Oh dear, pesky rules getting in the way of the wishes of the little brainwashed socialists.

this reminds me of the old days when the leftist parties would mob elections with camp workers on the rail lines.

The letter does express some concerns that should be addressed and should expect the Election Act to be upheld.

That being said. I know the leftist will yell, scream and whine that Conservative are disenfranchising youth voters and not respecting democracy.

Ahh Mr. Cassels Brock, who is attempting to talk out of both sides of his mouth. Was this a poll, Mr. Lawyer, or an occasion on which the electoral officer went to Guelph to take applications for special ballots and issue ballots in accordance with same? It can't be both, and if it was the latter your challenge is a nullity. See Division 4 of Part 11 of the Elections Act, http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-2.01/FullText.html. With respect to the question asked by the other partisan hack, go ahead and read section 8 of the Act to find out what "ordinarily resident" means. If you sleep somewhere and consider the place to be your ordinary residence, IT IS. Finally, a vote by special ballot indicates the riding in which it is supposed to be cast and can be submitted via mail, so the issue of residence is illusory at best.

I read the blog of Blackrod this evening and found it very enlightening to say the least, regarding the "students" ejected from the Harper rallies...article entitled "Manufacturing a Scandal" or something like that.. Anyway, on this Guelph controversy, here we have the involvement of the activist Yvonne Su who was one of the Cdns. who went to the Copenhagen demonstrations.
Nevertheless, I suppose the MSM will talk about nothing else in the foreseeable future, that and the Guergis year old story front and center on CBC tonight.

um: "If you sleep somewhere and consider the place to be your ordinary residence, IT IS."

Until it is not. Like you move "home."

Election date: May 2, 2011.
(Potential) End of lease: April 30, 2011.

I take no issue with university students residing in the riding year-round voting prior to May 2. Why would I? But if a student lives there ONLY during the school year, and returns to the same address each summer, then I call BS.

And if someone/anyone is registering the students without being clear about penalties for voter fraud, then shame on them. It's not the candidate that pays the piper for this, it's the one casting the questionable vote.

Having lived in Landslide Annie's riding and scrutineering, seeing all the ? beside addresses that represented mailboxes (retail) and office buildings, colour me cynical and you naive.

PS Kate: thanks for the link

Change the minimum voting age to 30. Today's 20 year olds are children.

Yep the so-called "progressives" are up to their
same old tricks.

Brainwash kids into voting for them, rig the
election, and scream when they STILL don't win.

These people don't seem to learn that Nazi's lose because the trick people into voting for them.

And that's OK to a socialist wannabe regime.

Not OK to me.

How many were actually citizens of Canada? Canadian Universities have hundreds of thousands of foreign students, were they also allowed to vote. From what I have read, they did not have scrutineers, who could challenge any voter to prove their right to vote.

How many will vote twice, once in Guelph, and again at home?

Change the minimum voting age to 30...

Posted by: max at April 15, 2011 2:51 AM

...and allow only real tax-payers to vote: people with jobs....in the private sector.

Now that would be Tolerable Totaliariansim! ;)

The Libs and Iggy are presenting a campaign for extra funding for college and university…all warm and fuzzy sounding for students.
Has anyone considered that the ‘high cost of education’ can be directly linked to tenured profs who have lots of time to diss PMSH and all things conservative/Conservative?
Why aren’t the students focusing on the abuse of the position by these lefty expensive profs?
Obvious why the lefty institutions get the kids/sheep pumped up against the CPC.

From a comment at Blue like You:

A warm fuzzy anti-Harper message,for the kids.

http://www.leadnow.ca/

These kids—and I mean the ones working the polls—have been coddled all their lives. They've been told they're special and have had the rules bent for them so often, "arbitrary" is what they know.

I agree, they behave like toddlers—the most dangerous people on the planet, especially when they’re BIG and are given adult responsibilities. Then, the rest of us had better watch our backs and be ready to duck!

Right bbgun...nothing says democracy, freedom and right to vote like 'Black Panthers at a polling station'...
I don't know how to link but I just found it on youtube.
Oh wait...dubya wasn't running for prez that year...

"who are you to decide?"

Hey bbgun, are you still living in that group home?

I expect were going to see much more of this on election day.

Elections Canada has developed almost no system for ensuring the security of the voting area and the ballot box. That's the real scandal.

Im reminded of a quote from i think Hugh Hewitt:

We have to beat the democrats by the "margin of lawyer".

Canada's Universities have pretty much become, Puppy Mills. An Industry that churns out little piddling Socialist Puppies with enormous expectations of Entitlements. Meanwhile Taxpayers who pay more in Taxes than they do for Food, Clothing and Housing combined are forced to subsidize them to the tune of $60,000 dollars per student over 4 years. Time they get a wake up call. The Toronto Red Star today is calling for voting rights for the 2.8 M people who hold Canadian Citizenship but live abroad and have not returned or paid taxes here for over 5 years. Russian Count Ignatieff stated that Canada should never ever deploy our Military without first seeking approval from the UN. Canada as a Nation will not last much longer. It is due to breakup into smaller states.

Good idea kids. We should all start constructing ballot boxes and setting up our own polls.

The National Post today features the platform of the Canadian Communist Party, called a Communist Manifesto. Authored by the Leader of the Canadian Communist Party. The Lib/NDP/Bloc Coalition's platform pretty much is cut and paste from the Canadian Communist Manifesto. Eery. Perhaps it is time for Canada to be broken up into smaller Nation States, let the Quebec Communists have Quebec and pay for it themselves. Let the Toronto Socialists have their Daddy Dalton World and pay for it themselves. Let the Saltwater Welfare Colonies of Atlantic Canada have their little Cod Fish Republic. And pay for it themselves. And we in the New West will carry on alone and do well.

