Opinion

Could we defer this October 16, 2017 municipal election until 2019?

Published

7 years ago

4 minute read

What if we had an election and nobody showed up? With voter turn out deceasing, that may happen yet.
We will be having an election on October 16, 2017 and it does appear that it is quite plausible, all the incumbents may run again. There are no indications of any incumbents deciding not to run. Since incumbents have a great advantage, media coverage, name recognition, events, etc., it is quite possible that there may not see any differences on October 17, 2017.
There are a few new comers throwing their hats in the ring, but they are not offering much different, than what we have now. So why vote for a shadow when we can vote the real thing?
In 2010 incumbent Mayor Morris Flewelling won re-election beating Hilary Penko, a relative unknown newcomer, but only with 8,100 to her 6,219 votes. He still won but Hilary Penko, made it a race.
Will we have any semblance of a race in 2017, or should we defer it to 2019?
Why? There are several reasons. The 2019 games will be over in March, the Provincial election will be over in May, and the Federal election will be over in October.
The games would be the final hurrah for some incumbents. The Provincial election will see a united right wing party, and new candidates, with some being municipal incumbents. The Federal election will see at least 2 new leaders, anticipated retirement amongst Federal incumbents, and again a few candidates being municipal incumbents.
So it is possible that after many years the Mayor takes the next step and becomes the MP for Red Deer/Mountview, and a couple of councillors become MLAs, and another one or two just retire after the games. Then we should have our election, which we would have had if they not changed municipal terms to 4 years from 3 in 2013.
The Mayor vacates her seat to be an MP, thus creating a By-election. The result of the By-election a councillor becomes the Mayor forciing another By-election for a council seat. A School board trustee wins a seat on council forcing another by-election for a school board trustee.
So to avoid all these hypothetical by-elections let us hold our municipal elections after the other 2019 events. We could demand a commitment that they not vacate their seats for these reasons.
Another reason to hold off the election is our population. Red Deer did their annual census in 2016 and found that the city shrank in population by 975 residents. They decided not to have a census in 2017 because they needed growth to validate the expenditure, which was highly unlikely. They also deferred any annexation due to lack of growth. Currently there is speculation that the population is still in decline, and we will not know until the census in 2018.
If we had 2017 numbers that showed continued decline the incumbents would have to defend their past decisions that may have contributed to our decline and would have to offer plans to turn it around. Now they can use the Federal Census showing growth over a 5 year span.
If the choice is just between incumbents and their shadows, and no real discussion, debate or distinct proposals on important issues, then defer the election to 2019.
Maybe by then we would see real growth, and not be recognized for our high crime rate, poor air quality, and our discriminatory practices against residents living north of the river.
The Mayor faced a “challenger” in 2010, will there be any real challengers for any incumbent in 2017? I hope so or deferral would be my choice.
Time will only tell, it is still early.

Follow Author

Independent Media “The Free Press” hits 1 Million subscibers

Brownstone Institute / 51 mins ago

Congress’ Shield against Trump’s Hammer of Justice

espionage / 1 hour ago

In 2025 Critical Political Choices Will Define Canada’s Future: Clement

International

Independent Media “The Free Press” hits 1 Million subscibers

Published on December 28, 2024

Todayville

Free Press founder Bari Weiss interviews Peter Thiel

By Bari Weiss

The rise of The Free Press happened simply and honestly: story by story.

Christmas and Hanukkah celebrate otherworldly miracles. But this Chrismukkah—the holidays fell on the same day this year—we at The Free Press added a miracle of an entirely human kind. We reached one million subscribers.

Grateful—and hopeful—doesn’t begin to cover it.

I have been beaming since Wednesday morning, when I refreshed my screen and got the good news in Nellie’s childhood home. (We captured the moment; this was before I cried.) Mostly I’m pinching myself, thinking back to how this all began, and wondering how we got here.

The easy answer would be: Americans’ faith in the legacy press has collapsed, with curious and independent-minded readers unsubscribing from The New York Times, pausing their donations to NPR, and searching for trustworthy alternatives.

