The Results are In

18 Responses to “The Results are In”

1. Skeet 19. Oct, 2010 at 4:00 am #

   I believe voter turnout was down from 48% to 35%. My numbers could be a little off, correct me if I am wrong please.

   I wonder if that gap was the younger demographic not showing up this time? With Craven getting so many votes, and Thompson not placing as high as I would have guessed, this could be one theory.
2. Skeet 19. Oct, 2010 at 4:04 am #

   I also wonder, did that letter help or hurt Julie in the end? Would she have won if Cathy didn’t send it?
3. KFBradley 19. Oct, 2010 at 4:09 am #

   Voter turnout was at 38%. I’m 22 and I voted, but i’m not sure if that’s normal. I would have loved to see Kelly or Hamill get the boot. Has everyone forgotten when Hamill called the citizens of Medicine Hat stupid when he didn’t get voted in as mayor? I would trade those two for Varga and Webb in an instant.
4. Dangermouse 19. Oct, 2010 at 4:16 am #

   Voter turn out is down. Last election was a groundswell of controversy and dissatisfaction. In this election I suspect that the younger vote on the strength of success last election was a little lax …and those organizing against them were feisty…

   I also think tha Fox Medicine Hat News campaign against Tye schneiders rivals helped keep it tight too.

   In spite of the close call though…only 3 of the 9 from 2008s council remain. That is significant change.
5. PopeBenedict_XVI 19. Oct, 2010 at 5:53 am #

   I’m really sorry that Brian Varga didn`t get in as he was one of my personal favorites, and I thought he really deserved a crack at it. At the end of the day he didn’t get in, and a few of those I don`t care for did, but bottom line….that’s democracy.

   I think it may be really interesting now to see what happens with Friesen. I wasn’t going to vote for her initially and her reaction to the CS email really cemented it for me. My guess is she will be quite shrill about her loss initially, and -could- even threaten litigation (not that it would go anywhere). The bigger question is what happens long term. I believe she will be back in one form or another, and loosing this time may actually bring her some perspective. Don`t forget that some candidates loose and it makes them better ultimately. They argued tonight on Chat that Hamill seems to have mellowed a lot after he lost the Mayors race to Grimm. Sure, he can’t find a button, but that’s another story.
6. Tiggercs30 19. Oct, 2010 at 11:08 am #

   I am dissapointed Varga did not get the chance, IMO he would have brought a different view point to council within time, will he have the desire to run again in 3 years?

   I really do not care how close it was, Friesen lost to Boucher, that is the main thing, if she had have been victorious I think it would have been a return to the dark ages, closed door meetings, no transparecy all the bad things we hated about council’s past.

   Did the Smith e-mail have an effect? IMO yes it did, not only did it hurt Friesen, but it also had an effect on voter turn out I believe, If the e-mail had not appeared on the scene, I do believe Friesen would have won, for all the wrong reasons but I believe she would have won non the less.
   So this is a one off, Thank you Cathy Smith for once you helped the city not hindered it.
7. Miss Hatter 20. Oct, 2010 at 12:45 am #

   I too was disappointed in the turnout. Of course I wanted to be pleasantly surprised with a few more new faces (like Varga, even Webb or Ziegel). It kind of put a bit of a fire under my backside to see the overwhelming number of votes for Graham and Hamill. And the fact that Wayne Craven had the most votes reiterates what was already mentioned above – the voter demographics was probably dominated by the demographics of years gone past in Ted Grimm era of supporters.

   Hatters really cannot complain about the outcome though – as we all had the opportunity to vote. I just wish there would have been a wee bit more change.

   Jamie White made a good point on the panel last night that he would have liked to see more new candidates. He said something along the lines that experience doesn’t always equate to what is better for the city. So even a few more new people (instead of all incumbants returning) might have added a bit more spice to the council. Of course we all know that you wouldn’t necessarily want an entire new council but at the same time…all alderman and Mayors have to be new at it at least once! So why not give a few more people the chance. The Johns and Grahams (and even Julies) of this city’s council might do us more good if they take a step back or at least a break from their lifetime politician statuses.

   It will be interesting to see the dynamics of the council this time around. I wonder if there will be any dramas. Maybe, secretly, we all want to see some kind of gongshow so at least there is something for us to talk about!! Who says local politics can’t be interesting, hey!
8. JimO 20. Oct, 2010 at 7:53 pm #

   Wayne Craven was and is a good alderman to have on council. Regardless of him being of a past council is not to put him in an old era because he has proven he is a cautious but fair alderman. He does not insult his fellow aldermen nor most importantly have the citizens of this city like White and Thompson done. There is not arrogance here. Craven also remains visible for his term and not sit on the sidelines as Kelly and Hamill until just before election time. Dumanowski was heralded as the youth of council yet fizzled so just because they are “young” doesn’t give them the claim of being better. The municipal elections in this city are based on name recognition and not record and until that happens the same deadwood will get in. Last election the demand was there to replace all yet half was re-elected and again this time. Regardless of voter apathy those that do vote still do not know their candidates incumbents or not. They may know the issues and be passionate about their stand on those issues but they fail to watch who on council supported their views, and those that told them to suck it up and deal with it and then vote them in anyway, only to complain again after the elections.
9. JimO 20. Oct, 2010 at 8:01 pm #

   By the way I thought is was insulting that CHAT had Smith on the panel during the election coverage. She distorted this election and to give her more air time is just justifying such behaviour. I shake my head at the media for giving her more than her 15 min of fame for such pathetic hehavior. She is a poor example of good governance and democracy/transparency.
10. Tiggercs30 21. Oct, 2010 at 1:25 am #

    Quote JImO – ” Regardless of voter apathy those that do vote still do not know their candidates incumbents or not”.