The Socialist Puppies, the LIB/NDP/Bloc Coalition are howling about how unDemocratic the CPC and Harper are. But they all voted down all attempts by the CPC to make the Appointed Senate Democratic, they all voted down bill c12, to give Anglo voters in Alberta and BC and Ontario equal representation of one man one vote. Ontario is entitled by census to 18 more MP's, Alberta 5 more MP's and BC 7 more MP's. This problem has existed since Martin was PM. The Lib/NDP/Bloc Coalition voted it down 1 year ago last April. Russian Count Igantieff tho howls about how unDemocratic Harper is, what a lying sack of Sh*t. Maybe it is time to break up Canada into smaller Nation States.

Kate: "Another question: "How many of the students that voted today will be residing on campus on May 2?""

Candace: "I take no issue with university students residing in the riding year-round voting prior to May 2. Why would I? But if a student lives there ONLY during the school year, and returns to the same address each summer, then I call BS."

From Elections Canada (elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=yth/bas/faq&document=index&lang=e#a8):

Q: What riding do I vote in – the one where I live with my parents/family, or the one where I live while I attend school?

A: You vote in your "home" riding. If you moved to attend school, you decide which address you consider your official "home": where you live while at school or where you live when not at school (e.g. with your parents).

A little off topic but I rec'd my voter confirmation card. Now I don't go on voter's lists. I swear an affidavit stating I live where I live.
This year I rec'd my daughter's too. She does not live with me but gets her mail here.
It seems the voter's list is from mailing lists.
Never saw this before.

The voter registration is done off of your income tax form. The address you use when you file your income tax form is the address it is assumed you live at for voting purposes.

Does anybody know the procedure for voting at nursing homes? What about alzheimers patients? My mom has been in a nursing home suffering from alzheimers since 2004. Never once has she received a voting registration card. Do they still get one? I'm wondering if the staff take them.

max -- You are exactly right. Raise the voting age. Even delighting in the "mob" process indicates a lack of maturity. Some of the visuals (pictures of "mobs" jumping, costumes, big signs) makes it clear that there is a real lack of maturity. This is clearly one of the reasons why young people are often sucked in by revolutionary movements. They are idealistic, but totally lack perspective and common sense.

Notes: words and music by Malvina Reynolds; copyright 1962 Schroder Music Company, renewed 1990. Malvina and her husband were on their way from where they lived in Berkeley, through San Francisco and down the peninsula to La Honda where she was to sing at a meeting of the Friends’ Committee on Legislation (not the PTA, as Pete Seeger says in the documentary about Malvina, “Love It Like a Fool”). As she drove through Daly City, she said “Bud, take the wheel. I feel a song coming on.”

F
Little boxes on the hillside,
Bb F
Little boxes made of ticky tacky,
C
Little boxes on the hillside,
F C
Little boxes all the same.
F
There's a green one and a pink one
Bb F
And a blue one and a yellow one,
F C
And they're all made out of ticky tacky
F C
And they all look just the same.

And the people in the houses
All went to the university,
Where they were put in boxes
And they came out all the same,
And there's doctors and lawyers,
And business executives,
And they're all made out of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.

And they all play on the golf course
And drink their martinis dry,
And they all have pretty children
And the children go to school,
And the children go to summer camp
And then to the university,
Where they are put in boxes
And they come out all the same.

And the boys go into business
And marry and raise a family
In boxes made of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.
There's a green one and a pink one
And a blue one and a yellow one,
And they're all made out of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.

If I were a right leaning person in eastern Canada I would be moving west of the Man/Sask border asap. There was a lot of independance / separation talk during the last coalition crisis; and due to the clarity bill there is a roadmap to break up the country. I know which side of the line I want to be on.

One question:
If its NOT an advance poll, how did the ballots get there?

Erections Canada, all lieberal, all the time.

One question:
If its NOT an advance poll, how did the ballots get there?

Erections Canada, all lieberal, all the time.

Good question Paul, now let's dig and find out where the University got the ballots?

"Change the minimum voting age to 30. Today's 20 year olds are children." max

max, you are *absolutely* correct on this one. Youngsters today are far more immature than their parents were at the same age.

We will guarantee that the country goes down the tubes if we bet our future on 20 year olds. Just look at the utter mess the US is in because the president they chose was elected in large part by 20 year olds.

...a steady queue of students lined up to vote at a special ballot set up in University Centre by Elections Canada. The strong turnout came in the thick of final exam time. Their ballots will be counted on election day May 2, Anne Budra, returning officer for Elections Canada said.

Budra said the special ballot was exceptionally well attended. It was set up, she explained, because many U of G students won’t be in Guelph for advanced polls on April 22, 23 and 25, or on election day. Students registered to vote on Monday and Tuesday of this week.

http://www.guelphmercury.com/print/article/516746

It seems the RO was responsible for the "special poll". Was it in accordance with the Canada Elections Act is the question.

No worries; if the poll wasn't conducted according to law, just blame the Conservatives.

Glasnost reports above : "many U of G students won’t be in Guelph for advanced polls on April 22, 23 and 25, or on election day."

So where will they be?
At home???

Have you followed Kate’s lead “tantrums begin” and seen the site that they are linking to ...leadnow.ca ? The properties says this site was created today. There is money behind this thing.

Further to my post at 1:55, National Newswatch is featuring a column by this activist Yvonne Su this morning. I hope there is at least one of the "investigative" media in this country that reports the truth about this charade.

max: "Change the minimum voting age to 30. Today's 20 year olds are children."

Jamie MacMaster: "...and allow only real tax-payers to vote: people with jobs....in the private sector."

LindaL: "max -- You are exactly right. Raise the voting age. Even delighting in the "mob" process indicates a lack of maturity...They are idealistic, but totally lack perspective and common sense."

TJ: "max, you are *absolutely* correct on this one. Youngsters today are far more immature than their parents were at the same age. We will guarantee that the country goes down the tubes if we bet our future on 20 year olds. Just look at the utter mess the US is in because the president they chose was elected in large part by 20 year olds."

That's great, folks -- "I don't like how young'uns vote, so let's just strip away their franchise!" Your disdain for democracy and basic civic rights are revealing.

Where'd they get the two seals where'd they get the election box, where'd they get the ballots?
Who booked the room for the fake election?
Who sent tweets and notified people of the fake vote.

There should be people in prison for this.