And that’s certainly part of what happened. It was definitely the beginning.

But we quickly discovered that you can’t build something new—or certainly not something lasting—based only on rejecting the old. You have to build something people value. Something people need.

At The Free Press, that something is the truth—the only goal of real journalism. That’s what we’ve run hard and fast toward. From day one, we’ve had a single guiding principle: Pursue the truth and tell it plainly. No shortcuts. No exceptions.

From day one, we’ve been reporting stories the legacy media was scared to touch or had overlooked as a result of its incuriousness, politesse, or entrenched interests. We’ve aimed to pair the political freedom of the new world with the professed standards of the old. And because we’ve been a subscription business from the start, we’ve been liberated from the need to please advertisers or get clicks. That’s allowed us to do ambitious journalism, driven by a desire to bring our readers great work that informs them about the world as it is.

We’ve done all this very lean. We don’t have hordes of consultants, mammoth business teams, or special strategies for ranking on social media or Google. Until a few weeks ago, we didn’t even have a metered paywall, let alone a product manager.

And when I say we—I don’t just mean our editorial team, which is the hardest working in the industry. I mean all of us. All one million, especially those who have been here from our earliest days.

Back then, honestly, a paid subscription didn’t get you anything so different from a free one. Now we’ve expanded to offer a whole fleet of content and events and podcasts. Soon, we’ll have even more. But our early subscribers didn’t sign up when we had any of that. They believed deeply in the mission, and that belief allowed us to grow.

In other words: there were no fancy tricks. The rise of The Free Press happened simply: story by story. Podcast by podcast. Debate by debate. Video by video. Interview by interview. And subscription by subscription.

As I’ve told our newsroom on more than one occasion: There is no secret business—no gaming or cooking app, for now at least. The business is the stories we tell. If a story is excellent, if it tells our readers something new, something revelatory, if it explains something in a new way, if it deepens trust, we will grow. If it doesn’t do these things, we won’t. Our readers are discerning: They love and reward quality.

This is all a way of saying: We reached this milestone because of you.

The Free Press began as a question I asked myself after resigning from The New York Times, scratching my head at what I saw there. Is there still a market for real journalism? For fearless, fair, independent journalism that treats readers like adults? Journalism that presents the facts—even the uncomfortable ones—and allows people to draw their own conclusions?

The answer, it turns out, is a resounding yes.

That “yes” from one million of you—and counting—has given me hope not just for journalism but for the future.

So here’s to you, the first million members of the Free Press community. Here’s to the next million. And most important of all: Here’s to the next story.

In honor of this milestone, we’re offering a 25% discount to become a paying member of our community. If you’re a free subscriber, there’s never been a better time to upgrade. We’re keeping this sale on annual subscriptions going until midnight ET on December 31, 2024, because we want many, many more of you to join us, officially, in 2025.

If the price—less than $80 a year—is prohibitive, please write to us: [email protected] and put “subscription help” in the subject line.

Technically my assignment for today was to choose my favorite stories of 2024. All week long we’ve been recommending the best of The Free Press. Today was my day. Honestly, I found it an impossible task. But if you’re still wondering what makes The Free Press tick, or if it’s worth supporting our work by becoming a paid subscriber, allow me to recommend . . .

1. Uri Berliner would never describe himself as brave, but I will. His bombshell essay, “I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust.,” captured how the public radio network lost its way—and shaped conversation for months. If you want to understand why The Free Press is an urgent project, read this.

2. One of the best things to happen to The Free Press this year was my friend Niall Ferguson joining us as a columnist. Start with his inaugural and provocative essay, “We’re All Soviets Now.”

3. Abigail Shrier is one of the most important reporters working today. We were thrilled that she officially joined as a contributing editor this year. Her recent investigation—“The Kindergarten Intifada”—exposes a widespread, pernicious campaign in American public schools to indoctrinate children against Israel.

