Keeping leftist governance out of Alberta is entirely rational.
If courts actually, underscore actually, rule that any laws were broken, then let that process run its course.
But until that occurs , your umbrage is grossly misplaced.
Most of Alberta's dysfunctions relate to trying to sustain social transfers that are fundamentally unsustainable. And an NDP government will worsent them.
Alberta's aspiration should be Singapore not modern day Los Angeles.
It’s interesting to read aloud how limited the UCP supporters’ commitment to democratic politics is. Because, of course, gerrymandering can’t be justified on any other basis than ‘we know better than you who you should vote for’.
> Keeping leftist governance out of Alberta is entirely rational.
When you don't believe in democracy, you should have the stones to come out and say it plainly instead of hiding behind weasel words like "keeping people I don't like out is rational... never mind about how".
I will point out... you're just a regular guy like me right? When we ditch democracy, people like you get told what to do, when to do it and how you're allowed to talk about it. You do get to ask "how high sir?", but then you do what you're told and you express your gratitude.
It's other people who end up in charge. It's never you.
The whole theory of "impartial districting" and "communities of interest" is fake, and one more example of how Canada empowers the "expert" biens-pensants over the elected representatives of the people as our true rulers.
Far better to let elected governments do the redistricting, with a rule limiting the maximum ratio of perimeter squared to area in order to keep things from getting too far out of hand.
Of course. But the idea that there are "fair", "neutral", "experts" who will make the decision in an "impartial" way is absurd. It amounts to just letting one particular, in practice biased, and certainly unaccountable, group make the decision.
Not only are they unaccountable, but they pretend to the public and, worse, to themselves, that they are acting impartially.
Absolutely. Gerrymandering is profoundly undemocrtic. You can be absolutely certain that the same guys praising gerrymandering in this context would be crying about the unfairness of it all if it were the NDP in charge of the process.
The new boundaries are a pathetic attempt by Danielle Smith to cling to power. A senior UCP official told me the other day that if Thomas Lukascuk(?) takes over the Tory party, the vote will be split on the right and Danielle Smith will be OUT.
Dr. Wesley provides some insight into the difficulty of drawing constituency boundaries. Consensus is difficult to achieve and it is always a partisan process. He notes casually that we are better than Americans at this process (an ad hominem comment at best). He thus downplays the original divisions in the "impartial" committee report. In fact, there was a majority report, a minority report, and a response from the chair indicating that the conditions imposed upon the committee in its instructions (in particular the decision that the new map should be constructed according to a fixed set of parameters) limited the committee's ability to forge a consensus. That indicates that the original "impartial" committee could not achieve consensus and was driven at least in part by more partisan interests than suggested.
Dr. Wesley clearly believes that any effort at consensus building should occur inside the legislature. His perspective is that voters that share a common perspective send representatives of that perspective to the legislature where the different perspectives would debate to create policy. He assumes that common perspective is geographically framed as urban/rural. But does not explain why it could not be framed occupationally (as the old UFA government, for example, understood it). Why geographic conformity (inner city, suburban, exurban, rural, northern with constituencies that reflect each geographic area) is a better representation than occupational class (farmer, rancher, labourer, professional, entrepreneur, homemaker, etc.) or ethnic/racial/gender groupings etc. is not explained. Current constituencies have all these occupational, ethnic/racial, gender constituent groups within them and candidates must craft their message to serve these multiple interests. It occasionally works effectively but not always. Why is the rural/urban interest different? Indeed, one could suggest that creating ridings in which "rural voters are hived off into strictly rural constituencies is equally a form of gerrymander. Would it not be better to have constituencies that include not only occupational, gender, ethnic/racial diversity but also geographical diversity? It would force the consensus building process out of the legislature and into the constituency. That might reduce the ability of ideologues to dominate the constituency process and create a less overtly partisan legislature. Of course, it might not. But the the issue is simply ignored by Dr. Wesley.
I think it is also fair to note that, in Dr. Wesley's opinion, experts and technocrats (a class to which he belongs and which he describes as impartial) are better positioned than politicians to understand how the interests of the voters are served. And that is what he meant in his ad hominem comment about the USA and its method of creating constituencies.
Keeping leftist governance out of Alberta is entirely rational.
If courts actually, underscore actually, rule that any laws were broken, then let that process run its course.
But until that occurs , your umbrage is grossly misplaced.