Rich we have to dig into this issue because MSM will not report the truth, they are in full "We hate Conservative Canadians mode" funny I wonder if slime stream media ever considered the hatred they hurl at us will cost them financially? I ain't buying their farking products or their advertisors' products in future.

Is Leadnow a political party or affiliated with any political parties?
No. Leadnow is independent. We will challenge all of the political parties. Our priority is to represent the views of our members, and the broader interests of Canadians, regardless of how those positions line up with those of the political parties.

http://leadnow.ca/

http://leadnow.ca/en/hands-off-our-ballots

...even if the ballots are illegal, they were cast in the name of leftie virtue.

@Davenport - I am sure we could scour the Liblogs and find silly comments by supporters with respect to similar items during different times. A few comments by a few readers does not change our democracy regardless of how you spin it. Nor do all people subscribe to their writings.

Take your tar brush over to rabble.ca and have a look at the commentary in that brutish place.

Nothing says university 'groupthink' like VoteMob.

It seems, according to the one article...that Elections Canada, has decreed that this is not a poll.
Logically this would mean that this farce is an offence under the elections act.
Don't hold your breath....these clowns have about as much chance of getting prosecuted as those Black Panthers......

Oh boy... Iggy is irate again.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/9020558.html

sasquatch,
Prosecuting an offence would be icing on the cake; I'd be satisfied with nullifying the votes.

Cry me a river Davenport.

mark,
[Iggy] says it shows a lack of respect for the process.

The irony is almost too much to bear.

So tell me Davenport, why don't we let 12 year old kids vote then?

I have a 12 year old who certainly has the necessary skill to put an X in a box. So by your logic he should be allowed to vote.

The point people are making is simply that 20 year old kids are not as mature as they once were. A stroll through any liberal arts building on any campus should be enough to convince you of that.

Can someone explain the rational behind these "votemobs"? Seriously.. I understand it even after browsing the various sites. Just looks like a bunch of students making noise for no apparent reason to me.

D'port: " Your disdain for democracy and basic civic rights are revealing."

Because universties are the epitome of democracy and civil rights,eh?

Just ask Anne Coulter, anti-abortion groups and
Christians who want to pray in public.

Just to name a few...

TJ: "So tell me Davenport, why don't we let 12 year old kids vote then?"

Broad international consensus.

"The point people are making is simply that 20 year old kids are not as mature as they once were. A stroll through any liberal arts building on any campus should be enough to convince you of that."

Except that "mature" is defined here as "leans right politically and/or votes Conservative."

bluetech: "Because universties are the epitome of democracy and civil rights,eh?"

Um, no, they're not.

And how exactly is that related to calling for 18-29 years olds to be disenfranchised?

Dwayne: "A few comments by a few readers does not change our democracy regardless of how you spin it. Nor do all people subscribe to their writings. Take your tar brush over to rabble.ca and have a look at the commentary in that brutish place."

Read my 10:19am comment again, Dwayne. I wasn't tarring everyone here with the same brush; I just called out max and those who agreed with him.

I will point out, however, that while many people -- including yourself, just now -- have been more than willing, on this thread and others, to call me out over what they consider to be a disagreeable comment I made, so far nobody here, including yourself, has bothered to call max out for what you yourself consider to be a "silly comment."

Huh.

I'm reading off my voter's registration card and the "advance polls" are stated as April 22, 23 and 25. You are then informed where that poll is located.

You may download a "mail-in" ballot from the EC website, if you do it before the April 26 deadline and mail it before 6 pm April 26.

From what I see, if you can't satisfy your residency in the riding you plan to vote in with valid photo ID and a bill stating your address, you go home and vote, but not in the riding you are currently in.

"Hamilton alleges the polling station was illegal and also that partisan election material was present at it"

Anyone get photos? Because if this is true then it was indeed illegal. I've worked in a polling booth and no such materials are allowed. We weren't even permitted to read a newspaper at our desk, we were told to throw it away. And we once had to instruct an official party member to remove some flyers she'd brought in with her. (She was Liberal, of course.)

Guilty by their own words.
"It's George Bush's Fault" should be replacing the "koo COO" sound in clocks very soon now.
It absolves the weak minded of their responsibility to generations before and after their pathetic existence and lets them now they're not actually as physically dead as their political view, minds and souls.

I wonder if the young soldiers carted down the 401 in the backs of hearses would think cheating in our elections is as hip as our local leftard Statists?

Who other than Davenport and bb gun, would sign on to fight for any regime that cheats for bigger government, DURING an election in Canada?

Liberal Fascism, taught at our universities, in our cities, now on our streets.

Looks like the U of G is an ACORN franchise. It would appears that Elections Canada itself needs to be thoroughly investigated. This is by far the biggest issue in the election campaign so far.

Flashback.

H/T PET Cemetery's Young Katimavik's Youth Red Brigade and Pioneers.

Key words: "Student Vote will teach students about Canada's democracy, look at candidates' platforms, and even have students cast their own ballots in a mock election."

Advance warning was given here:

>>> "Elections Canada goes after youth vote

By Jonathon Brodie, QMI Agency"

"The Student Vote program is designed to engage elementary and secondary school students in the May 2 federal election. Students Zane Schwartz and Olivia Suppa participate in a mock election on April 5, 2011."

"Marc Mayrand, Canada's chief electoral officer, announced the launch of this year's Student Vote program, which is designed to engage elementary and secondary school students in the May 2 federal election.

"(This program) helps young Canadians build a knowledge and a desire to vote," Mayrand said Tuesday in Toronto. "These are two important indicators of voter turnout."

Student Vote will teach students about Canada's democracy, look at candidates' platforms, and even have students cast their own ballots in a mock election."

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/CanadaVotes/News/2011/04/05/17888396.html?sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4d9cf47221fdd29e,0

CTV has the story up with Ignatieff blaming Harper for stopping democracy, way too funny.
I sent a comment Re: Akins call to Elections Canada Lets see if that shows up Because there is a riot of Bash Harper.
Media Damage Done though.

"Broad international consensus" is not a reason to set the voting age. IMO, international consensus, broad or otherwise, is not a reason to do anything. (Cue Mom: "If everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you jump off too?")

