Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

They are different but equally deplorable. The major difference is adscam is close to two decades old and is a terrible angle to take; the story broke close to 10 years ago. Sheesh PIK I see your Ad Scam and raise you a conservative Rail Road scandal of 1862. We may as well discuss these "hot" topics while they're at the height of their relevance.

Be that as it may, what is entirely likely to happen is a series of bi-elections. There would not be a general election called, nor should there be. Many of the ridings had very clear winners and as upsetting as the whole affair may be, there's no need to plunge the entire country into another general election so soon after the last. The GG would not do this, nor should he.

For a bi-election to be held they would need to prove that there was potentially sufficient interference to alter the election results. In some ridings it's highly likely that bi-elections will be called, especially if there was a margin as small as 18 votes. However, I'd be sincerely surprised if all of the 38 ridings currently claiming possible electoral interference will see bi-elections.

Regardless this is not good for the conservatives, they have a majority but by no means is it a landslide, they can't afford to lose a ton of seats. The upshot for the CPC in this instance is that 2015, if they stick to the 4 year election "rule" that is, is still a long ways away, and Canadian voters have surprisingly short memories.

I can agree with pretty much all of that...

I would say that this is potentially worse than Adscam because this is'nt just sleazy pay offs with the publics money,that was bad enough...This gets to the heart of why we have a democracyand seems to be a potential culmination in a long line of subterfuge and sleazy tactics by one partry.

Interestingly enough,this is the same party that claims it's "Standing Up for Canada" and is "Here For Canada" and is all about "Supporting the Troops" but can't understand that it was "The Troops" that stood up against those who would take away peoples freedom 7 decades ago.

I also agree that this will probably burn hot until the budget comes down...Then there will be more wailing and gnashing of teeth from the usual suspects....

Edited by Jack Weber
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I agree but wanted to point out something... whoever made these calls probably didnt bother to do them, in ridings where the race wasnt gonna be close. They probably targeted ridings where they thought they could make a difference, so you might find a lot of the ridings target were those tight races.

I agree absolutely, however some of these were closer than others, the 18 vote variance for instance is a shoe in, others like my own London North Center which is also in dispute was a variance of 1000 votes. Still farily close but harder to demonstrate that there was sufficient interference. Elections are not turned over on a whim, a judge will weigh the evidence on these instances as they would any case.

Edited by Dave_ON
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody can accuse you of convicting anyone before trial due to your exhaustive use of the word "potential". However it's not hard to read between the lines to understand your implication. Are you a lawyer?

Well,I suppose I could try to implicate "Third Party Operatives" a la Mike Duffy...I suppose his friends at the National Citizens Coalition or The Fraser Institute are behind this...

:huh::blink:

And no...I'm not a lawyer...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree absolutely, however some of these were closer than others, the 18 vote variance for instance is a shoe in, others like my own London North Center which is also in dispute was a variance of 1000 votes. Still farily close but harder to demonstrate that there was sufficient interference. Elections are not turned over on a whim, a judge will weigh the evidence on these instances as they would any case.

Another thought occured to me... theres some potential for election fraud now.

Lets say Im a registered voter, that didnt vote, and recieved one of those robocalls. I can claim now after the fact that the robocall was the reason I didnt vote even if it wasnt. Or someone could convince me to claim that. It will be really hard to tell what effect these calls really had, because just because a registered voter got a call and didnt vote, it doesnt mean the call was the reason he didnt vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree absolutely, however some of these were closer than others, the 18 vote variance for instance is a shoe in, others like my own London North Center which is also in dispute was a variance of 1000 votes. Still farily close but harder to demonstrate that there was sufficient interference. Elections are not turned over on a whim, a judge will weigh the evidence on these instances as they would any case.

The problem I saw last night is that there was about 6500 votes between 12 very closely contested ridings that would have been the difference between a minority and majority parliament....

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are different but equally deplorable. The major difference is adscam is close to two decades old and is a terrible angle to take; the story broke close to 10 years ago. Sheesh PIK I see your Ad Scam and raise you a conservative Rail Road scandal of 1862. We may as well discuss these "hot" topics while they're at the height of their relevance.

Be that as it may, what is entirely likely to happen is a series of bi-elections. There would not be a general election called, nor should there be. Many of the ridings had very clear winners and as upsetting as the whole affair may be, there's no need to plunge the entire country into another general election so soon after the last. The GG would not do this, nor should he.

For a bi-election to be held they would need to prove that there was potentially sufficient interference to alter the election results. In some ridings it's highly likely that bi-elections will be called, especially if there was a margin as small as 18 votes. However, I'd be sincerely surprised if all of the 38 ridings currently claiming possible electoral interference will see bi-elections.

Regardless this is not good for the conservatives, they have a majority but by no means is it a landslide, they can't afford to lose a ton of seats. The upshot for the CPC in this instance is that 2015, if they stick to the 4 year election "rule" that is, is still a long ways away, and Canadian voters have surprisingly short memories.

If you want to play poker with me, then bring real money, not the old stuff, niether you or I were alive for that and has no meaning to our lives today. At least find something after 1960. ;)
Link to post
Share on other sites

If any voters were misled during the vote and didn't cast their ballot, it's impossible to hypothesize what their vote would have been. Saying that this affected the outcome of the vote is disingenuous; it may have, or it may not have. Unless you know precisely the voting intentions of every disenfranchised voter at the time of the vote, there's no way to know if it had any effect or not. A re-vote would not shed any light on this hypothesis, because voter intentions may have changed.

I suppose that depends on the evidence that gets presented....

