🚀 go-pugleaf

In ab.politics SantaSatan <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Anyone who has run a campaign will tell you that the most effective way of
>> getting someone's support is to knock on their door and ask for it. And
> because
>> the short campaign period does not give a candidate enough time to knock
> on all
>> the doors in the riding, it's best if they secure their nomination at
> least a
>> year in advance, and then take the time they need to meet the people they
> want
>> to represent.

> Sheer volume precludes the feasability of a candidate directly knocking on
> the door of every elector during a 4 year term. Alberta allots one MLA per
> 33K electors.

Actually, the average is closer to 20,000 electors.  There are about 12,000
households in an urban riding.

> At an average household elector population of 2, to talk with
> every citizen, a candidate must visit 11 households per day - an average of
> 2 hours per day. 365 days a year. For 4 years. No single MLA or MP has
> accomplished this feat in the history of Canada. If you believe you can be
> the first, now's the time to run for office.

Some actually take canvassing seriously.  For example, former Alberta Liberal
leader Grant Mitchell won his riding using exactly this technique.

Alberta Liberal MLA Sheldon Chumier did the same thing, but used volunteers.
In 1989, he had enough volunteers to cover the entire riding in about
2 days, and had every door knocked on 3 times (at least) during the 
election.

>> I guess what I'm saying is all parties know the value of door-to-door
>> canvassing. If they're delivering flyers without knocking, it's a sign
> that they
>> either don't have the time or the resources (that is, a sufficient number
> of
>> campaign volunteers) to cover the riding. But there is no excuse for
> writing
>> "Sorry I missed you" on a flyer when you haven't even knocked on the door.

> Doug, election campaigns are not permitted to run prior to the writ period.

Actually, they run all the time.  In Alberta, with no spending restrictions,
they can run for years prior to an election.

In fact, for Alberta provincial elections, there are no limitations on
campaigning even on voting day.

> Thanks to Canada's policy of called elections, as supported by the federal
> Liberals and opposed by the Alliance, the writ period is usually 1 month and
> called at a time specifically chosen to catch the opposition party off
> guard.

Actually, the federal writ period is 35 days.  The election last fall
was not much of a surprise, and the Alliance can hardly complain about
being caught off guard.  They were running ads prior to the election,
their leader had embarked on a campaign style tour, and they were demanding
an immediate election in Parliament.

> That's why Ralph called his right on schedule at 4 years and Chretien
> called his at 3.5 years.

Actually, Ralph wanted to call it last fall, but the federal election 
intervened.  In 1993, he waited until almost 5 years before calling his
election, in 1997 he did it after 3.5 years, and this time circumstances
caused him to wait the full 4 years.

> Ralph isn't afraid of Nancy MacWho and her
> socialist-Liberal goons like Chretien was of the Alliance.

And in Alberta, without spending restrictions, his party can spend millions
of dollars on the voters, while the other parties (who don't have the 
same patronage machine) can only afford to spend less than a million.

In some local ridings, Conservatives will spend $ 10 for each person
who votes.

>  But I digress.
> Again, during the writ period, 550 households must be visited per day, for
> 30 days. That's 25 houses per day for each of 22 volunteers. Only the very
> largest of election campaigns will have 22 volunteers at its disposal solely
> for door-knocking. Let me ask you: did one of Nancy MacBet's Hidden Party
> candidates manage to knock on your door, or even leave a pamphlet?

Same with the tory party.  But unlike the Liberal Party which actually
puts its name on the bus and its campaign ads, the tory party does not
even do that.  In fact, I have yet to see a single piece of conservative
literature which has the words Progressive Conservative or Conservative
on them.

On the other hands, every piece of Liberal literature has the words
Alberta Liberal or the website albertaliberal.com on it.

> If I were running for office, I'd focus on 1000 ardent supporters prior to
> the writ, encouraging them to volunteer during the writ. Recruiting election
> volunteers is a difficult and time-consuming task, but results in a strong
> campaign and strong constituency office that will work more effectively for
> its constituents.

This is true.  The best campaigns have a lot of volunteers.  1,000 is
a bit much for a provincial campaign, as it would mean that about
5% of the voters in the riding would be on your campaign.  If you have
that many volunteers, you may not even need to campaign.

Given that most ridings are composed of about 70 polls, it would be
sufficient if you managed to have 2 people for each poll, or about
150 volunteers.  It would allow you to have the riding canvassed
a couple of times in the campaign and have literature delivered
a couple of more times.

>> To my mind, the most objectionable Tory tactic is the argument that only
>> government MLAs have sufficient influence to accomplish things and help
>> the people of the riding.

> Can you cite any evidence to support your allegation? No Tory should claim
> this, nor should any member of any party. If they are, then they, like
> Chretien and his dictatorial cabinet, are seriously confused as to the
> nature of our democracy.