We elect MPs to debate and vote on issues; if they vote to change the voting age, then that's the only consensus that matters.

Anyway, I find calling for disenfranchising people by age far less offensive than the attitude twitted by a lefty after the Toronto mayoralty election - "The thing I hate about democracy is that all the people who don't think like me are still allowed to take part."

Hale said special ballot polling stations are often held for groups of people who consistently display less-than-average voter turnouts, such as students, First Nations, seniors and the disabled.

Since when is it Elections Canada's responsibility to Get Out the Vote?

I thought Elections Canada was just responsible for making sure the voting is done fairly and according to proper procedures.

now layton is calling for an investigation into why the conservatives stopped this.
I would like to know if their are any allegencences at all to a Political Party by the organizers.
This whole election has for sometime now got a real stench to it & i have said numerous times i believe this is a setup. I do not recall ever seeing any of whats happened up to this point now ever happening, Like i said i think their is a big stench & someone or some well organized groups with the help of certain politcal parties are playing a dangerous game With the premise that Democracy is in Peril if Stephen Harper is elected with a majority.

"Change the minimum voting age to 30. Today's 20 year olds are children."

I've been calling to raise the voting age to 25 as long as I've been visiting this site. My father left momma's house when he was 16 and was married with children (yours truly) at 18. Today, my soon turning 16 year old has a 9:00 curfew on weeknights. It's very easy to justify a raise in the voting age based on what the Leftists tell us from academia about the retarded maturity rates of kids today. In reality, it's the desire of the Progressives to lower the voting age to 16 years old which is an affront to democracy, because of the susceptibility of students who have neither the education nor life experience to make rational decisions on such issues.

Davenport is full of i$ht.

Aren't the opposition parties mongering an Elections Canada prosecution where legal "in" and legal "out" tranactions are alleged to systemtically circumvent their current interpretation of the Elections Act.

So remind me why they're howling that Elections Canada is being asked to confirm or deny the legality of something that looks like what they shot down in Toronto in 2006?

"In reality, it's the desire of the Progressives to lower the voting age to 16 years old which is an affront to democracy, because of the susceptibility of students who have neither the education nor life experience to make rational decisions on such issues." Homez.

Amen.

Elections Canada "All information at our disposal indicates that the votes were cast in a manner that respects the Canada Elections Act and are valid."

What wimps. The right response should have been to explain to the voters that they will have to cast their votes on election day like the rest of the population, or alternatively use the usual advanced polling options.

The idea that an impromptu voting booth on a university campus weeks prior to the official election is in some way justifiable is just one step away from Zimbabwe-style elections.

Hi IRS
Go #### yourself.
I quit, get your money from the extra special votemob.
I'm done.

Indiana, do I take then that you propose to raise the minimum age for the armed forces to 25? And similarly that you intend to extend the provisions of the Young Offenders Act to age 24? Because what you are saying is that those under 25 are not responsible for their actions.

If you're old enough to die for your country, then you're old enough to vote. People fought for centuries to get rid of things like aristocratic entitlement and Jim Crowe laws, and now some of you want to put them all back.

Certainly the progressives are welcome to try to lower the age to 16, just as long as they are prepared to make 16 the age of full legal responsibility, like that will ever happen.

Besides, this topic was about voting system abuse, not about the universal franchise.

TJ, does that mean that you are opposed to all advanced polls as well as polling out of riding? Does this mean you oppose polls for armed forces or other Canadian citizens serving overseas?

John Galt, we live in Canada and it has Revenue Canada, not the Internal Revenue Service of the United States. Please try to get straight what country you're talking about. Otherwise we might think you're talking drivel.

Instead of talking about the issue at hand - Election Canada's behaviour - Toronto Liberal Davenport is once again pretending that a comment by some SDA commenter or other is the real issue. Same old.

Election Canada's statement is creepy:

"In light of the focus on youth and student electoral participation...and on efforts to increase voter interest and turnout among this group...."

The Liberals and NDP - and the CBC - have made increasing the youth vote their "focus" during this election. It's not Election Canada's job to "focus" on a particular voting demographic, or to encourage one particular demographic to vote. That's a partisan activity; that's the job of the political parties, not EC.

"...a well-intentioned returning officer undertook a special initiative to create and opportunity for students at the University of Guelph to vote by special ballot."

The phrase "well-intentioned" is a pitiful excuse, and complete red herring. When you are a returning officer working for an institution whose mandate is to ensure fair, non-partisan and consistent voting procedures deviates from his/her job and into partisan territory (the youth vote is "left"), it's utterly irrelevant how "well-intentioned" this rogue returning officer's actions were.

"Once Elections Canada officials were made aware of the local initiative in Guelph, the returning officer was instructed not to engage in any further activities of a similar nature."

Why? If the actions of the EC official are permitted under the Canada Elections Act, why was the "well-intentioned" official told to cease and desist?

Canada.com:

"'Elections Canada confirmed that no advance poll or other form of polling had been sanctioned for any location at the University of Guelph. Besides not being sanctioned, many of the controls that must be in place at a polling station did not exist,' Conservative spokesman Ryan Sparrow wrote in an email.

"He said scrutineers were not permitted, another procedure that must be in place to comply with the Canada Elections Act. Election materials from various candidates were at the polling station and within the ballot box, he said."

And it's the Conservatives who are "anti-democratic." What a joke.

Anyway, Davenport, back to the *real* issue: some anonymous person's blog comment...

EBD, I agree with you, but some idiots on this thread dragged in the red herring about the franchise when it's really abuse of process by Elections Canada.

Greg @ 7:54

What is preventing these students from voting twice as you say at the university and again at home? What, if any, checks are in place? Does Elections Canada get the special polling lists and identify the voter as having voted already on subsequent lists?

If there is no method, then I am extremely concerned.

Vote early and vote often!

There's a lesson here folks: document everything. If you spot a dodgy situation like this one, take photos. Lots of them.

And if you talk to an official, record what they say so they can't deny it later.

