Municipal Politics

[mersar]

Originally Posted by Dado

Someone care to explain/speculate why the support was so geographically concentrated?

It's not even like Toronto where there were clear suburban-urban splits.

Is McIvor from the Southeast? And why is Calgary East so inclined to vote for a former CTV anchor? Also, isn't Nenshi from the Northeast? If so, they didn't exactly vote for him in overwhelming numbers there.

McIver was the alderman for the SE for quite a while, so to them he was a well known individual.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Dado

Someone care to explain/speculate why the support was so geographically concentrated?

It's not even like Toronto where there were clear suburban-urban splits.

Is McIvor from the Southeast? And why is Calgary East so inclined to vote for a former CTV anchor? Also, isn't Nenshi from the Northeast? If so, they didn't exactly vote for him in overwhelming numbers there.

Multiple things.

1. Nenshi's support base was not "he's one of us". His support came from his platform. So you don't really see him leading based on area or race or anything similar.

2. McIver was heavily favoured in the SE, which is where he represented as Alderman and has fought for everything to happen during his career.

3. Higgins was shown in polls to be most attractive to folks with a high school degree or less. The east part of Calgary that you're seeing there has some of the lowest-income working class neighbourhoods in Calgary.

4. Sum it all up, and you'll notice that McIver and Higgins really appealed to very select (but large) niches. Nenshi appealed to EVERYONE, which is why his win is so awesome.

[Rusty van Reddick]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Just word of mouth but I had heard that the Punjabi community was very pro-Higgins. So that could account for the east going to her.

Yep. We were just talking about this in the meetup- Kang won East Calgary MLA race because of support from Sikhs. Sherrif had the support of Muslims. They won't support one another's candidates.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Rusty van Reddick

Kang won East Calgary MLA race

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodoss.

[Rusty van Reddick]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodoss.

If you can think of a better way to exchange long protein strands, I'd love to hear it.

[Bigtime]

We must more forward, not backward. Upward, not forward. And always twirling, twirling towards freedom!

[RicoLance21]

AHAHAHAHAHAHA I think the entire nation is envying us..

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Forg...ve+mayor+like+Calgary/3750164/story.html

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

We must more forward, not backward. Upward, not forward. And always twirling, twirling towards freedom!

Abortions for all!

booo!!

Abortions for none!!

booo!!

Um, abortions for some, miniature american flags for others!

Yay!!!

[CorporateWhore]

Originally Posted by RicoLance21

AHAHAHAHAHAHA I think the entire nation is envying us..

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Forg...ve+mayor+like+Calgary/3750164/story.html

Man, that sounds pretty depressing. Then again, that's pretty much exactly the reason why it's pretty impossible to get anyone elected in the US who isn't part of the system, and indebted to some special interest.

[freeweed]

Political parties more and more seem to be the single biggest problem in our modern democratic systems. At all levels. Plus, they just make voters stupid - remember how many people voted Republican in the US in 2004 because they thought Republicans supported "small government"?

Not sure I've seen a large federalist system without parties though, so it's possible the alternative could be worse. I cannot for the life of me imagine the purpose of parties in municipal politics, regardless.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Not sure I've seen a large federalist system without parties though, so it's possible the alternative could be worse. I cannot for the life of me imagine the purpose of parties in municipal politics, regardless.

What about having more parties? I have heard that in some countries there are a wide range of parties and coalition governments are actually the norm. It could obviously bring additional problems but it does have its benefits.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Political parties more and more seem to be the single biggest problem in our modern democratic systems. At all levels. Plus, they just make voters stupid - remember how many people voted Republican in the US in 2004 because they thought Republicans supported "small government"?

Not sure I've seen a large federalist system without parties though, so it's possible the alternative could be worse. I cannot for the life of me imagine the purpose of parties in municipal politics, regardless.

I think a lot of people voted for Bush in 2004 because Kerry had a very awful foreign policy that while Bush's wasn't the greatest, it would have been a lot worse otherwise. (or at least that was a somewhat good outcome of the election).

Technically Libya's system doesn't have political parties - if it didn't result in effective dictatorship it would be seen as the most democratic in the world. Block councils elect a representative to a neighborhood council, who elect to a parish council and so on all the way to the top.

Think about it this way, political parties help sort ideological positions into coherent choices and let voters choose a program instead of needing ultimate trust in an individual. A Mayor dies, a new one can be found. If we had a party less system and our titular head of state/government died, wtf happens?

If our city had more politicians like in Vancouver where you have a parallel park board for example, at some point it makes sense to be able to raise voter turnout by making decisions for people easier by creating parties. It also encourages things like solidarity in a electoral manifesto - voters if they returned a majority of 'city builders' for example, could count on a certain politics being done. Right now, every ward has to accomplish this 'sort' on its own. Political parties at the city level would also reduce the benefit of incumbency. Voters who wanted a change could be confident their new alderman would not be a dud if they switched parties for example. Right now a challenger has to build name recognition, inform voters and much more. Look at Chris Harper for the difficulty of doing that!

Certainly we have seen that it is unlikely Calgary would end up with a dominant 'conservative' municipal political party as there are enough far right wingers that can't accept normal things 'red tories' are perfectly happy with in government regulation and intervention. I'd bet we would end up with 3 parties, maybe four - split along the lines that we saw in the last election with Higgins, Nenshi, McIver, and possibly Hawkesworth (only the last because the NDP likes having its own program and as we see prefer ideological purity than working with centre-progressives)

[CorporateWhore]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Political parties more and more seem to be the single biggest problem in our modern democratic systems. At all levels. Plus, they just make voters stupid.

