Everyday I read the inane rantings of people who accuse the Conservatives of nonsense that always proves to be either taken out of context, overblown or an outright fabrication. This has been going on since the Conservatives came to power; faux scandals like Wafergate, body bags, H1N1, door knobs, logos, even the word "NOT".
But the crap that Elections Canada has pulled -- and continues to pull -- is simply disgraceful!
This whole Guelph ballot box fiasco is truly disgusting. It's bad enough that Elections Canada is allowing a non-preauthorized polling station to continue collecting ballots against Elections Canada rules... that's bad enough. But to also have no scrutineers and to have partisan literature present within the polling facility and still allow that polling station to be counted as legitimate and untainted? It's unbelievable!
I have just written the following letter to Elections Canada (I invite you to do the same here) to object over this absolutely ridiculous decision by Elections Canada to ignore its own rules:
It is with great disappointment that I have come aware of the situation taking place in Guelph in respects to the challenged special polling station. It is particularly upsetting that Elections Canada is ignoring it's own mandate and it's own rules in allowing the votes cast at an illegitimate polling station to be included amongst valid votes by citizens respecting the rule of law.This is not the first time unauthorized polling stations (notably at Universities) have been contested. In the past, polling stations that did not comply with the rules of Election Canada were considered invalid and thus sealed and uncounted.A poll must be pre-registered and pre-authorized by Elections Canada. If it is not, it is simply a person with a box collecting pieces of paper that resemble ballots. A non-authorized polling station does not have any authenticity in an election. That alone should discount the ballots collected.Additionally, without scrutineers to ensure the voting process is conducted according to Elections Canada rules, a vote cannot be considered untainted. A polling station might as well be set up in a candidate's office if no scrutineer is present. Scrutineers are the single most important control measure that Canadians have to ensure fair and accurate elections.Additionally, the fact that campaign literature was present at the voting location -- expressly forbidden by Elections Canada -- further justifies the ballots collected to be nullified. Campaign literature or advertisements within a polling station is a clear violation of the rules of Elections Canada.It is bad enough that one set of rules is ignored by Elections Canada. But when two or three or more sets of rules are ignored, one might as well dismantle Elections Canada altogether since it clearly does not believe the rules it enacts are of any importance.I call on the Chief Electoral Officer to either follow the rules and make sure they are being enforced or to release a statement that denotes those rules will no longer be enforced. Selective enforcement of electoral rules is a clear affront to the entire democratic process. I look forward to your response.
It's time that Elections Canada meets its mandate or it tears itself down. Either way, after prosecuting the Conservatives over the In-And-Out BS scandal while the NDP's were actually given permission to do the same... after the media was leaked of Elections Canada's imminent assault on the Conservative Party HQ... and after Marc Mayrand investigated his own freakin' self (!!!!) over the leaks... and now Elections Canada ignoring it's own rules and even showing another clear double-standard, Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand has failed in his mandate for the last time.
Marc Mayrand is a disgrace to Canadian democracy and must resign as Chief Electoral Officer of Canada.
Posts
30 comments:
Oh, now we have a problem with democracy do we? Well that is the message Harper has been putting out there.
When things don't go the con way it blame everyone else.
I know Liberals and Dippers don't understand the concept but when a governing party runs a country as they were voted in to do, that's democracy in action. Libs and Dippers think that if a government doesn't do what they say, democracy is broken.
What a bunch of babies.
However, getting back to the issue at hand... when the rules of democracy are broken, there's a problem. Tell me you're fine with Elections Canada ignoring their own rules.
Of course, I doubt you'll stay on topic seeing as you whimpered and jumped right to smoke and mirrors. But any time you want to debate what I've said, I'll be more than glad to respond.
Great post, and so true. This guy must resign, like yesterday, or be fired on May 3rd, and all cases before EC must be cancelled.
I was told by EC that students could vote, at an EC office, or at a university if there was a poll and they must vote in their home riding. If they can produce proof they live in the riding where they go to school, they ca vote. Utility bill or other proof of residency. Living in the dorm wont do it. Too bad for students sharing an apt with only one name on the utility bill, if they have one.
Get out the purple ink for all students, so they can't vote in an advance poll then head home for Easter to vote again.
Elections Canada have become a dumping ground for Liberals, much like the CBC.
Canadians need to hold these fat cats accountable.
Indeed surecure, indeed.