"a well intentioned returning officer...'?
Gag me...
I've been a scrutineer and assissted the DRO. They are payed well BTW.

You are under the impression the RCMP will be called in if you don't dot your i's and cross yout t's at the right time and with the correct body language. And don't talk. It might look like you are 'encouraging a voter'...
Totally non partisan...or your knuckles are rapped.

No, really...EC rules ya know!

So is the well intention RO fired?

So according to the Guelph Mercury: EC rules say it was ok to do it once, but make sure this doesn't happen again.

Really?

Usually these sort of shenanigans are associated with 3rd world regimes, or with corrupt American states in the early 20th century. What is going on here? I would have thought there were stringent rules for the actual casting of ballots, Election Canada seems to have rules for every other aspect of the campaign. It has resources to devote to hair splitting investigations into how party money was spent, and rules for advertising, or reporting results. There should be absolutely no ambiguity about setting up such a special poll. In the vast majority of cases, students could vote in the advance poll, or at their residence on May 2.
By definition most of the students have no long term interest in this Guelph riding.
The obvious danger here is from the "vote early, vote often" scenario, there can be no cross checking whatever if a student votes again on May 2 in another riding.

In prisons, another Liberal stronghold aren't the ballots counted in the inmates home riding to avoid tilting the balance?
Why would uni students be any different?
Academic if there were no scrutineers. Does'nt count.

EBD: "It's not Election Canada's job to "focus" on a particular voting demographic, or to encourage one particular demographic to vote. That's a partisan activity...When you are a returning officer working for an institution whose mandate is to ensure fair, non-partisan and consistent voting procedures deviates from his/her job and into partisan territory (the youth vote is "left")"

The mandate of Elections Canada is to ensure that Canadians can exercise their democratic rights to vote. The Canada Elections Act contains specific provisions for special ballot voting, which anyone can request (Part 11, Division 4), for no other reason than they don't particularly feel like going to an ordinary or advance poll to vote. Why? Because the mandate of Elections Canada is to ensure that Canadians can exercise their democratic rights to vote.

Why do you consider a special ballot on a campus to be "partisan"? Elections Canada isn't telling individual voters how to vote; if they as a group happen to lean left, then so be it, as long as they're entitled to vote. Should Elections Canada revoke special ballot voting for, say, the military, since they as a group happen to tend to vote "right"? What about seniors at a care facility? What about rural and remote residents?

I thought not. At the end of the day, everyone who's eligible to vote gets one vote. What, exactly, about that basic democratic principle are you so afraid of?

"He said scrutineers were not permitted, another procedure that must be in place to comply with the Canada Elections Act."

Scrutineers were permitted (the Liberals had one present); the Conservative Party just happened to not have someone there. Also, according to the Act, the absence of a scrutineer does not in any way invalidate an elector's vote if that vote was otherwise carried out legitimately.

So I wonder which sections of the Canada Elections Act can be breached at the whim of Elections Canada and which ones can't.

I'm sorry but I don't believe Election's Canada and I want the person responsible fired and those ballot boxes burnt in front of the RCMP. The entire thing stinks of voter fraud and coverup.

"'Elections Canada confirmed that no advance poll or other form of polling had been sanctioned for any location at the University of Guelph."

If that's true then case closed.

"I thought not. At the end of the day, everyone who's eligible to vote gets one vote. What, exactly, about that basic democratic principle are you so afraid of"?

Precisely what I posted above, namely that they will be able to vote again in another riding May 2.

"namely that they will be able to vote again in another riding May 2."

That's exactly what they're up to and everyone knows it. I'm sure the MSM won't mention the obvious though..

The left's political behavior seems to oscillate between adolescent & infantile; emotional tantrums, hurt feelings, mud slinging & allegation without fact.

Grown ups understand the need for rules in democracy; without them we simply have a mob.

VDH's The Triumph of the Therapeutic Mind comes to mind.

cgh

I am well aware of the inconsistencies wrt the age of legality and I would consider a harmonizing of these things as a good discussion. I also would be willing to consider other factors(measurable) other than age or in conjunction with age for a suitable voting age.

To answer your question in short though: so long as a 16 year old can hop in a car and potentially kill other drivers, yet cannot purchase a pack of smokes to kill himself (or buy a lotto ticket), I have no qualms with the inconsistency you mention in my stance on this subject.

Martin: "The obvious danger here is from the "vote early, vote often" scenario, there can be no cross checking whatever if a student votes again on May 2 in another riding."

There are enforcement procedures in place to deter and detect that sort of thing, and they're applicable whether it's a student on campus, a member of the military stationed somewhere, or just some random person trying to vote in an advanced ballot in one riding and then vote again in another riding on election day.

The punishment for voting more than once is up to 5 years in prison and/or a fine up to $5,000. I doubt many undergrads (or anyone else) are willing to risk that just for the chance to cast two ballots.

ChrisinMB: "That's exactly what they're up to and everyone knows it."

Who's "everyone"?

It's not so much a concern about double voting, it's the strategic piece. Eg if your home is in Calgary but you're going to school in Guelph and don't support the CPC, your vote in Guelp will likely count way more than it would in Calgary. From a CBC post:
"...Demetria Jackson, the communications and corporate affairs commissioner at the Central Students Association, said the university wanted to offer students a chance to cast their ballots early before they left the city.

“The reality is that students are taking exams right now and when exams are done, students are going to be going home,” Jackson said.

Jackson said she felt the voting booths were legal and that it was simply an attempt to help students get more engaged in the election..."

If they want to get engaged, they can get engaged with the ballot box of their legal riding IMHO.

"Scrutineers were permitted (the Liberals had one present); the Conservative Party just happened to not have someone there."
Convenient that they no one told them a poll was taking place.

"Also, according to the Act, the absence of a scrutineer does not in any way invalidate an elector's vote if that vote was otherwise carried out legitimately."

It was not "otherwise carried out legitimately." Try and spin all you want but this is a clear violation of the Elections Act (EC has admitted this, they just refused to disallow the ballots because of it). You cannot complain about democracy being trampled by Conservatives and still support this. Its hypocritical, but I am hardly surprised.