Link to post
Share on other sites

If any voters were misled during the vote and didn't cast their ballot, it's impossible to hypothesize what their vote would have been. Saying that this affected the outcome of the vote is disingenuous; it may have, or it may not have. Unless you know precisely the voting intentions of every disenfranchised voter at the time of the vote, there's no way to know if it had any effect or not. A re-vote would not shed any light on this hypothesis, because voter intentions may have changed.

None of that matters really. If the result is in any way in doubt there should be a bi-election. This isnt Syria... Its extremely important that elections are fair and unfettered by cheating or criminal activity. If voters were disenfranchised then the results of the election should be thrown out. Not just for the purpose of enfranchising thos voters, but to demonstrate that these kind of attempts to rig elections will not stand, and will not work. If you dont re-run these elections then those robocalls were a great success and you can expect to see a lot more of them in the future.

Youre right though... its impossible to say how much these calls changed the result, because you dont know what the voters were planning on doing before they got the calls. They might not have been planning to vote anyways. Doesnt matter though... you still have to rerun the elections because thats what real democracies do when the results are put in doubt by illegal schemes to rig the election.

Edited by dre
Link to post
Share on other sites

None of that matters really. If the result is in any way in doubt there should be a bi-election. This isnt Syria... Its extremely important that elections are fair and unfettered by cheating or criminal activity. If voters were disenfranchised then the results of the election should be thrown out. Not just for the purpose of enfranchising thos voters, but to demonstrate that these kind of attempts to rig elections will not stand, and will not work. If you dont re-run these elections then those robocalls were a great success and you can expect to see a lot more of them in the future.

Spot on....

Link to post
Share on other sites

None of that matters really. If the result is in any way in doubt there should be a bi-election. This isnt Syria... Its extremely important that elections are fair and unfettered by cheating or criminal activity. If voters were disenfranchised then the results of the election should be thrown out. Not just for the purpose of enfranchising thos voters, but to demonstrate that these kind of attempts to rig elections will not stand, and will not work. If you dont re-run these elections then those robocalls were a great success and you can expect to see a lot more of them in the future.

The only way they would be a success if the people affected were uninformed about how they should vote and how they are told where to vote.

If they were first time voters then maybe that's an excuse but if you're in anyway informed you should know that the only way you know for sure where to vote is from Elections Canada.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way they would be a success if the people affected were uninformed about how they should vote and how they are told where to vote.

If they were first time voters then maybe that's an excuse but if you're in anyway informed you should know that the only way you know for sure where to vote is from Elections Canada.

The Robo-call said it was from Elections Canada.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way they would be a success if the people affected were uninformed about how they should vote and how they are told where to vote.

If they were first time voters then maybe that's an excuse but if you're in anyway informed you should know that the only way you know for sure where to vote is from Elections Canada.

So are you saying that it is the voters own fault for listening to these calls?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you saying that it is the voters own fault for listening to these calls?

Yes.

I'm not saying whoever did this calls weren't in the wrong. I'm just saying that overstating the effect this had on the election can't be proven because unless you're an imbecile you probably wouldn't have listened to the calls in the first place.

If someone called you right now and said you owe the CRA money and you need to mail out a check right now. Would you do it?

Edited by Boges
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.

I'm not saying whoever did this calls weren't in the wrong. I'm just saying that overstating the effect this had on the election can't be proven because unless you're an imbecile you probably wouldn't have listened to the calls in the first place.

If someone called you right now and said you owe the CRA money and you need to mail out a check right now. Would you do it?

When an official sounding recording from Elections Canada tells you a polling station is closed due to high voter turnout, what reason would people have to question it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

When an official sounding recording from Elections Canada tells you a polling station is closed due to high voter turnout, what reason would people have to question it?

How the heck could that even happen?

They keep the polls open 12 hours and once the polls close everyone in line still get to vote.

Most polling stations are really close to where people live. Mine was a few blocks away so even if you believed it you would turn up and find out the alternate locations.

Edited by Boges
Link to post
Share on other sites

How the heck could that even happen?

They keep the polls open 12 hours and once the polls close everyone in line still get to vote.

Most polling stations are really close to where people live. Mine was a few blocks away so even if you believed it you would turn up and find out the alternate locations.

Seriously???

An official sounding recorded message tells people to go to a place where no polling station exists under the guise of high voter turn out..

And you can't figure it out why that might confuse people??

And who cares where your polling station was at all?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.

I'm not saying whoever did this calls weren't in the wrong. I'm just saying that overstating the effect this had on the election can't be proven because unless you're an imbecile you probably wouldn't have listened to the calls in the first place.

If someone called you right now and said you owe the CRA money and you need to mail out a check right now. Would you do it?

Well seeing there is already tons of confusion around where people vote on election day I think people could easily be confused if "Elections Canada" phones and says their polling station has changed.

As well there were more calls made then just those that said where to vote. They might not have all be connected but in St. Paul's there was supposedly someone phoning around impersonating Carolyn Bennett's campaign volunteer, and similar things happened in other ridings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously???

An official sounding recorded message tells people to go to a place where no polling station exists under the guise of high voter turn out..

And you can't figure it out why that might confuse people??

And who cares where your polling station was at all?

Elections Canada make it very clear what you need to vote and where you are supposed to vote. If I got a call contradicting that information, I'd at least double check with the website or go to the polling station myself to make sure.

And if you're poor and downtrodden and can't drive/walk yourself to the polling station, you can call one of the candidates and they'll be more than happy to send someone to pick you up to get the vote out.

Edited by Boges
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...