Alberta PC Party Leadership Candidate Results Broken Down By Riding
November 26, 2006 · By Greg Farries
With the results of Saturday’s leadership election still filtering through the media, expect the long winded columnists to inject their own analysis of the results. There is however something to be said about seeing the results represented visually. An old friend of ThePolitic.com sent in the first ballot results projected on to a riding map of Alberta:
Looks like those folks in Forest Lawn didn’t know who they were supposed to vote for.
I don’t see alot of growth for Dinning. He took most of the votes in the cities and I can’t believe the rural voteres who went with dropped candidates going to Dinning who, in the Alberta world of politics, is a big city liberal.
I think that with the STB voting this weekend, Stelmach will be everyone’s second choice so that, if neither Dinning nor Morton can get the 50% +1 on the first place votes, Ed may come up the middle to win.
. . . and this wouldn’t be too bad a thing if it happened.
Good post thank for this. Lots of work I take it.
It doesn’t look like Morton can look forward to much growth either. I think Stelmach will be surprisingly strong in the next ballot.
Ryan, I find it humorous that anyone can look at the map and spin it that Morton is in trouble and Stelmach is going to overtake him. I assume you think Dinning is still a lock?
The people saying that Stelmach will come up the middle, or as a ‘compromise candidate,’ are pretty much all political junkies.
However, I do think that the majority of those interested enough to come out and vote will go to Morton, seeing him as the only candidate with the momentum to take on Jim Dinning - the two are closer to each other, than Ed is to either.
All the candidates were gunning for Dinning in the last weeks, and that seemed to get attention and have at least some traction. People might hedge their bets on Morton because he seems to have the best shot.
No, I do not think Mr. Dinning is a lock - but I think he has a better chance than Morton because he has the opportunity to pick up votes in Edmonton and a few rural areas, something I do not think Morton can offset rurally. Further, I think Stelmach is well positioned to come up the middle depending on how this all plays out and how people decide to vote preferentially - however, I take the point that this scenario is probably a “political junky” one. I have also noted though that it appears that Stelmach is closer to Dinning on a number of issues than he is with Morton, which would make a third ballot interesting.
Admittedly, what surprised me about Morton is that his support is primarily concentrated in rural southern Alberta and he did not carry any Calgary or Edmonton urban areas. I did not think that Morton would out perform Dinning in those urban areas, but Dinning had a better mix of urban and rural - which is important for a number of reasons. It will be interesting to see how the map shifts.
In the wake of this weekends vote for the man who would replace Klein, Greg Farries at the Politic.com has created a map of how the province voted and how Calgary and Edmonton voted. It shows overwhelming support for Morton in the old Socred ridings of the south of the province. Why am I not surprized. He has coloured Morton blue, a big blue wave that protends nothing
Small error on that map; it has Oberg winning Calgary-Fort instead of Calgary-Montrose.
Fun fact: Last night, I made this same map myself, and chose almost the exact same colours (just a different shade of yellow for Stelmach, and orange instead of pink for Hancock).
I suspect we had the same reason for choosing Morton’s and Dinning’s colours… ;)
Remaining choices: Dinning and Stelmach. What’s the difference? Dinning has the support of the cities, especially Calgary. Stelmach is a farmer and has some rural support. Check out the First Ballot results
Reform green might suit Morton a little better…. maybe…. :)
sorry about the error.
“I suspect we had the same reason for choosing Morton’s and Dinning’s colours… ;)”
tee hee hee ; )
mth,
You got it wrong. Only the eliminated candidate’s second choices are counted. Not everyone’s. It doesn’t matter if any of Ted’s or Jim’s voters have Ed as 2nd place if Ed isn’t in the top 2.
I think Ryan is seriously out of touch with reality.
The race is between Ted and Ed.
It doesn’t matter if Dinning stays in first place - he won’t have 50% after the first ballot and Ed and Ted are throwing their support behind the other candidate.
As well, Ted is only marginally behind Dinning and has picked up a couple MLAs and key organizers from the other camps.
Ryan - your horse is out of the race no matter how much money he spends from his corporate Calgary connections and will be put down on Saturday.
Dinning is not my horse, but thanks for assuming so. Frankly, I don’t even have a horse in this race, just making observations.
Further, I don’t think I am out of touch with reality. It is a close race and there are a few plausible scenarios that could play out this Saturday. Morton and Dinning are polarizing candidates and it is difficult to anticipate the outcome of the strategic voting that is going to take place.
So relax, drink some prune juice, and take a nap.
Anon,
If Ted is knocked out, I agree that most of the 2nd choices of his eliminated ballots will go to Ed, not Jim.
If Ed is knocked out, I doubt whether Ed’s northern rural voters are going to put Ted as number 2. Or Ed’s Edmonton support. They’re against Jim as a Calgarian. Not only is Ted a Calgarian too, but he’s an American. Northern voters don’t sound happy about that.
[...] Commenter TSS: Only the eliminated candidate’s second choices are counted. Not everyone’s. It doesn’t matter if any of Ted’s or Jim’s voters have Ed as 2nd place if Ed isn’t in the top 2. [...]
“f Ed is knocked out, I doubt whether Ed’s northern rural voters are going to put Ted as number 2. Or Ed’s Edmonton support. They’re against Jim as a Calgarian. Not only is Ted a Calgarian too, but he’s an American. Northern voters don’t sound happy about that.”
You’re over-stating this. Still, if I was Morton, I’d be in the rural north this week making sure that Stelmach voters give their second votes to Morton.
Also: I’m not sure how much weight Oberg’s endorsement carries. Why wouldn’t his supporters go to Morton given the ideological proximity of the candidates?