Davenport:
OK describe these procedures. Do the officials, scruitineers at Guelph ask for the student's home riding? Do they cross reference this the student's home? One report mentioned that the CPC did not have a scruitineer present all the time.
When I vote on my permanent list, the officials scratch my name off with a pen and ruler. It is not exactly a sophisticated system.

I cannot see the Guelph officials sending the list of student voters to every riding where they might vote again, and someone at that poll going through the list to make sure they haven't voted allready.
Voting should not only be fair, but be seen to be fair. This misses that test by a country mile.

"TJ, does that mean that you are opposed to all advanced polls as well as polling out of riding? Does this mean you oppose polls for armed forces or other Canadian citizens serving overseas?" cgh

I never said or implied any of the above, so why are you attributing it to me?

Jesus people read before you post.

I say we raise the voting age to, say, 25 maybe? Exceptions for young men and women who join the armed forces and serve honorably.

Liberals screaming restore democracy whilst an unauthorized polling station takes place and our esteemed Elections Canada allows the votes to stand. Am I missing something or is elections Canada breaking the rules in this case? Either way I'm filing a complaint this isn't democracy it's typical of nations that are third world hell holes.

bluetech at 8:09 AM, that video has Watermelon green all over it. Their true colours exposed at last.

Note the imagery at the 52 second mark and compare it to Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now".

"Who's "everyone"?"
Just a figure of speech and an over exaggeration. ..but my point is these sort of unapproved polling stations allow for very easy vote fraud and that is quite obvious. It's irrelevant how many are suspected to take advantage, the fact is it's open to abuse.

The MSM will make the story about mean Conservatives vs. poor students and overlook Election Canada breaking their own rules of course.

Good questions Martin. Elections Canada does not 'like' our Prime Minister as he sued them and won the lawsuit when he was head of Canadian Taxpayers Association. Like most bureaucrats, EC. is short on I.Q., strong on thuggery and totally intolerant of criticism. The EC thugs are out for revenge and it is a no holes barred bare knuckle free for all; look for more EC shenanigans in this election. Volunteers for scrutineer duty are a must in this election, flood EC with complaints no matter how small or trivial; might convince them to clean out the Liberano stable over there. The Head snot still has his panties in a knot over the lawsuit - he works for all Canadians and he should be disciplined by citizens. Clean off his long liberano nose or get out (without a payout).

"Should Elections Canada revoke special ballot voting for, say, the military, since they as a group happen to tend to vote "right"? What about seniors at a care facility? What about rural and remote residents?"

Comparing the voting impediments young university students face (are there any, in fact?) to those encountered by military service men and women overseas, the elderly and infirm, and individuals who live in extremely remote areas is one of the most laughably poor inductions I've encountered in a good long while.

"In light of the focus on youth and student electoral participation at the 41 st general election, and on efforts to increase voter interest and turnout among this group," --Elections Canada statement

EC should never be permitted to focus its attention on any one demographic in a promotional manner such as this, since all demographics fall into their respective particular political tendencies (i.e. this initiative is obviously to the advantage of left-leaning parties). There are plenty of outside influences who stand ready to do this sort of advocacy anyway.

Elections Canda enforces the rules using the same standard that CBC uses to determine their news stories. Will it help or hurt the conservatives?

File a complaint here: http://www.elections.ca/courEL.aspx?lang=e

I've had enough of the left's version of democracy and Election's Canada is skating on very thin ethical ice as far as I'm concerned.

I think it might not be a bad idea to launch an "email complaint mob" at elections Canada.

http://www.elections.ca/courEL.aspx?lang=e

i find it strange that their is No Vid bouncing the net, Unless they knew something in advance And find it just incredulous the Liberal MP says they had just mailed out their platform flyers & they just arrived in the students mailboxes at the sametime as the vote Which just happened to be where the mail boxes are.
I will say it again this is a massive smear & setup this whole election.

There is a much larger angle to this story....and it is a very disturbing one. The "ballot box" is the cornerstone of democracy and as such it should be treated as though it were a bar of gold.

But here is the question......how does an apparently official ballot box from Elections Canada even get into an unauthorized polling station in the first place? Where are the controls of ballot boxes that allows for these "bars of gold" to simply go anywhere someone wants them to go?

That is a very frightening matter....and one that perhaps someone like the GG should take the head of Elections Canada to task on. Heads need to roll at Elections Canada.

Here is the email I just sent:

I am writing to protest the recent decision by Elections Canada to keep and count the ballots that were recently cast at the University of Guelph in contravention of the rules set down by Elections Canada. I do not agree with the idea of able bodied young people being given access to special ballots simply because they are a demographic with an abysmal voting record. Part of being an adult is to take responsibility whenever and wherever you are able. I do not agree with spoon-feeding able bodied adults. If university students are not mature enough to make their way to a polling station on election day, then perhaps they need to grow up, rather than have their hands held, and be led to exercise their franchise by the very agency that is required to be non-partisan. This looks bad. Elections Canada looks suspicious to me here. It seems almost like Elections Canada might be trying to influence the outcome of the election.

As someone said on another site, "Since when is it Election Canada's job to Get Out The Vote?"

I don't care if you're a student, aboriginal, a senior citizen, or whatever. Polling stations are always placed in convenient locations. They change from election to election, but I've never had to go more than a few blocks to get to any of them. I can WALK there. It's the citizens' job to get their butts to the ballot box, no one else's.

Louise: "I say we raise the voting age to, say, 25 maybe? Exceptions for young men and women who join the armed forces and serve honorably."

On what basis? There are 30 year olds who are more childish than some 16 year olds. Why 25?

Besides, this thread is about Elections Canada irregularities not civil, legal and political rights.

Indiana, that's where you and I differ. I have great problems with the lack of consistency of legal application in our system.

Davenport: "The mandate of Elections Canada is to ensure that Canadians can exercise their democratic rights to vote."

Precisely. And do you have a single shred of evidence that these students would have been forbidden from voting, or would have been unable to exercise their democratic right to vote if the official hadn't taken his/her -- now forbidden -- actions?

