Both big parties will ignore swaths of the country to focus where the outcome is perceived to be contested.

I think a really cool idea would be to have a proportional system where you voted twice on the same ballot. The first vote was ranked vote for the person you wanted to elect to represent your riding. The second vote is a non-ranked vote where you vote for the party you want to govern. After the votes are tallied, they count the number of MP's elected from each party. They then add MPs from a pool of nominated but not elected people to balance out the representation from each party iaw with results of the second party-only vote.

 

[QV]

In which bass-ackwards world do you live where policies aimed at trying to deal with climate change even comes close to "treason"? Naïve and ineffective, sure, but treasonous?

If you actually believe there is any sincerity in the Trudeau climate policy, you must be naive.

 

[brihard]

I think a really cool idea would be to have a proportional system where you voted twice on the same ballot. The first vote was ranked vote for the person you wanted to elect to represent your riding. The second vote is a non-ranked vote where you vote for the party you want to govern. After the votes are tallied, they count the number of MP's elected from each party. They then add MPs from a pool of nominated but not elected people to balance out the representation from each party iaw with results of the second party-only vote.

That’s very much like what Germany uses for the Bundestag. Any riding won outright (ai believe by FPTP) goes to that party. For a party to also get proportional ‘party list’ seats they must either win three ridings outright, or get five percent of the overall vote.

 

[Brad Sallows]

All that describes is more politicking, not necessarily more democracy.

What is democracy, if not politicking and voting?

 

[Brad Sallows]

• elected executive, who is elected separately from the legislators - Two members (Pres and VP. The Cabinet is appointed)

Which is two more than we have.

• bicameral legislature, both bodies elected, both bodies with real political power - I'm not sure more politicians is necessarily a solution.

It's better than an appointed body.

• additional state-level elected positions - To me, that's a bug, not a feature. I prefer a prosecutor or sheriff who focuses on their job not re-election.

I was thinking lieutenant-governor and attorney general, not dogcatcher. Don't know why you thought framing it in ridiculous terms was a useful response.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If we're going to do ranked/transferable voting, there's no reason not to move the threshold to declare a winner up to, say, 80%. Then we can pretend that the illusion of consolation choices makes the result super-legitimate.

Another option to deal with "representation" is to simply move the threshold for passing something in Parliament to 2/3, and 3/4 for appointments and budgets. Simple majority isn't sacred and is really only suitable for trivial decisions, like what colour to re-upholster the furniture. If we're only going to have one place where important decisions are made, we might as well force it to always be a compromise.

 

[Lumber]

If we're going to do ranked/transferable voting, there's no reason not to move the threshold to declare a winner up to, say, 80%. Then we can pretend that the illusion of consolation choices makes the result super-legitimate.

Another option to deal with "representation" is to simply move the threshold for passing something in Parliament to 2/3, and 3/4 for appointments and budgets. Simple majority isn't sacred and is really only suitable for trivial decisions, like what colour to re-upholster the furniture. If we're only going to have one place where important decisions are made, we might as well force it to always be a compromise.

I would tend to agree except I'd be worried where we end up in a situation (hopefully this would never happen) as in the states where members of one party will vote against the bills of the other party for no other reason than because it is the other party's bill. So, even if the CPC had a 60% majority, but they needed a 66% majority to pass budgets and appointments, then what happens if the LPC and NDP are feeling spiteful and just refuse to vote for those things? Now, we already have that problem with minority governments, but this just basically extends the problem into majority governments as well. Can you imagine how pissed people would be if the CPC couldn't form a government because they couldn't pass a budget despite having CPC majority of seats in the house and a CPC majority of the popular vote (say something even close to 66%. I imagine that if the Cons got 60% of the seats they very well might have a similar share of the popular vote).

 

[Brad Sallows]

Parties vote against other parties' bills when the other parties don't offer up something. The whole point is bring a halt to see-saw government, to encourage all parties to manoeuvre only in a small region near whatever passes for the "centre" of public opinion, and to only be able to effect major change with supermajority concensus.

 

[RangerRay]

I don’t like any system with party lists. The parties are already gatekeepers on who gets to represent voters. With STV, voters can pick an independent or decide to reject a party’s parachuted chosen one in favour of a local party candidate. But it does still give more proportional results.

I too don’t like party lists, but I actually see parties as lacking gatekeepers that they used to have. It used to be that the old “boys in the smoke-filled rooms” looked out for the interests of the party as a whole and ensured candidates that were unappealing to most voters were rejected outright. Now that we have “democratized” the process, the only ones who participate are the cranks and the cult members. These unsuitable candidates are then foisted on the electorate at large. Many of whom either hold their nose and vote for the least offensive of an offensive bunch, or stay home.

This is a huge change of mind for me. I used to be a “allow all members a vote” person, but with all the shenanigans with mass membership sales the incentive structures they create, I think parties need more gatekeepers.

 

[childs56]

In which bass-ackwards world do you live where policies aimed at trying to deal with climate change even comes close to "treason"? Naïve and ineffective, sure, but treasonous?

Wow that's serious comment, lets ask Germany and the rest Europe how their green energy program was and is working? (hint they closed down their own coal and natural gas fields, bought Natural gas from Russia).
The climate change program is doing one thing and one thing only, creating turmoil within our borders. The cost of goods and services have sky rocketed to the point those in poverty are definitely in poverty and millions of others are on the verge of such.
One volcano explosion emits more co2 into the environment then we can do in a 100 years. Those keep erupting.

 

[Lumber]

Wow that's serious comment, lets ask Germany and the rest Europe how their green energy program was and is working? (hint they closed down their own coal and natural gas fields, bought Natural gas from Russia).
The climate change program is doing one thing and one thing only, creating turmoil within our borders. The cost of goods and services have sky rocketed to the point those in poverty are definitely in poverty and millions of others are on the verge of such.
One volcano explosion emits more co2 into the environment then we can do in a 100 years. Those keep erupting.

Are you arguing with me or against me? Because I'm pretty sure I said their climate policies were naïve and ineffective, so it would appear we agree. You never opined as to how such policies are "treasonous", nor has the original poster.

 

[childs56]

Are you arguing with me or against me? Because I'm pretty sure I said their climate policies were naïve and ineffective, so it would appear we agree. You never opined as to how such policies are "treasonous", nor has the original poster.

Trudeau and his supporters seem to act in a treasonous way.
involving or guilty of the crime of betraying one's country.
involving or guilty of the betrayal of someone or something.

JT and his supporters have killed the largest energy projects we have ever had. His act is against Alberta. He he has quietly allowed approval of a Natural gas plant in Quebec along with other energy projects out east while limiting them out west. He is directly defiant of Western Canada and the products and services they can provide. To the point our Foreign partners are questioning his sincerity to provide energy to Europe.