• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Unofficial election results

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #13
    congrats in district 7 Burbert, er I mean
    Kyle.

    What a frickin' joke.

    Comment


      #14
      Kodiak,
      "It's quite obvious that an increasing percentage of farmers, and a majority, are viewing CWB director elections as irrelevant, or an ineffective way of improving the business environment for their farms. There is no other way of explaining the low, and declining participation in the process.
      The responsibility to make it relevant lies squarely with the Minister."

      For a democracy to flourish shouldn't the responsibility always lie with the voter?

      Comment


        #15
        Will highlight the CWB annual survey and just highlight slide 8 and 9.

        Older voters (I'm in that category) are more likely to express themselves democratically than younger voters.

        Alberta is different than other provinces.

        [URL="http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/farmers/surveys/producer/pdf/survey_060910.pdf"]2010 producer survey[/URL]

        Comment


          #16
          The CWB is a democracy? Don't think so. That would entail a new definition of democracy. Can a quasi-commercial entity, which does not have a voluntary membership, be categorized as a democracy?
          Maybe if you really stretch your imagination.

          Comment


            #17
            Perhaps the governace issue is the thorniest and area of biggest
            landmines for both the federal government and the CWB. Is the CWB a
            political organization that looks after the interests of stakeholders that
            vote for it or a business organization that looks after its commericial
            interests? Will be interesting down the road when the CWB has a
            contingency of 1 billion dollars to provide backing in a world of no
            government guarantees.

            Way off topic of the election. Sorry about that.

            Comment


              #18
              Grassy,
              The CWB use farmers' money to work against
              farmers and the amount is obscene

              They should be thrown out on their collective
              ears, into snow on sides of Portage an Main with
              no money for even a gd taxi.
              Nice thought.

              Raining where I am. Pars

              Comment


                #19
                Charliep,
                The shitface types who wear a cwb tie at the mgx
                will whizz through $1B the same way they whiz in
                the mens' room with the resident valet holding
                toiletries and condoms. Pars.

                Comment


                  #20
                  Charlie, you're not off topic at all. I believe the reason for low voter turnout lies in your question.
                  Some see it as a political organization, and no doubt its board likes to imagine itself as that. They are quick to remind us they think their role is to influence, or even make policy.
                  Others see it as a commercial organization with a defined marketing role. These farmers are less likely to vote with a ballot, and more likely to vote with their business.
                  As long as the CWB is not clearly one or the other, farmers will continue to respond in different ways, depending on how they see it. And it is likely that voter turnout in director elections will continue to decline based on the demographics as you note in the CWB survey and on the uncertain function of the CWB itself.
                  (would note that the fact that the CWB polls farmers with a survey that tries harder to get at political issues rather than commercial performance tells you what the CWB thinks of itself)

                  Comment


                    #21
                    Really don't understand this.

                    District 3 votes in a guy who bypasses the board and grows organic grain.

                    The majority of producers probably are forced to use the cwb to sell their durum and are conventional growers.

                    Its idiotic. But its a win on the third ballot for wells. Nothing good will come of this.

                    Comment


                      #22
                      Kodiak, there was just an election with the opportunity for all the producers in the designated zones to vote. If only 41% voted the majority squandered the right to have any say on the outcome. That's what I meant about making democracy work. I think the voter should always have the power to decide the outcome so I don't think it's up to a minister to make the issue "relevant".

                      Comment


                        #23
                        What I don't get is that 59% of the eligible farmers couldn't be bothered to mark an X on a self paid envelope to get their views known. These same guys go to town to save 10 cents on a tube of grease and forgo tens of thousands of dollars on their wheat sales! If we don't care as to how we sell our grain, why should Harper or Ritz. Sometimes the words "dumb farmer" aren't to far from the truth!

                        Comment


                          #24
                          Congrats to Mr. WELLS in District 3! On this occassion the best most qualified man won. Democracy works! It restores ones faith in the system. Disappointment in area 1, however, for many of us. Albertie angriville types will be cheering and partying late into the night, however. Not causa the election, but just coz wes likes partyin.........

                          Comment

                          • Reply to this Thread
                          • Return to Topic List
                          Working...