As I mentioned in a previous post, I am seeking the Alberta Party nomination to be the candidate for Calgary-Shaw in the next provincial election. I now have a campaign website live at brandonbeasley.ca. I invite you to take a look to find out more about my campaign, post a comment, or contact me for more information.
Thank you!
Well, I wasn’t quite correct with my prediction of how the PC Leadership Election would turn out to this point, but my Twitter prediction on the night of the first ballot was pretty close. Now that we’re at the second and final ballot, I thought I’d set down some brief thoughts in this space.
I think Mar will almost certainly win, sweeping most of Edmonton, doing very well in suburban Calgary, and also quite well rurally, especially in central and southern Alberta. If he does win I think there is a high chance it will be on the first preference count.
However, I’d say there is a 1 in 6 chance that Redford could pull off a win, in the way that Calgary Herald reporter Jason Markusoff describes here; basically, through doing extremely well in Calgary and in medium-sized cities, holding Mar to 40% on the first preference count, and having most of Horner’s supporters back her and not Mar as their second-choice.
So that’s the prediction. But there is something more important I must note.
This is an interesting election for those interested in and involved with politics in Alberta, and an important election for the province because the person who wins will be asked by the Lieutenant Governor to form the next government. But we must not forget that at bottom this is a process internal to the PC party, and all three candidates still represent that tired, stale, and entitled group of politicians. Even Alison Redford, the candidate most challenging to the status quo, is representative of a party whose time has come, a party who can no longer see the difference between itself and the government, and itself and Alberta. Even if the PCs were to elect Redford today, it would not be real change. It would be a new coat of paint, it would be a couple of steps in the right direction, but one person can only do so much, and one person cannot undo years of mismanagement, neglect, and bad decisions.
Albertans want real change. That’s why I’m part of building a new political option for this province. That’s why I want to represent the Alberta Party in the next election.
So today let us not forget that real change can only come from something truly new.
On Saturday September 24, at the Alberta Party Annual General Meeting, I officially announced that I am seeking the nomination to be the Alberta Party candidate in the riding of Calgary-Shaw.
I have thought long and hard about this over the past few months, and have become convinced that I want to run in the next election to represent the citizens of Calgary-Shaw, and I think I can best do so under the banner of the Alberta Party.
Why the Alberta Party? I addressed this in a previous post, but I’ll say a little about it here. The Alberta Party is a centrist, pragmatic, and progressive political party which is committed to listening to Albertans to build a better politics and a better province. We want to listen to the citizens of Alberta in order to do politics differently and make Alberta the best that it can be. I don’t believe that any of the other existing political parties in Alberta offer the political alternative that Alberta and Albertans need.
The old Tory dynasty is far past its due date. The Wildrose party is too ideological and too right-wing. And the Liberals and New Democrats are often hard-working and committed, but are completely unwilling to make the changes they need to make to appeal to a wide cross-section of Albertans and engage them in the political process. It seems to me that only the Alberta Party has what it takes to bring to Albertans the change they deserve.
I’ve lived in Shawnessy since I was three years old (with the exception of a year in Halifax while I was in graduate school), and have spent a lot of my life in and around the communities of the riding: attending school, spending time with Aunts and Uncles and friends, playing community soccer and flag football, eating at local restaurants and shopping at local stores. My doctor is in the riding; I get my hair cut here. Little things, maybe, but I believe that all this gives me a strong connection to Calgary-Shaw: it’s where I grew up, and it’s my home.
I plan to undertake as wide a consultation as possible in Calgary-Shaw to identify the issues that residents in the communities of Somerset, Shawnessy, Millrise, Shawnee, Midnapore, and Sundance are most concerned about, and focus on those in my campaign. My initial impression is that people are very concerned about Education and Health Care; about cuts to education funding and growing class sizes, as well as long wait-times and access to a family doctor. I think they’re also feeling left out of the political process in this province, and I want to bring them back in by talking to them about their concerns and their hopes, listening intently to what they have to say, and acting on what I hear. I want to persuade them that voting for me, and the Alberta Party, is their best choice for a better Alberta.
If I am lucky enough to be nominated, I will work hard to earn the votes of the citizens in Calgary-Shaw. If you live in the riding (or even if you don’t!) and want to support my campaign, I would love to have you on my team.