Where can I catch the results from the final vote tonight? Is anyone on TV covering it? or is there perhaps somewhere in Calgary that people are congregating?
I roughed out some new maps from the results of the run-off vote, as well as a animated graphic of the evolution of the race, using the Wikipedia constituencies base map.
Posted on my blog;
Results of the second vote
Evolution of the PC Leadership Race
Well how about that? No growth for Morton (support concentrated in the south), Dinning bested Morton, and Stelmach came up the middle.
Are these views still humourous and out of touch with reality? ;)
[...] Alberta PC Party Leadership Candidate Results Broken Down By Riding [...]
[...] hat tip to the Politic; _________________Party of Alberta … A Better Deal for Albertans. the Party of Alberta [...]
[...] PC Leadership: Riding-by-Riding…. ThePolitic has a riding-by-riding breakdown of the Alberta PC leadership race. Some things of note:-Calgary [...]
In the summer of 2004 I had a very unfortunate and painful experience involving the legal system. It involved a civil court case between me and my ex-wife. She employed a lawyer. In the course of the legal fracas her lawyer told a number of lies to the court. I was a
ble to document six of these. There were more but I was unable to properly document them. At the time, I was not overly concerned. I thought I would appeal to the law society and they, being a “professional” body whose sole interest was in justice, would sanction the lawyer who had told the lies. How wrong I was! I appealed to the law society and asked them to discipline my ex-wife’s lawyer for telling lies to the court.
What are the lies? Let me try to illustrate by giving this hypothetical example. Mrs. Jones gets involved in a civil lawsuit. Mrs. Jones hires a lawyer to plead her case. The lawyer, with the help of Mrs. Jones, prepares an affidavit to present to the court. The affidavit is supposed to be a statement of facts which relate to the case. The first paragraph in that affidavit says that Mrs. Jones lives in Calgary. Paragraph 32 of the affidavit says that Mrs. Jones lives in Dallas. May we draw any conclusion about where Mrs. Jones lives? Certainly not! If paragraph one is true then paragraph 32 is false. If paragraph 32 is true paragraph one is false. Which paragraph is true? We do not know if either of them is true. We can be quite sure that the lawyer hired by Mrs. Jones is a liar. Many of the lies told by the lawyer who was opposing me are, of course, more subtle although his first lie is almost exactly the same as the hypothetical example I give.
To the Alberta law society, I pointed out specific examples of lies told by the lawyer opposing me in the 04 hearings . They appointed a lawyer, Douglas Morris, to investigate the case. My first complaint concerned a lie which very closely approximated the hypothetical example above. What was Mr. Morris response? He sidesteps the issue. He does not deal with it directly. The response of sidestepping the issue was the same for lies two, three and four. Lie number five was a different matter. I point it out to Douglas Morris. What was his response? “Clearly, I agree that the information presented by Mr. **** to the court in that regard was misleading.” What sanction does the society apply against Mr. ****? After admitting there was false information given to the court he decides to apply no sanction. Lie number six was brought to Mr. Morris attention and his response was in part: I agree that this may have been a breach of the Code of Professional Conduct. Well, at least he is agreeing with me on a key point. But what punitive action will he take against the offending lawyer? None at all! The law society does not sanction outrageous conduct of lawyers. They condone it!
Surely the public wants the law society to be what they claim to be: An association of professionals who have high standards of competence and integrity. The public surely does not want the law society to be what in my experience they are: Just another union.
Let us consider the general proposition of a legal ombudsman who has the power to police lawyers. Legislation to create such a position could be passed by the provincial legislature. This kind of ombudsman is needed now. After such legislation was passed, a citizen who has a problem with a lawyer, instead of appealing to the law society, could appeal to the legal ombudsman. Such a measure would act as a protection for other citizens of the Province who might then be protected in future from the same or similar unfortunate experiences that I have undergone.
For information on the issue and academic support: justanotherunion.ca
Sincerely yours,
George Armstrong
I have also undergone a similar case in 2006. What should have been a simple separation of 2 common-law people became a case of who could tell the better lies. as defendant living on disability in Alberta I was forced to use the services of Alberta Legal Aid in finding me a lawyer. The Edmonton lawyer (HH) turned out to be an old law school buddy of the plaintiff’s lawyer (MD). HH forwarded my defense documents to MD who in turn stashed the documents away and out of sight. HH conducted a farcical examination of discovery on the plaintiff LC that allowed lies to be entered as facts without asking for proof of the claims. These lies were then entered as facts. HH withdrew from the case without returning my documents to me. Also during the litigation lawyer MD used numerous lies and threats to force me to give in to his demands. Without my documents which he was hiding I was unable to proved to my next lawyer that LC’s claims were lies and ultimately was forced to settle for an amount well over what LC deserved. After filing complaints with the Alberta Law Society, they, in turn aided in the fraud by avoiding a proper investigation. They seem afraid to do their jobs and they continually keep this swept under the rug by claiming I have no legal recourse.
I complained to the federal justice minister who referred me back to the Alberta government. Who continually ignore the complaints. I wrote the Canadian Bar Association who also will not step in and properly investigate. The Alberta Ombudsman has received a complaint and as yet I have not heard back from that office but I did get another response from Alberta Legal Aid claiming a proper investigation was conducted by the Law Society (another untruth) and I have no grounds or further action. So the facts remain;
Crooked lawyers are operating freely and assisted by Alberta Legal Aid, the Alberta Law Society, Alberta Justice, and the Canadian Bar Association. How the Alberta Ombudsman treats this has yet to be seen and may also be afraid to investigate and try to cover this up. Complicating matters is the fact I am unable to afford another lawyer to take on the above mentioned.
Vern Redel
Barrhead, Ab.
ver@moderndigital.net