Actually, it is the tory technique.  I suppose that Klien and his similarly
dictatorial cabinet are equally confused about this.

> In fact, a good opposition member, at the
> provincial or federal level, can work in cooperation with the sitting
> minister to pressure the government to move good ideas along more quickly.

It really depends on the member and the minister.  I doubt that in Alberta
there is a single minister who would do anything other than oppose anything
which was suggested by the opposition.  Its just the principle of the thing.

In fact, the Alberta legislature is so partisan, that visitors in the galary
get booed by the government members when they are introduced by opposition
MLAs.

> As for "helping the people of the riding", MLA and MP offices are mandated
> to be politically impartial. Obviously, a Tory office will tend to have
> Tory-minded employees/volunteers, and this applies to any party, but these
> employees must work for ALL consituents, not merely those of similar
> political views.

In Alberta, I generally find that MLAs tend to work on behalf of a very
few people, and they are generally people with the same political persuasion.

> Now, as for "sufficient influence", I would assert that if Nancy MacWho and
> her Hidden Liberals aren't elected in Alberta, it has more to do with their
> lack of honesty and trustworthiness (look at their federal counterparts for
> hundreds of great examples of how corrupt a socialist party can become) than
> anything Ralph and his Tories have done. Of course, the fact that Ralph
> Klein has done for Alberta what no premiere, Liberal especially, has done
> for any province in the history of Canada, certainly can't help Nancy
> MacWho's campaign, eh?

I suppose that Mr Klien's efforts of blowing a $ 11 billion surplus by
spending on generating high prices for electricity and then subsidizing
them is something no one else could do.

> To speak further to your objection, the federal Liberals routinely pull the
> representation scare tactic: "Vote for us or you won't get your welfare
> cheque or waterfront." I find this highly objectionable. The federal
> Liberals go one step further into the realm of Third World politics by
> pitting regions against each other and promoting division in Canada with
> remarks and policies that affront the West.

You think that Alberta tories don't do exactly the same thing.  Ethnic
politics are nasty, and tend to favour the government.  Calgary is an
execellent example of this.

On the other hand, pitting one region against the other is part of Mr 
Klien's standard election campaign.  Divide and conquer has been his
technique since his days as mayor.

> Raping the rich,
> under-represented West to feed the poor,

The west is not under-represented.  Especially when you compare it to
Ontario.

> over-represented East is a clever
> tactic to maintain Liberal power, but will ultimately result in widespread
> socialism, poverty, and the destruction of the nation.

Its this sort of nonsense, which tends to pit one region against the other,
(and which is untrue), which might eventually destroy Canada.  But that is
really up to the parties which use it constantly, the Alberta tories,
the Canadian Alliance, and the BQ (and their provincial cousins, the PQ).

>> Taken to its logical conclusion, this is an argument in
>> favour of a one-party state. If Alberta had a stronger democratic culture,
> this
>> would be obvious.

> Klein wins because Alberta is doing well under his leadership. We had enough
> of the Liberals with Getty, who threw billions at "diversification" and
> accomplished jack.

Actually, Ghetty won two elections by significant majorities which make 
Mr Klien's look pretty narrow.

> This reality spells bad news for Nancy MacBeth, as does
> the fact that no one knows what her Hidden Party stands for other than the
> fact it bears some vague resemblance to the federal Liberal-socialists.

The Liberal party has not done well at getting its platform out.  Its 
available on its website, albertaliberal.com.  On the other hand, it
is quite different from the federal Liberals and in many ways closer
to the Canadian Alliance (especially in terms of ideas like recall,
fixed election dates, etc.)

> Doug, what would you say to a proportionally representative democracy in
> Alberta and Canada, where party seats are proportional to the population
> that voted for them? Would you support such a motion?

I wouldn't.  It would be a disaster for Canada as it would tend to 
pull the country apart even further.

>> The fact that I had to explain to a Tory party worker who
>> phoned me last night what multi-party democracy is about (I'm sure he
> enjoyed
>> the lecture) has only increased my level of despair.

> Sounds good. Would you agree to a multi-party democracy in the House of
> Commons too, where the Chretien and his corrupt Liberal seals would be
> forced to vote FOR their 1993 campaign promises, instead of against them as
> they did last week with the Ethics Commissioner accountability motion by the
> Alliance?

Would you want Mr Klien to have to vote to keep his promises in 1993, like
not giving more loan guarantees, increasing spending on education and health
care, and all of that?

Or course not.

Why would the people elected in 2000 have to be bound by the promises made
by a different bunch elected in 1993?

> Perhaps your level of despair stems from the fact that Nancy MacWho hasn't a
> chance in hell, door knocking or not. Nancy has only one person to blame for
> that, and it aint Ralph.

This I tend to agree with.

-- 
Best regards,

Stephen Jenuth
(jenuths@homacjen.ab.ca)

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.