Reboot Alberta

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Wild Alliance Party Rejects Chandler as a Director

My sources tell me Mr. Chandler and his cohorts ran for directorships in the Wild Alliance Party at the Merger Meeting yesterday in Calgary. Rick Bell of the Calgary Sun confirms that it is true and they were all unsuccessful

Will Mr. Chandler now seek a Wild Alliance nomination for the soon to be announced election…or will he stick to his independent candidate guns?

I have checked both the Alliance and Wildrose sites this morning and see they have nothing about the merger meeting posted on the sites and the newspapers have spotty coverage. Does anyone out there know what is really going on with this new party that wants to perfect yesterday instead of planning for tomorrow?

I presume from earlier statements that Mr. Chandler no longer wishes to be associated with the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta. The feeling is mutual. However, I find it curious that he has allegedly been able to gain access to the PC Party Calgary Egmont nomination voting results which he posted as a comment on my Blog post yesterday.

I will presume Mr. Chandler's reporting of the results are accurate until an official reporting comes along. Once again I have to chastise the Calgary Egmont constituency organization, and any others in any political party who have followed the same path of not releasing the vote counts in nominations. Open and transparent democracy demands the release of all political party nomination results if the parties are to continue to deserve the confidence of the electorate on this and other more serious issues as well.

As for the reported Calgary Egmont "write-in" nomination of Craig Chandler for the PC Party, I wonder if that was done by Mr. Chandler himself. It matters not but it is an intriguing diversion from the weather and easier to figure out than the Sudako puzzle. I also wonder it Mr. Chandler followed up on his offer to buy the www.edstelmach.ca website from Daveberta too hoping to be the defendant in the earlier threats of legal action over the website.

I think the powers that be in the PC Party and the Premier's Office have learned a lesson and are quietly dropping the whole silly website thing. That means Daveberta is left like the pawnshop owner who actually knows he has stolen property in the store and now faces a dilemma. He doesn't really want to keep the site because it has served its purpose and can only cause more trouble if it gets misused. He can't really sell it, given what he knows about how it was acquired in the first place. What is the responsible thing for Daveberta to do under these circumstances?

13 comments:

  1. Anonymous2:08 pm

    Ken,

    A couple of things.

    Frstly, how could I vote for myself when I was at the Wildrose event?

    Secondly, It was made clear to me why I would not be elected as a director. People were resentful I left for the PC Party and informed me that I can't just become an instant member of the party and expect to get elected onto council.

    There is some resentment that I ever left. However, I was warmly welcomed back and told bluntly that I need to earn my way back in the good books.

    There are many people that ran and did not get elected, but I came second out of 3 weel known party insiders and I was content with that.

    I am a proud Wildrose Alliance member

    ReplyDelete
  2. Craig - good to hear from you. You say in your comment yesterday there was one vote for you and it was a "write-in vote"...does it matter where you were to mail it in?

    I didn't know write in votes were even possible in the nomination process. In any event it is a trite issue if you purchased a 2008PC membership and voted for yourself or not. Nobody really cares.

    What is not trite is were did you get the results of the Egmont nomination from that you promulgated yesterday?

    Equally non-trivial is are you going after a Wild Alliance nomination now and if so where?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous5:00 pm

    Ken,

    Why you twist things around is beyond me.

    There was a ballot that was written on, thus the terminology write in ballot. No mail in ballots are allowed so cut the unethical spin on this one.

    I am not a member of the Progressive Party of Alberta and would not waste $5 on a 2008 membership. Stop lying.

    I got the nomination results directly from a scruitneer of a candidate.

    As for the nomination. I am not sure if there will be one, but I will keep you informed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Craig - I am not lying nor am I twisting - merely having some fun wondering what happened. I am free to speculate given the specific way you framed the matter of a write-in vote. It implies somebody mailed in their vote.

    I also wonder and have fun thinking about your efforts to buy the www.edstelmach.ca website from Daveberta so you can buy a law suit with Ed Stelmach. I don't think it will happen but you made the offer for those purposes in your comments on his website. It has many interesting implications.

    So now it is clear. There was no write-in ballot for Craig Chandler as you previously indicated. There was in fact just a spoiled ballot with your name on it.

    Why don't you let us know the name of the scruitineer who leaked the results to you? We owe him/her a debt of gratitude for their commitment to open democratic political processes.

    I find it ironic that you, an avowed non-member of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta, got access to the nomination results in Calgary Egmont but card-carrying members were officially denied this information.

    Political parties have a lot of growing up to do.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous7:22 pm

    Ken,

    Whether people like it or not I happen to be involved in a group (PGIB) that is well connected.

    Unfortunately, very unfortunately most PGIB members are Alberta Progressive Conservatives. A small minority, maybe 2% are Wildrose Alliance supporters.

    I say this because actual card-carrying Tories let me know the information. I asked and because I ran there they felt it would not hurt to let me know.

    I will not reveal who let me know, but they were in the count room.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Didn't expect you would reveal the name of your source Craig.

    I would just like to shake their hand for supporting openness, transparency and accountability in the PC Party of Alberta.

    Why they would not release the nomination vote results is beyond me.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous10:19 pm

    Ken, I hope Craig wins the riding just to see the look on your face.

    I am a PC member but would like to see the Party be taught a little lesson in the next election.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous7:38 am

    Doesn't PGIB now stand for 'Pathetic Guy In Basement'?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous10:19 pm

    Craig has now been involved with NINE parties. Go home Craig, even the Wild Alliance doesn't want you and you will be lucky to break 500 votes as an independent.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous10:49 pm

    I think it is more like a walk out.

    That was actually funny.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous9:15 pm

    Nine Parties? My calculations show ONLY 4!

    Reform Party which became Canadian Alliance and is now the Conservative Party = 1 party (just name changes in the same party)

    Progressive Conservative Party of Canada = 1

    Social Credit = 1

    Alberta First which became the Alberta Alliance, which became the Wildrose Alliance = 1

    Alberta Progressive Conservatives = 1

    All the parties were / are conservative.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Craig did you at one time or another belong to any or all of those parties before they merged - or did you only join at the end of the merger?

    I take it you never belonged to the Reform or Alliance Party - just the Federal PCs and the final CPC merged party. Is that right?

    Same for Alberta First and Alberta Alliance...you never belonged to either or both of them - only the Wildrose Alliance.

    Not that I care, just trying to clarify what you are saying - again.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous10:00 pm

    Just popped into this discussion. Free speech and entertaining banter - all very interesting.

    ReplyDelete

Anonymous comments are discouraged. If you have something to say, the rest of us have to know who you are