4. Free Press columnist Coleman Hughes is a generational talent: cool-headed, hyper-rational even as he touches the hottest subjects in our politics and culture. His review essay of Ta-Nehisi Coates’s new book, The Message, is definitive: “The Fantasy World of Ta-Nehisi Coates.”

5. In “They’re Black Democrats. And They’re Suing Chicago Over Migrants,” our reporter Olivia Reingold reminded Americans that you can never, ever make assumptions about what any cohort of voters thinks or believes.

6. And in “I’m 28. And I’m Scheduled to Die in May,” Rupa Subramanya illustrated, in harrowing detail, why a mentally ill person would end her own life in a country where death is seen as a cure.

7. Douglas Murray’s Sunday column, “Things Worth Remembering,” is a weekly jewel. I particularly loved this one, about what makes a great conversationalist: “Conversation Is an Art.”

8. Maddy Kearns’s story on British citizens getting arrested for silently praying was one of the most troubling dispatches I’ve read on the perilous state of free expression in the West: “She Was Arrested for Praying in Her Head.”

9. Not only does she deliver TGIF every week, but Nellie Bowles somehow managed to write a book this year. This excerpt—“The Day I Stopped Canceling People”—is a deeply personal account of going along with the crowd before realizing other things, like love, are more important than fitting in.

10. The Free Press decamped to Israel earlier this year to report from the ground. But our man in Jerusalem, since the start of the war, had been Matti Friedman. Don’t miss his piece “Why I Got a Gun,” a sobering tale of how terror transformed a family.

Beyond the Best of The Free Press, here’s what summed up my 2024. . .

Best thing I read this year: The World of Yesterday by Stefan Zweig.

Best thing I watched: Ratatouille! This is the first—and only—movie our daughter has seen. We watch it in 10-minute increments, so I don’t yet know how it ends. Highly recommend the movie—and this methodology.

Best thing I heard: Beyonce’s Cowboy Carter. And I don’t know if this quite qualifies, but I’m also going with the Roast of Tom Brady. Cultural glasnost, brought to you by Netflix. The beginning of the great un-freezing.

Best thing I bought: These $45 jeans from Amazon. Are they flattering? Absolutely not. But you will not find more comfortable pants.

Best thing I ate: This Alison Roman recipe, which I make in a tagine, never fails. Also: Courage Bagels in LA are worth the wait.

Biggest regret of the year: Not pausing to celebrate wins. And every bedtime I missed because of work. Resolutions, both.

Best thing that happened: The birth of our gorgeous (enormous) son in July.

New Year’s resolution: Become a Pilates mom.

What I am most looking forward to in 2025: Building The Free Press—and spending time with the talented, tireless people I get to build it alongside.

Brownstone Institute

Congress’ Shield against Trump’s Hammer of Justice

Published on December 28, 2024

Todayville

From the Brownstone Institute

By el gato malo

Somewhere amid the 1,500+ pages of legislative clutter in the latest Continuing Resolution—the bill apparently killed by public exposure alone—lies a provision so audacious, so shameless, I can only assume it was drafted by a cabal of Congressional career criminals. Section 605—a sterile title masking its true intent—amounts to nothing less than a legislative fortress erected to shield Congress from the Justice Department, the FBI, and, most troubling of all, accountability.

At a time when President-elect Trump’s administration prepares to restore integrity and justice, Congress appears to have donned its armor, hiding its secrets behind a wall of bureaucratic legalese. This provision, if left unchallenged, sets a dangerous precedent: members of Congress placing themselves above the law, protected from scrutiny by the very agencies tasked with upholding justice.

Section 605: The House above the Law

Let’s strip away the camouflage. Section 605 does three things with surgical precision:

First, it declares that Congress retains perpetual possession of all “House Data”—a broad, almost limitless category including emails, metadata, and any electronic communication touching official House systems. This means providers like Google or Microsoft, who store or process this data, are mere bystanders, unable to act as custodians for investigators. The House claims total dominion.

Second, courts are ordered to “quash or modify” subpoenas for House Data. Investigators from Trump’s Justice Department, no matter how compelling the evidence, will now face a procedural minefield laid by Congress itself. Compliance with the legal process will be, in essence, denied.