"Focusing" on a particular demographic or group to increase the voter turnout "among this group" is politicking, regardless of what you say, Davenport, and politicking is not EC's job; their job is to make sure that everyone has access to polling stations, and to oversee the process so that votes are counted fairly. It's not their job to encouraging voting among a *particular* and selected demographic.

Elections Canada: "Once Elections Canada officials were made aware of the local initiative in Guelph, the returning officer was instructed not to engage in any further activities of a similar nature."

If the actions of the EC official are, as you insist, well within the mandate of Elections Canada, why was the official told by Elections Canada to cease and desist?

Answer the question.

Your partisan, extemporized description of both Election Canada's mandate and the appropriateness of their actions in this particular case is incorrect.

Here's a link, flood EC with a request to honour democracy and reverse the decision. It was dead wrong.
http://www.elections.ca/courEL.aspx?lang=e

the Liberals shut down some special ballot collection at the University of Toronto.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/archives/article809170.ece

A salient question is in which riding did these students vote? Technically, as I understand special ballots, that the voter writes in the name of the riding in which you normally reside and write in the name of your candidate. It's all a matter of what they believe their permanent address to be and hence their riding. Perhaps Elections Canada could use this as a teachable moment!?!

Secondly, and equally salient, if Elections Canada is going to allow this poll then let them address the issue of the scrutineer. Scrutineers are a critical part of the election process...how else would we remind ourselves that not all people are honorable or trustworthy?

I really don't like to give G&M the traffic, but just so we get a glimpse of how ill-informed lefties are, read this and the comments....absoluteley no mention of EC 'ruling' that it was basically illegal,don't do it again.
And of course the token CPC brownshirt comments.

"Change the minimum voting age to 30. Today's 20 year olds are children."

In the past few years, we're lowered the minimum age for military service to 16. Now, granted, we don't actually let them deploy until they're 18, but I think it's ridiculous that a 16 year old can be considered old enough to serve their nation, yet not old enough to have a say in selecting his government. And now you want to tell that 16 year old that he'll serve for 14 years before he ever gets to cast a ballot?

I can't use the words that I would like to, but let's just say that I strongly suggest you go perform extreme forms of sexual acrobatics on yourself.

If Elections Canada needs to investigate anything, they can start with CBC vote compass.

If Elections Canada needs to investigate anything, they can start with CBC vote compass.

Expert Tom: "Try and spin all you want but this is a clear violation of the Elections Act (EC has admitted this..."

According to Elections Canada, "All information at our disposal indicates that the votes were cast in a manner that respects the Canada Elections Act and are valid."

"All information at our disposal indicates that the votes were cast in a manner that respects the Canada Elections Act and are valid -- but we have told the return officer who was responsible for this to NEVER EVER DO IT AGAIN."

When I was in the army, you voted in the riding you enlisted in unless you deliberately changed it (as I recall). After that where ever you were in the world you got to vote in an advanced poll on a ballot from your own home riding. I went through several federal elections in the time I was in and I remember being impressed with how they made the system work.

Ellie in T.O.: ""All information at our disposal indicates that the votes were cast in a manner that respects the Canada Elections Act and are valid -- but we have told the return officer who was responsible for this to NEVER EVER DO IT AGAIN.""

EBD: "If the actions of the EC official are, as you insist, well within the mandate of Elections Canada, why was the official told by Elections Canada to cease and desist?"

Because her actions were against Elections Canada policy, though not against either EC's mandate nor the Canada Elections Act.

Sophist.

So if the students get to vote early do I get to vote often?

Alex -- You make a passionate case for young people voting, based on their eligibility for military services, but in my view you are comparing apples and oranges. Young people are at their peak physically at ages 18.19. 20 -- but they are easily manipulated and lacking in judgment. Maybe we can have a "graduated" vote process -- you can vote at 18, but your vote will count for 1/2 that of a 30 year old. At age 25, you get a 3/4 vote.

"While the Elections Canada statement confirms that what happened in Guelph lacked proper authorization, we applaud the decision not to disenfranchise University of Guelph students because of errors by the local returning officer."

WTF if the vote was invalid...The student still could have voted correctly on election day...NOTHING IS LOST

The idea that a College Campus is "not" an intimidating location for a secret ballet is utterly ridiculous. The Professors have absolute control over each Student's Success or Failure. The activists in a University "WILL" resort to intimidation & tracking methodology. It’s a simple as falling off a log..

It is when we insist that Union votes are overseen by Management & thier operatives, that the dim lights will come on!

This is stupid civics that should have been taught in Grade 6... Not played out in College

"Young people are at their peak physically at ages 18.19. 20 -- but they are easily manipulated and lacking in judgment."

Fine - then don't let them risk their lives for their country. You don't get to have it both ways.

Moreover, you better raise the young-offender age, too. Rights and responsibilities are intrinsically linked; you can't take away their rights without also taking away some of their responsibilities. If a 20 year old is too immature to vote, surely he's too immature to risk his life for his country, or be tried as an adult if he commits a crime. Let's just baby everyone until they're 30 - that ought to make everything better, right?

"Maybe we can have a "graduated" vote process -- you can vote at 18, but your vote will count for 1/2 that of a 30 year old."

Oh, ok. And if an 18 year old murders someone, they get half the prison sentence, right?

Since some are suggesting criteria for new eligible voter guidelines, how about this?
1) You must be 21; and
2) be a Canadian Citizen, or citizen of a Commonwealth nation and have resided in Canada as a landed immigrant with permamnent resident status for at least 5 years; and
3) earn an income that is high enough to cover the basic personal federal tax exemption, or be the spouse or legal dependant of same (this will permit working students to vote);

or

4) be a member or veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces, or be the spouse or legal dependant of same. (The definition of 'Veteran' in Canada is anyone who has completed basic training and has been honourably discharged from the Armed Forces. This means that potentially a 16 year old could complete basic training, resign, and be eligible to vote!)

There's probably a few other 'and/or' criteria that could be added.

I wonder how the parents of those students are going to handle "their" TAX returns...

Gaming the system can have consequences, Acorn like...