    I have to disageree Jim, it is exactly that, voter apathy that is the problem, the “deadwood” as you effectionately call it, get reelected because their voters are the ones who turn out, so they get their boy or gal back in and pick and choose who makes up the rest.

    I do however agree with you about CHAT and having Cathy S on the panel. She cannot even make an intelligent comment, and blatantly lies, I also have a copy of the e-mail, and it was good that Bill Cox pointed it out to her, she spoiled the panel,you could see the frustration on Bill’s face.
11. JimO 21. Oct, 2010 at 6:06 am #

    But how many really knew the person’s record (incumbents) from their terms served…a good example was Julie. As stated name recognition plays a big role here because quite honestly if you have followed the antics pulled by these aldermen one would clearly see who really represent the people. It is a given that not all decisions are in agreement with 100 percent of the people but when you see who really gives their all equally even if they disagree with the situation shows a good alderman. Smiths CAPCS scam were a prime example because if people saw and knew the details they would be appalled at the form of “democracy” she used to pass her agenda. The cover-up by council to cover their mistakes was a stain on the city and unfortunately the media really did not inform the public how the process was corrupted and to what extent. So the short end of a long story is the public really did not know the aldermen (and Mayor) yet voted them in again for another term…and yet again this election. The hatred shown to Smith for that period was again an example how the public was unknowledgeable of what transpired because while she (smith)was the instigator, the poor leadership that allow the most despicable and incompetent review ever in this cities record was the chair of the Public services committee at the times of both reviews. Can you guess who that was and how many really knew that?
12. Tiggercs30 21. Oct, 2010 at 10:41 am #

    I concede to your point of voter recognition to a certain extent, however the majority that do vote are voting for the Mayor and council they want, you cannot just base your argument on such a weak statement as voter recogniton, and to be quite frank, you are insulting the ones that do take the time to research,follow and decide how they want the format of the city council for the next three years,the fact they disagree with you Jim, is allowed.

    I have made my views clear as to how I percieve the reporting in this city, and I do agree it is shambolic and not objective.

    In some ways, what we call voter apathy can also be interpreted as honesty as a lot of people freely admit, they do not have the time to research and study council, so they do not vote because of their lack of knowledge, and research is key here, as we both agree the reporting is misleading, not objective or factual.

    As to your last statement like you I do not have to guess, who you are refering too. But at the end of the day research, study and a courage of your convictions is needed at all times, unfortunately a lot of people do not have the time to do this in the complicated minefield of municipal politics.
13. JimO 21. Oct, 2010 at 3:01 pm #

    It certainly not ment to insult anyone but it is irritating that some do and then spend the next three years complaining. As for the rest I do agree with you.

    I was rather disappointed with todays paper showing Dan Smith at the mayors campaign headquarters watching the election results. I would have thought after the email escapade by Cathy Norm would have distance himself from them. Guess not. Others will draw the same conclusion.
14. Spider 21. Oct, 2010 at 8:41 pm #

    I have a feeling CAPCS will be lurking around City hall again.Eyes and Ears needed more than usual this time around.
15. Tiggercs30 22. Oct, 2010 at 1:07 am #

    Ok, here is something I have letting go around my head for awhile now,I am a recent addition to this blog, but I think it maybe the perfect forum for what I intend to put forward for consideration, opinion and peoples input if interested.

    How about forming a ” A Medicine Hat council review panel”
    The make up of the panel would have to be decided and numbers,

    Between the members of the panel, we schedule so someone is present at all council meetings, and as many presentations as possible etc, we could meet bi monthly collate all we have, and build a council report card to be posted on this blog come the next election time, with reports on key issues, gradings on alderman and the mayor and a submission of how far we feel the city has progressed or regressed under the current council.

    This would be a major commitment of 3 years by individuals, but also if the numbers are right members of the panel would not be commited every night, week or even month, This is by no means the definitive of what I am proposing but a simplistic explanation of what I am thinking so as to determine how many if indeed anyone would be interested in such an undertaking and commitment.

    So anyone ?
16. JimO 22. Oct, 2010 at 2:14 am #

    I attended every meeting for 6 years after my first election attempt and it is quite the chore but ya it would be nice to do this. I do not mind speaking my mind on council but the group would have to be open to all view points but not redneckish. I would be game to some input help.
17. Ray4271 22. Oct, 2010 at 2:51 am #

    I think it is a great idea, I wouldn’t mind going a few times to help out, but I can’t do it each and every time. I agree who ever does do it, must be open minded and not bias for or against anyone of the council members.
18. Dangermouse 24. Oct, 2010 at 6:13 pm #

    This is why many of us pushed so hard to get meetings put on the Internet …so we can make sure we see and hear what was said.

    It helps – with Internet assistance I didnt miss many council meetings this year.