To learn more about me, the Alberta Party, or my campaign, send me an email at bbeasley[at]gmail[dot]com, follow me on Twitter @bebeasley, and ‘Like’ my Facebook page here.
Both the Alberta PCs and Liberals are in the midst of leadership elections, and in both races the voting rules and procedures will play a big part in the outcome.
Both the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta and the Alberta Liberals are in the midst of leadership elections. The Liberal vote is today, and the first ballot of the PC election is on September 17th, with a second ballot, if necessary, on October 1st. I thought I would take some time to look at the dynamics of each race, make some predictions, and demonstrate how voting rules can have an impact on the outcome of elections.
If you follow me on Twitter, you’ll notice that I posted my 1st ballot predictions for both races the other day. Here they are again:
Liberal First Ballot:
1. Sherman 2. MacDonald 3. Blakeman 4. Payne 5. Harvey
PC First Ballot:
1. Mar 2. Morton 3. Horner/Redford Tossup 5. Griffiths 6. Orman
But, will these races be decided on the first ballot, or will further ballots be needed? This depends on several things, not the least of which is the strength of the frontrunners, and the particulars of each party’s electoral process. Let’s start with the Official Opposition.
The Liberals: An Easy Victory for Sherman?
The Alberta Liberals have become the first political party in Canada to open up their leaderhsip election process to non-members. In order to vote in a leadership election or a constituency nomination contest, a person needs now only to be a registered voter and to sign up as a ‘supporter’ of the party, which costs nothing. Those who buy memberships obviously have powers which mere supporters do not, but to open up a party’s leadership election in this way is a very interesting, if potentially dangerous, idea. Certainly, the federal Liberals will be watching this election closely, as they are mulling over using a similar ‘open primary’ system to elect their next leader.
Of course, this system is potentially vulnerable to a ‘take-over’ by outsiders; if enough people can be gathered, non-members could outvote people who have supported the party their entire lives, resulting in a party leader who party stalwarts might be uneasy about at best and downright antagonistic toward at worst.
This is arguably the situation which may arise in the current Liberal leadership contest, with emergency-room-doctor-turned-MLA-turned-political-folk-hero Raj Sherman widely seen to be the frontrunner. Of the over 27 000 Albertans eligible to vote in the leadership election, it is said that Sherman has signed up something like 18 000 of them. Given the new rules and his apparent ability to sign up massive amounts of supporters, it is clear why he is seen as a the frontrunner; this is in addition, of course, to his public image as a defender of health care and fighter against government stupidity.
But there are two things which stand in the way of an easy Sherman victory. The first is that he needs to get all the people he signed up to vote for him. Get-out-the-vote activities are crucial in any election, but are especially crucial here since most of the people who Sherman signed up are not party members, just supporters, and thus need to be reminded that the vote is even taking place. That Sherman might be having some trouble with this is shown by a bizzare tweet he made, baldly admitting that he needed GOTV help because his supporters were not coming out to vote, putting his campaign in “TROUBLE”.
He needs to get his vote out because he needs to win on the first ballot. This is because of the second thing which stands in his way: his divisiveness. As a frontrunner, and as the polarising, outsider figure that he is, he is not likely to be the second or even third choice of many of the other candidates’ supporters. As the Liberals are using a preferential ballot, and the winner must get more than 50% of the vote, if Sherman does not win on the first ballot, he is unlikely to win after that, as it seems the other candidates’ supporters are less likely to support him than another candidate.
If Sherman does not win on the first ballot, I predict a Hugh MacDonald victory. He has a strong following among party stalwarts, and has had probably the second-most visable campaign next to Sherman. He would be the logical choice for the non-Sherman vote to coalesce around, especially since I predict he will place a strong second on the first ballot.
Of course, anything can happen. But that is my (I think reasonable) prediction.
The PCs: Another Stelmach Moment?
The path that led to Ed Stelmach occupying the Premier’s office is well-known at this point. Amid a bitter battle between front-runner Jim Dinning and his main opponent Ted Morton, PCs rallied around Stelmach, the second choice of almost everyone. The mechanics of this are interesting, and have a lot to do with the PC’s somewhat unique method of electing a leader. Before I get to the current contest, it is worth going over again their leadership election rules and how it led to Stelmach’s victory.