"However, getting back to the issue at hand... when the rules of democracy are broken, there's a problem."
http://hilltimes.com/dailyupdate/view/93
he should be fired immediately
Gee, let's see. Conservative Senator Pamela Wallin, Chancellor Of UofG, unaware that for last 3 elections President Summerlee has encouraged student voting with a special election, so Conservative Party doesn't seem to know that for the last 3 elections there have been special elections at the U of G because of Summerlee encouraging students to vote. Wallin failed in her mission to subvert liberal democracy in progressive Guelph.
Sorry but it is not only believable but was inevitable, both ACORN and SEIU are active in Ontario.
This will be a cooked election in Ontario, count on it.
Can criminal charges be laid against Marc Mayrand?
Well, Sithon... perhaps you missed these:
http://www.680news.com/news/national/article/23264--tory-questions-elections-canada-s-impartiality-as-liberals-get-court-ordered-extension-on-leadership-debts?ref=topic&name=topic&title=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaxaJFFJ-II&feature=player_embedded#at=160
http://www.stephentaylor.ca/2011/03/in-out/
http://stevejanke.com/archives/246538.php
Bazinga!!!
My concern around students voting is that they really do operate with a kind of groupthink. Elections Canada fosters this by allowing the polling station. WE we also be setting up polling stations at the local mental hospitals? I think prisons already have them. It is all a perversion of a responsible electoral process and Elections Canada has totally destroyed its credibility
Comparing a university to a prison or mental hospital.. you are scary.
Come on Rose. Students have every right to vote. And setting up a polling station is perfectly legitimate as long as it is set up according to the rules.
Which this obviously was not.
The Conservatives own website contained a link to the Special Ballot section of Elections Canada (or did until yesterday) There was nothing untoward about this vote. AND it was the third one in a row that the U of G had held, ALL of which were during the tenure of now Conservative Senator (and former Conservative Television star) Pamela Waallin's reign as Chancellor of the U of G. Did she NOT know they were being held every election she was at the university ? There was nothing concealed about the vote: the President of the University had a very public challenge to the student body, which he promised to have his face painted Avatar Blue if 1500 students signed a pledge to vote in the election (700 voted in the special ballot) and more than 1500 in total pledged, so the President has his face painted Blue very near the polling booth. You people despise liberal democracy in Guelph so much, you just can't stop lying about everything in this story. The idea that the Chief Electoral Officer didn't know that this was the third such vote sounds ridiculous to me. The fact that polls at universities across Canada have now been stopped is evidence of Tory democracy chill. And nothing else.
Surecure,
You post an article where Poilievre compares legitimate extension of election debt to fraud?
Really? Because Poilievre states the following ""Elections Canada is spending millions of dollars on spin doctors and lawyers to investigate the Conservative party for a practice that the Federal Court has already deemed legal." We should by this? Come on.
We are talking about the in and out scam, yes?
I am aware Harper's complicit involvement in the process and his complete comprehension of the law that he was engaged in breaking, particularly given his involvement in taking election Canada to the supreme court, challenging the election law,
See…..
Harper vs Canada: Practice ‑‑ Stay ‑‑ Federal elections ‑‑ Spending limits ‑‑ Plaintiff granted interlocutory injunction against enforcement of third‑party spending limits pending decision on his constitutional challenge to legislation ‑‑ Whether injunction should be stayed.
The respondent sought a declaration that the provisions in the Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9, imposing limits on third‑party spending on advertising in the course of a federal election campaign are unconstitutional because they unjustifiably limit the right of free expression guaranteed by s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
And raking Marc Maynard over the coals suggesting that he has a vendetta against Stephen Harper because he took them to court is nonsense. Are you suggesting we eliminate government oversight? Wait you just posted the importance of following the "rules".
Which brings us to the fabrication of invoices. Basic law. Everyone knows that if you present fake invoices to get a larger income tax rebate, and get caught, you will be in trouble and probably go to jail. This is what may happen to the four conspirators already charged.
They can't use ignorance as a defense. This was willful and calculated.
Contrary to Pierre's statements, not the supreme court, rather the conservatives won a ruling in civil court and lost an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal. In the civil case, the conservative party argued that the chief electoral officer had no authority to refuse to give rebates to candidates even if he found their expense claims dubious.
The court ruled the Conservative party's interpretation "would weaken compliance with the limits set by Parliament on the amount of money that candidates may spend on their election and can recover by way of reimbursement from public funds."
"Abuses could well proliferate and the statutory objective of promoting a healthy democracy through leveling the electoral playing field (be) undermined," said the ruling.