Most of Alberta's dysfunctions relate to trying to sustain social transfers that are fundamentally unsustainable. And an NDP government will worsent them.
Alberta's aspiration should be Singapore not modern day Los Angeles.
"Alberta's aspiration should be Singapore -"
Like ... a one-party state?
It’s interesting to read aloud how limited the UCP supporters’ commitment to democratic politics is. Because, of course, gerrymandering can’t be justified on any other basis than ‘we know better than you who you should vote for’.
> Keeping leftist governance out of Alberta is entirely rational.
When you don't believe in democracy, you should have the stones to come out and say it plainly instead of hiding behind weasel words like "keeping people I don't like out is rational... never mind about how".
I will point out... you're just a regular guy like me right? When we ditch democracy, people like you get told what to do, when to do it and how you're allowed to talk about it. You do get to ask "how high sir?", but then you do what you're told and you express your gratitude.
It's other people who end up in charge. It's never you.
The whole theory of "impartial districting" and "communities of interest" is fake, and one more example of how Canada empowers the "expert" biens-pensants over the elected representatives of the people as our true rulers.
Far better to let elected governments do the redistricting, with a rule limiting the maximum ratio of perimeter squared to area in order to keep things from getting too far out of hand.
The Economist describes the practice of gerrymandering in the US as politicians picking their voters, instead of the other way around. Check out the maps in this Globe article: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/gift/c7badcfb96aaad28921a389f8f8dfe22528e293cfa86d815b33eb3be3c0ab21f/3ITDTBA77VB4ZNLVEUMR43FS4A/
Of course. But the idea that there are "fair", "neutral", "experts" who will make the decision in an "impartial" way is absurd. It amounts to just letting one particular, in practice biased, and certainly unaccountable, group make the decision.
Not only are they unaccountable, but they pretend to the public and, worse, to themselves, that they are acting impartially.
Absolutely. Gerrymandering is profoundly undemocrtic. You can be absolutely certain that the same guys praising gerrymandering in this context would be crying about the unfairness of it all if it were the NDP in charge of the process.
The new boundaries are a pathetic attempt by Danielle Smith to cling to power. A senior UCP official told me the other day that if Thomas Lukascuk(?) takes over the Tory party, the vote will be split on the right and Danielle Smith will be OUT.
Dr. Wesley provides some insight into the difficulty of drawing constituency boundaries. Consensus is difficult to achieve and it is always a partisan process. He notes casually that we are better than Americans at this process (an ad hominem comment at best). He thus downplays the original divisions in the "impartial" committee report. In fact, there was a majority report, a minority report, and a response from the chair indicating that the conditions imposed upon the committee in its instructions (in particular the decision that the new map should be constructed according to a fixed set of parameters) limited the committee's ability to forge a consensus. That indicates that the original "impartial" committee could not achieve consensus and was driven at least in part by more partisan interests than suggested.
Dr. Wesley clearly believes that any effort at consensus building should occur inside the legislature. His perspective is that voters that share a common perspective send representatives of that perspective to the legislature where the different perspectives would debate to create policy. He assumes that common perspective is geographically framed as urban/rural. But does not explain why it could not be framed occupationally (as the old UFA government, for example, understood it). Why geographic conformity (inner city, suburban, exurban, rural, northern with constituencies that reflect each geographic area) is a better representation than occupational class (farmer, rancher, labourer, professional, entrepreneur, homemaker, etc.) or ethnic/racial/gender groupings etc. is not explained. Current constituencies have all these occupational, ethnic/racial, gender constituent groups within them and candidates must craft their message to serve these multiple interests. It occasionally works effectively but not always. Why is the rural/urban interest different? Indeed, one could suggest that creating ridings in which "rural voters are hived off into strictly rural constituencies is equally a form of gerrymander. Would it not be better to have constituencies that include not only occupational, gender, ethnic/racial diversity but also geographical diversity? It would force the consensus building process out of the legislature and into the constituency. That might reduce the ability of ideologues to dominate the constituency process and create a less overtly partisan legislature. Of course, it might not. But the the issue is simply ignored by Dr. Wesley.
I think it is also fair to note that, in Dr. Wesley's opinion, experts and technocrats (a class to which he belongs and which he describes as impartial) are better positioned than politicians to understand how the interests of the voters are served. And that is what he meant in his ad hominem comment about the USA and its method of creating constituencies.