The party’s leadership election unfolds in a two-stage process. There is a first ballot, and if no candidate receives over 50% of the vote, a second, preferential ballot is held three weeks later among the top three on the first ballot. This is rather unusual to begin with, as most run-off votes of this kind are only held between the top two candidates. (This is true, for example, of elections for the French Presidency) I believe the party instituted this rule in order to ensure that there was proper rural representation among the finalists, as a two-person second-ballot contest might have a tendency to always produce a Calgary vs Edmonton face-off. In any case, it is this rule which is largely responsible for Stelmach’s win, and one which will greatly affect the outcome of this year’s race. On the second ballot, voters rank their preference, so that in the event that there is no clear winner on the second ballot, the third place candidates votes can be redistributed to the second-choice of those voters, producing a virtual third ballot, and the winner. Because Stelmach had so much support from the other candidates in the race who had placed lower than third on the first ballot, he placed second when the result of the first preferences of the second ballot were counted. However, there was still no one candidate with a majority, so Morton, now in third place, was dropped, and his votes redistributed according to his voters’ preferences. Because of the intense antagonism between Dinning and Morton, Morton’s supporters overwhelmingly favoured Stelmach, resulting in his victory once the second preferences were counted.
So, now that we’ve remembered how the PC voting process works, and reminded ourselves how this process can influence the outcome, let’s take a look at this year’s race. If you recall, I predicted the first ballot would look like this:
1. Mar 2. Morton 3. Horner/Redford Tossup 5. Griffiths 6. Orman
As we now know, it is the top three on the first ballot who really matter, but in this case there is some uncertainty–it is hard to guage, between Horner and Redford, who can pull the most support. Earlier in the race there had been some talk of Mar taking it on the first ballot, but I find this highly unlikely. In a six-candidate contest, a first ballot win would be highly unusual, especially with so many big names likely to attract a lot of support.
So given the uncertainty of who might be among the top three, let’s break it down into the two possibilities, and see where it might lead. First, let’s take the scenario where Doug Horner is in third place, behind Mar and Morton. What kind of second ballot first preference result would this lead to? I would argue that a likely result is this:
1. Mar 2. Horner 3. Morton
Here we have a virtual repeat of what elected Stelmach. Of the three candidates who are knocked off, some of their support goes to Mar, but so too does it go to Horner, vaulting him into second place. As Morton’s supporters would be unlikely to vote for a Mar-type candidate, I predict this would result in Horner winning the contest.
But what if Redford comes in third on the first ballot? Well, then I would expect to see her place second on the second ballot’s first preference count, given support from many of Horner’s and Griffith’s supporters. But with Morton in third again, it is his voters who decide the contest, and I cannot see them voting for an out-and-out progressive like Redford. In this scenario, Mar wins, a suprising case of a frontrunner attracting significant second-preference support.
It is possible in both scenarios that Mar could pull off a victory on the first preferences of the second ballot, but as the frontrunner I’m not sure how much second-preference support he would have among the three dropped candidates; perhaps from Redford or Horner supporters, but I think that most of them would go from one to the other, depending on who finished third. But it is hard to say.
And, of course, this is all based on my subjective impressions of the race, and candidate support, which I admit are far from perfect and may be completely mistaken. But at the very least, it is an interesting example of how voting rules, combined with the preferences of voters, can influence the outcome of elections. And it stands as my prediction for what will happen on September 17 and October 1.
There has been a lot of talk recently — far too much talk — about a possible Liberal Party of Canada and New Democratic Party merger. Advocates include NDP MP Pat Martin, as well as former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. Some argue that now is the best time for a merger, with both parties having interim leaders and with the greater necessity of a strong progressive alternative to Stephen Harper.
As tempting as it might be, the two parties should not merge. For the Liberals, especially, it would be disastrous: it would be to deny that there is a future for a centrist, progressive and pragmatic party, and would give in to the left versus right polarization which is already starting to occur. The Liberals need to rebuild the Liberal party, not try to create a ticket back to power through a merger — a ticket which they would help to write as the lesser party.