A spokesman for the elections watchdog said "the decision preserves the integrity of the political financing regime which ensures fairness in the electoral system."
Here are a couple you may have missed,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-1R-Y3tLu0&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQm0t1v2wOM&feature=share
A little bit of insight for those not familiar with the ethically grounded P. Poilievre.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9aJKDqqP4A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws2Jc5692TY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BK5DYJFh5Nc&NR=1
Sithon... going off on a blah-blah-blah rant does not equate to knowing what you're talking about.
1) Elections Canada has extended the deadline on Liberals leadership debt for years... get that? YEARS! They have in fact invalidated the legitimacy of the function of the deadline.
2) The NDP sent an email explicitly requesting confirmation from Elections Canada that they had understood EC in telling them they could do exactly that which the Conservatives have been raked over the coals over (the so-called "in and out" scandal). This proves that Elections Canada gave the NDP permission to do it while prosecuting the Conservatives? What say you about that? Oh. Sorry. Forgot that you're ignoring that one.
3) After the media found out about Elections Canada raiding the Conservative HQ because of a leak at Elections Canada, Marc Mayrand had himself investigated over the leak. Who investigated Marc Mayrand? Why, a little known man by the name of MARC MAYRAND. What say you about that one? Oh. Sorry. Forgot that you're ignoring that one.
4) Elections Canada pulled a special ballot at the request of Tony Ianno because of a lack of scrutineers. Elections Canada is not pulling the special ballot at U of G even through there were no scrutineers. What say you about that one? Oh. Sorry. Forgot that you're ignoring that one.
To sum it all up... go away until you can validate these points.
Blah, flah, fra, fraud, fraud, fraud.
Elections Canada has extended the deadline on Liberals leadership debt for years... get that? YEARS! They have in fact invalidated the legitimacy of the function of the deadline.
Does elections Canada not have legal right to extend the deadline for debt? Moot.
The NDP sent an email explicitly requesting confirmation from Elections Canada that they had understood EC in telling them they could do exactly that which the Conservatives have been raked over the coals over (the so-called "in and out" scandal). This proves that Elections Canada gave the NDP permission to do it while prosecuting the Conservatives? What say you about that? Oh. Sorry. Forgot that you're ignoring that one.
Love to see a reference to said email. You are suggesting that said email provides evidence that the NDP knowingly presented fraudulent invoices to the EC? Love to see it.
After the media found out about Elections Canada raiding the Conservative HQ because of a leak at Elections Canada, Marc Mayrand had himself investigated over the leak. Who investigated Marc Mayrand? Why, a little known man by the name of MARC MAYRAND. What say you about that one? Oh. Sorry. Forgot that you're ignoring that one.
Was this the due process in place at the time? Why didn't the conservatives not call a committee to order? Wait, someone within the PMO could have contacted the RCMP, hold on, they didn't. Wonder why? Hey, I said something about that.
Elections Canada pulled a special ballot at the request of Tony Ianno because of a lack of scrutineers. Elections Canada is not pulling the special ballot at U of G even through there were no scrutineers. What say you about that one? Oh. Sorry. Forgot that you're ignoring that one.
"While the initiative at the University of Guelph was not pre-authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer, the Canada Elections Act provides that electors may apply for and vote by special ballot. A special ballot coordinator, appointed by the local returning officer, oversaw the activities at the University of Guelph. All information at our disposal indicates that the votes were cast in a manner that respects the Canada Elections Act and are valid."
I support any process, within the guidelines of Election Canada that ensures engagement of Canadians in the electoral process. I suspect you are not rooting for the stifling of a particular demographic to participate, even if it appears as such. Could you imagine what would happen if an additional million Canadians turned up to vote? I suspect a drastic shift in political representation on the hill. What say you?
"Does elections Canada not have legal right to extend the deadline for debt?"
Sure they do. They can "legally" do it infinitely. But there is a rule. They are ignoring it.
"Love to see a reference to said email. You are suggesting that said email provides evidence that the NDP knowingly presented fraudulent invoices to the EC? Love to see it."
Here's a clue: it's the YouTube link I posted. Try and keep up, will you?
"Was this the due process in place at the time? Why didn't the conservatives not call a committee to order?"
Here's a clue: it was presented in the committee over the transfers. I'll help you out so you can keep on putting in zero effort in being aware of what's gong on:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=b92b618d-d777-4539-b553-c34b3a5b0376&p=1
"I support any process, within the guidelines of Election Canada that ensures engagement of Canadians in the electoral process."