Pretty much. They are basically the unions of politics. And we all know how innovative and efficient unions tend to be in other parts of life.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

I think a lot of people voted for Bush in 2004 because Kerry had a very awful foreign policy that while Bush's wasn't the greatest, it would have been a lot worse otherwise. (or at least that was a somewhat good outcome of the election).

Technically Libya's system doesn't have political parties - if it didn't result in effective dictatorship it would be seen as the most democratic in the world. Block councils elect a representative to a neighborhood council, who elect to a parish council and so on all the way to the top.

Think about it this way, political parties help sort ideological positions into coherent choices and let voters choose a program instead of needing ultimate trust in an individual. A Mayor dies, a new one can be found. If we had a party less system and our titular head of state/government died, wtf happens?

If our city had more politicians like in Vancouver where you have a parallel park board for example, at some point it makes sense to be able to raise voter turnout by making decisions for people easier by creating parties. It also encourages things like solidarity in a electoral manifesto - voters if they returned a majority of 'city builders' for example, could count on a certain politics being done. Right now, every ward has to accomplish this 'sort' on its own. Political parties at the city level would also reduce the benefit of incumbency. Voters who wanted a change could be confident their new alderman would not be a dud if they switched parties for example. Right now a challenger has to build name recognition, inform voters and much more. Look at Chris Harper for the difficulty of doing that!

Certainly we have seen that it is unlikely Calgary would end up with a dominant 'conservative' municipal political party as there are enough far right wingers that can't accept normal things 'red tories' are perfectly happy with in government regulation and intervention. I'd bet we would end up with 3 parties, maybe four - split along the lines that we saw in the last election with Higgins, Nenshi, McIver, and possibly Hawkesworth (only the last because the NDP likes having its own program and as we see prefer ideological purity than working with centre-progressives)

The last council would seem to disprove your final point. The known NDP council members worked effectively with the known Liberal council members to form the basis of Bronconnier's governing coalition. I would not be surprised if the same thing ends up unfolding under Nenshi. If it does not it would have more to do with McIver's absence keeping the right wing on council from coalescing into an effective opposition, allowing Nenshi to build a broader base of support, than the Dippers' refusal to work with centre-progressives.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Multiple things.

1. Nenshi's support base was not "he's one of us". His support came from his platform. So you don't really see him leading based on area or race or anything similar.

That is not really fair. Inner city dwellers, the wealthy, and the educated represent communities of interest just as much as McIver's working and middle class suburbanites or Higgins' lower and working class east siders. If anything Nenshi represented his community, a "one of us" if you will, better than his opponents. Being a highly educated man of ideas was central to his brand. McIver comes pretty close with his past, small business owner and butcher, but Higgins could not be more different from her support base.

[mooky]

Originally Posted by CorporateWhore

Pretty much. They are basically the unions of politics. And we all know how innovative and efficient unions tend to be in other parts of life.

Unfair comparison, unions were and are still the biggest single power to give employees the ability to collectively bargain for a fair wage and working conditions. Without them we'd still be stuck in the 1800's and the employer would still have all the power and employees would still be crapped on. Don't generalize because of a few bad instances of union misbehavior, you can find misbehavior in any structured environment, including those corporate environments that are the antithesis of anything but union-shops ... it's all about balance.

In parts of the world there still are places where millions and millions have terrible working conditions because of no or limited ability to organize and to fairly deal with employers and by mocking unions as a whole, we do nothing to help their plight.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

The last council would seem to disprove your final point. The known NDP council members worked effectively with the known Liberal council members to form the basis of Bronconnier's governing coalition. I would not be surprised if the same thing ends up unfolding under Nenshi. If it does not it would have more to do with McIver's absence keeping the right wing on council from coalescing into an effective opposition, allowing Nenshi to build a broader base of support, than the Dippers' refusal to work with centre-progressives.

Elected officials are different than the people that would form the parties themselves, should parties ever come into the equation.

[CorporateWhore]

Originally Posted by mooky

Unfair comparison, unions were and are still the biggest single power to give employees the ability to collectively bargain for a fair wage and working conditions. Without them we'd still be stuck in the 1800's and the employer would still have all the power and employees would still be crapped on. Don't generalize because of a few bad instances of union misbehavior, you can find misbehavior in any structured environment, including those corporate environments that are the antithesis of anything but union-shops ... it's all about balance.

In parts of the world there still are places where millions and millions have terrible working conditions because of no or limited ability to organize and to fairly deal with employers and by mocking unions as a whole, we do nothing to help their plight.

Unions definitely had their place at one time, and in some parts of the world can still do good to help the plight of the poor...but in most instances in the western world, have become giant soul-sucking parasites. They value seniority over personal performance and create an environment of laziness and excess. They are inefficient and hostile towards any change (never mind the bullying that goes on within their own membership). Good luck trying to run a city this way.

While your romanticized description of unions sounds lovely, most unions these days are just as greedy as the corporations that employ them. Look at the auto unions....their solution to their industry woes was to institute two-tiered wage structures...one for the old guys (ie the bosses in power) that keep their inflated salaries and benefits, and one for new members who have drastically reduced salaries/benefits, yet might have more experience/education than the guy working right next to them. So much for solidarity. Union bosses are as greedy as management, but just can't admit it.

The last thing municipal politics in Calgary needs to move towards is a union/party model.

[MalcolmTucker]

The city of calgary unions, at least some of them seem pretty good. They didn't go on strike against managed competition for recycling services, and barely a peep for the coming transition to one person trucks for garbage. Both those things would / will soon cause a huge strike in Toronto.

[gammell]

I suspect that because outsourcing government services would go over far better in Calgary than in Toronto the unions don't have nearly as strong a grip on their labour monopoly here. A garbage strike in Calgary without an airtight justification to the public would result in massive political pressure for firing the whole union and finding contractors.