Although both parties are ‘progressive’, they are nonetheless wholly different. They have different histories, different structures, different ideologies. They are not, as is sometimes thought, both parties of the centre-left. The both have strong centre-left elements, but the Liberals range from the centre to the centre-left, whereas the NDP ranges from the centre-left to the democratic socialist left. Many Liberals, myself among them, would not be at home in a party that contains socialists who think that major industries should be re-nationalised. And those same socialists would hardly want to be in the same party as the Red-Tory Liberals who live in the centre of the political spectrum.
But what the two parties should do is work together, because they share one thing (among others) in common: a commitment to social welfare, and the role that the federal government has to play in maintaining it. Historically, both parties have been at their best when they have worked together as separate entities; we need think only of Lester Pearson’s premiership which gave us the Canada Pension Plan and universal healthcare, among others. It was cooperation between the two parties which made this possible.
The Conservatives under Harper have shown that they do not have a strong belief in the role of the federal government, nor a strong belief in the role of government to guarantee social welfare. Liberals and New Democrats can and should work together on this and other issues, but are best suited to do so as separate parties, not as a merged unit.
In taking a look at some of my previous articles, one might be perplexed by the juxtaposition of “The poverty of New Atheism” and “On the Life-Negation of Certain Religious Beliefs“. In the first I am critical of outspoken atheists like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens, and in the second I am critical of certain religious attitudes which de-value human life and potential. On a superficial reading, it might seem odd that a non-believer like myself would attack fellow non-believers. And it might seem as if my criticism of certain religious worldviews amounts to a criticism of religion and the religious in general.
In fact, the first is not odd at all the second is plainly untrue. In truth, I am strongly opposed to anti-religious atheism, and the only forms of religion I oppose are dogmatic, extreme, fundamentalist, and anti-human.
I have some good examples of the kind of atheism I oppose. A link on Twitter recently directed me to this quotation:
“An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that deed must be done instead of prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanished, war eliminated.” – Madalyn Murray O’Hair, founder of American Atheists, Inc.
True, atheists do want hospitals built, good deeds done, disease and poverty conquered, etc. But do believers want the opposite? No. Not one sane religious person would want a church to be built instead of a hospital, or that only prayer is necessary and not good deeds. This quote has already made up its mind about believers, neglecting the fact that it is possible to want both a hospital and a church to be built, to both pray and follow up one’s prayers with action, to live one’s life to fullest even while believing in an afterlife. This quotation demonstrates a travesty of understanding.
This kind of antagonism toward all religion is demonstrated by other tweets I saw associated on atheist-friendly Twitter accounts, like a link to an article called “All Religions are Scams”, or the following quotation:
“Religion is the ultimate slavery: it is the slavery of the mind.” Paula Kirby
What we have here is a good example of what I tried to get across in “The poverty of New Atheism”, that many atheists consistently equate all religion with the worst and most extreme forms of religion. Being religious is no more to necessarily give one’s mind over to slavery than to be a Liberal or a Conservative in politics necessarily is. That is, it isn’t necessary, it is not inevitable. To take the worst examples of religion as the exemplar of religion in general is not only argumentatively unsound, but also shows a complete lack of understanding of religion, and a lack of the open-mindedness so readily claimed by atheists as one of their chief virtues.
The problem is not religion. The problem is religious beliefs which are extreme, fundamentalist, anti-human, and oppressive. Religion is not by definition any of those things, which can be readily understood by spending time with religious people and trying to come to an honest understanding of their worldview and its impact on their lives. (It can also be understood from getting a better conceptual and philosophical grasp on the nature of religion, but that is a much larger project) As an atheist and secular humanist, that is how I would want the religious to treat me. Atheists and secular humanists do themselves and everyone else a disservice when they speak about religion in this way. It is not only ignorant, it also increases division instead of promoting understanding and cooperation, which is the only way for people of differing views to live together harmoniously and to stamp out extremism and oppression.
Naturally, atheists and secular humanists believe that their worldview is the one which makes the most sense, and I would never deny them (nor the religious) the opportunity to express that opinion publicly, nor engage people of other worldviews in debate about it. But when one starts from a position of impoverished understanding of what one is arguing against, and says things which are clearly offensive, one short-circuits all the benefits which might be gained from dialogue and free debate. Believers and non-believers alike would do well to learn more about the nature of the other’s beliefs, and it is immensely sad that both sides often willfully impede that learning.