Third—and most chilling—this protection applies retroactively. Any ongoing investigation that hasn’t yet secured House data is now dead on arrival. Existing subpoenas? Nullified. Pending warrants? Quashed. Section 605 doesn’t just safeguard future misconduct; it effectively buries the past.

The Investigations behind the Curtain

This isn’t a hypothetical problem. There are two glaring examples of why Congress is so eager to cement its immunity.

First, let’s talk about Shifty Schiff and Eric Swalwell. For at least three years, the DOJ has been investigating these two California Democrats—Schiff, now a senator, and Swalwell, perpetually ensconced in mediocrity—over illegally leaking classified documents to the media. A courageous Congressional staffer blew the whistle, revealing that both men had routinely fed classified information to friendly reporters to score cheap political points. The Grand Jury concluded that these leaks broke the law, yet the investigation’s smoking gun lies in House communications.

Under Section 605, that investigation would be dead. The DOJ and FBI would find their subpoenas quashed and their warrants denied. Schiff and Swalwell, guilty of weaponizing national security secrets, would escape justice—retroactively.

Second, there’s the case of Liz Cheney—a name that now evokes memories of hubris and betrayal among Republicans. During her star turn on the January 6th Committee, Cheney engaged in witness tampering to shape Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony. By all accounts, Cheney pressured Hutchinson to craft a narrative favorable to the Committee’s political objectives, a flagrant abuse of power that would warrant criminal investigation.

But with Section 605 in place, the DOJ’s efforts to uncover the truth would be paralyzed. Cheney’s communications—the very evidence needed to prove witness tampering—would be walled off. Congress would simply claim that its data is untouchable, its members above reproach.

Historical Parallels: A Republic’s Betrayal

The Romans had a term for this sort of legislative cunning: privilegium—a law that benefits a select few at the expense of justice. Cicero, in his fight against corrupt senators, warned that “the closer a man clings to power, the more strenuously he seeks to avoid the law.” Section 605 is the embodiment of Cicero’s warning. It allows the very lawmakers tasked with overseeing government to shroud themselves in secrecy, impervious to scrutiny from Trump’s incoming Justice Department.

This is not the first time Congress has played such games. During the Watergate era, Richard Nixon famously claimed that “when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.” Nixon’s arrogance, of course, led to his downfall. But now, it appears Congress has adopted the same mantra: when members of Congress write the law, they are beyond its reach.

Undermining Justice in the Age of Trump

Make no mistake: Section 605 is an act of preemptive lawfare. Trump’s Justice Department will soon be tasked with untangling years of corruption, leaks, and abuse of power that have flourished in Washington. The DOJ and FBI, freed from the shackles of political interference, are primed to restore the rule of law.

Yet Congress, fearing exposure, has pulled up the drawbridge. Section 605 would ensure that leakers like Schiff and Swalwell remain untouchable. It would protect Cheney from accountability for witness tampering. It would obstruct investigations, shield misconduct, and shatter public trust.

This is not about protecting Congress from political harassment. It’s about protecting Congress from justice.

The Rule of Law or the Rule of Congress?

The Framers never intended Congress to be a castle immune from oversight. The very idea that lawmakers can exempt themselves from the justice system would have been anathema to Jefferson and Madison, who understood that accountability is the lifeblood of a republic. When one branch of government declares itself untouchable, the balance of power collapses.

Section 605 cannot stand. It must be challenged, overturned, and consigned to the legislative ash heap. For if Congress succeeds in placing itself above the law, then the rule of law itself will become nothing more than a hollow promise.

As President-elect Trump prepares to take office, let this be a rallying cry: the swamp cannot be allowed to protect its own. If justice is to prevail, no one—not Schiff, not Swalwell, not Cheney—can be above the law.

And that includes Congress.

Author

el gato malo

el gato malo is a pseudonym for an account that has been posting on pandemic policies from the outset. AKA a notorious internet feline with strong views on data and liberty.