"The first debate of Edmonton’s mayoral election was a spirited affair, featuring a current of combativeness, a no-show candidate and plenty of ideas on how to invigorate the city’s beleaguered economy. "
If you'd like to know what kind of relationship @EdmontonChamber has with the @CityofEdmontonm, just search for "Edmonton chamber of commerce" on here.
But there is also the ever-important money-election.
In order to win the "ballot election," a candidate has to do really really well in the "money election."
It is in this way that capitalists--who have all the money--essentially get to pre-select who the candidates will be.
This concept of there being two elections is explained very well in this 2013 @TEDTalks by @LarryLessig, which I encourage you to watch if you have time.
“but @youseepeeYYC, the families who earn much more than median income don’t need subsidized childcare as badly, they can afford to pay out of pocket, and therefore should”
Someone, probably.
Let’s briefly examine why this is the wrong way to look at a social program.
When a service is universal and benefits *everyone* it is more difficult for politicians to play identity politics and wedge issues to divide people over cutting it.
That’s why *universal* programs are so much more powerful than boutique programs.
Now I want to see a sort of buddy-cop show with @aaronpaquette and @AndrewKnack going around #yeg helping people, & generally making the world a better place.
Every episode some Dark Money “Dr. Claw” type figure tries some evil scheme that gets thwarted…