Good. Then we agree. Since the poll operated against various EC guidelines, the you don't support them. Thank you.
Hey....forgot to remind you about the query you skirted around....here it is again, try to keep up, sunshine.
Could you imagine what would happen if an additional million Canadians turned up to vote? I suspect a drastic shift in political representation on the hill. What say you?
Here's a clue: it's the YouTube link I posted. Try and keep up, will you?
Get real, simply because a transplanted calagarian conservative says its so, at committee, doesn't make it so. Oldest trick in the book. What happened to said alegations?
Back to the original point, the conservatives were engaged in fraud, found guilty of it and will be handed a final ruling in the supreme court. Do you think someone will go to prison?
I didn't skirt anything. If a million Canadians showed up at that poll in Guelph -- which only has a population of 114K -- then we'd definitely know something was amiss. Still, I don't know what shift you're implying since we don't know the results until they're counted.
In regards to the Conservatives being engaged in fraud, they followed the letter of the law to a T. Elections Canada then changed the wording of the law and applied it retroactively. This point is not in dispute and has in fact been confirmed by Marc Mayrand.
As for what Pierre Poilievre read into evidence, Marc Mayrand did not deny it.
Boy... you really don't know what you're talking about, do you?
Secure, if a million students, that's right a million students, whom some would have taken advantage of the EC election polls at their schools, become active particpants in the electoral process what do you think the outcome would be? Do you think the conservatives and yourself have objected to a process, approved by the EC, if you expected their vote to go the other way? I suspect not, why not eliminate polls at retirement homes or military bases overseas. They employ the exact same process as those utilized at U of G.
Yes the conservatives were indeed found guilty in federal court, get your facts stait. The conservatives have appealed and we will see what the supreme court decides. Again, get your facts strait.
Do you mean, get my facts straight?
You need to get your facts straight: I never said they weren't found guilty in court.
As for military bases and retirement homes, hypotheticals are endless. I'm dealing with a little place we like to call reality.
You said yourself, "I support any process, WITHIN THE GUIDELINES of Election Canada."
There were three issues: the poll was not pre-authorized, scrutineers were not present and there was partisan election material in the vicinity. Either you do support the process within the guidelines of Elections Canada or you don't.
You clearly do not understand why these guidelines were established if you are willing to toss them aside so casually. That or you haven't thought it through. I'm betting on both.
EC has publically announced that the guidelines were followed and they were. Please review EC process for special ballot voting. These votes will count. Period.
I support the engagement of as many Canadians in the voting process as possible. This was a fantastic venture on the part of Canadian youth, to have their voices heard, particularly given the relative poor showing the previous elections. The conservative government has eliminated this opportunity and I'm pretty sure you know why.
The exact same processes have been employed at retirement homes and military bases overseas, these are not hypothetical’s.
It was also the third special ballot election in a row at the U of G, (of which Conservative Senator Pamela Wallin was the Chancellor.) The event was so public the President of the University had his face painted blue because students surpassed a pledge to vote figure set by the Pres. It was Marty Burke's volunteer com dir Michael Sona (a Special Assistant to the Minister of State, and thus a paid conservative worker.) who broke the law by interfering with a legal voting station.
"EC has publically announced that the guidelines were followed and they were. "
No, they did not say guidelines were followed in the polling station being set up. They 'ruled' that the ballots themselves were cast in a way that did not violate the Canada Elections Act. Those are two very different things.
"It was Marty Burke's volunteer com dir Michael Sona... who broke the law by interfering with a legal voting station."
I guess that's why he has not been charged with anything and why reporters haven't given any credibility to the implication he tried to do so.
They 'ruled' that the ballots themselves were cast in a way that did not violate the Canada Elections Act. Those are two very different things.
Come on, stop splitting hairs.
"While the initiative at the University of Guelph was not pre-authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer, the Canada Elections Act provides that electors may apply for and vote by special ballot. A special ballot coordinator, appointed by the local returning officer, oversaw the activities at the University of Guelph. All information at our disposal indicates that the votes were cast in a manner that respects the Canada Elections Act and are valid."
It doesn't surprise me that you wouldn't understand the legal difference between a GUIDELINE in place for a POLLING STATION and a RULING about a BALLOT.
Is a guideline the same as a ruling? No.
Is a polling station the same as a ballot? No.
But thank you for posting a quote that backs me up. It's nice to see you actually... well... trying... to do some research.
I'm getting a real kick out of this. Keep it up sunshine.
Post a Comment