I don't get this (well, that's not really true):

Elections Canada

1) admits that the well-intentioned returning officer who initiated this poll lacked proper authorization and

2) has instructed him and all other returning officers "not to engage in any further activities of a similar nature,"

and yet

3) makes a decision that the 700 votes from an unauthorized polling station are valid and allows them to be counted????

Where's the justice in this? Where are the consequences for a returning officer's not following Elections Canada's rules? What's the point in having rules at all with this outcome?

In most other jurisdictions, this would be cause for invalidating the returns, for disallowing the vote count, and for disciplining the returning officer.

Topsy-turvy world alright, which plays right into the Liberal$' play book, and just another example of Elections Canada's partisan bias.

Canada really needs a seismic shift away from this kind of corruption: A Conservative Landslide, Please!

batb: "1) admits that the well-intentioned returning officer who initiated this poll lacked proper authorization and..."

Lacking proper CEO authorization is an Elections Canada internal policy matter (e.g., getting permission from your boss to run a project). That is NOT the same thing as undertaking an action that contravenes the Canada Elections Act.

"2) has instructed him and all other returning officers "not to engage in any further activities of a similar nature..."

Again, that reflects EC clarifying internal policy (e.g., your boss telling everyone that all projects must be pre-authorized)

"and yet 3) makes a decision that the 700 votes from an unauthorized polling station are valid and allows them to be counted????"

Because the Canada Elections Act supercedes EC internal policy (e.g., your board of directors thinks the project was a good one, even though your boss never approved it).

Ergo, since the vote was abided by the letter of the Act, if not the letter of EC policies, the ballots are valid.

I know this truth will irk you, as is does EBD, but that's how democracy works. There is a higher principle involved here than institutional and bureaucratic policy. Invalidating cast ballots is a BIG deal, and isn't done lightly.

No, democracy DOESN'T work when rules are arbitrarily applied. The unravelling of fair play and the tipping of the playing field are sure signs that democracy is becoming seriously frayed.

The application of rules, “without fear of favour”, just happens to be a quaint idea—probably before Davenport’s time and certainly outside his tiny bubble.

And what is this quaint idea? It’s called the “RULE OF LAW”. When this principle is abandoned, even if the ruse for doing so is, in this case, that it’s OK because the returning officer was “well-intentioned” (on whose behalf?), we’re headed to tyranny. It seems that Davenport’s the kind of person who’s probably not familiar with the aphorism, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”. He’s also the kind of person who’s probably unable to get his head around a non-linear, seemingly contradictory idea like this.

The Guelph situation is a very good—e.g., rotten, “progressive”—example of raw partisanship at work. Election Canada’s been run by leftists (how come they never seem to have any hair?) for some time. That the vote at Guelph—where, no doubt, leftist propaganda is alive and thriving—was allowed to stand, despite the fact that the rules were broken, is, most definitely, a sure sign of democratic ILL HEALTH. That Davenport can only parrot the weak bromides offered by the self-serving, Elections Canada bureaucrats says a lot about him—and nothing useful about democracy, a concept which is obviously quite foreign to him.

(I believe that Davenport would be one of the dupes who fell for “This is democracy at work”, when the 14 Wisconsin senators went AWOL because they couldn’t win a vote, as they were used to doing. “No, Senators, democracy is sticking with the rules of the game, even when the results don’t go your way. Your opponents had to live with defeats and now it’s your turn. Democracy doesn’t mean leftists win every time. And it certainly doesn’t mean changing the rules mid-game to make sure you do.”)

But maybe worse than this blatant rule breaking is the Conservatives’ simpering response @ David Akin’s “On the Hill”:

“Statement by the Conservative Campaign

“We welcome the statement by Elections Canada concerning voting on campuses and in the electoral district of Guelph. . . .

“While the Elections Canada statement confirms that what happened in Guelph lacked proper authorization, we applaud the decision not to disenfranchise University of Guelph students because of errors by the local Returning Officer. These student voters should not suffer because of mistakes by the local election officials.

“At the same time, we are pleased that the rules for special ballotting have been clarified and reconfirmed. The same rules should apply everywhere and be applied consistently across the country.

“We urge all Canadians to vote, whether by special ballot, at advance polls, or on May 2.”

Pathetic.

Rather than coddling the students, if their votes had been disqualified, these young people would have learned a valuable lesson: "FOLLOW THE RULES OR UNPLEASANT CONSEQUENCES HAPPEN." Then, maybe, these students would begin to demand a higher standard from the “adults” in their lives, those very “adults” who have really let them down by applying “the soft bigotry of low expectations”. As it is, this dumbing down just reinforces these students’ ideas that the world will change its rules to accommodate their egos. Is it any wonder that so many of them behave like spoiled brats? (And, when they "grow up", these are the very types who end up working, and bending the rules, at places like Elections Canada. Welcome to our undemocratic, statist Brave New World!)

lookout: "And what is this quaint idea? It’s called the “RULE OF LAW”."

Please, by all means, do cite the specific law that was broken here. Without that, the premise behind your entire rant completely falls flat.

Davenport, you seem to be pretty naive about federal elections in Canada.

Read down to the headline:

'Is a Liberal Party Candidate Cheating?'

http://godscopybook.blogs.com/gpb/2006/01/index.html

People still can't believe a LAW PROFESSOR would stoop so low to win but the Liberals will do anything to win.

This poll seems highly irregular and should be challenged legally. Folks like us can voice their displeasure by using a "contact us" form at the Elections Canada website. Here's what I wrote:

"I don't understand how Elections Canada could rule that the student polling at the University of Guelph was legal. Reportedly there was election campaign material present in the polling place (not allowed) and there were no Conservative scrutineers present. It is also unclear if the returning officer sanctioned or supervised this vote. Was there a voters' list for this polling place? Were people required to produce ID?

So elections are seen as fair, the process must be above reproach. What occurred at UofG seems to fall seriously short of that standard. Why is Elections Canada lowering its standards in this case? This isn't Haiti."

Davenport channeling Whoopie

It's not 'illegal' illegal.

I'm also rather curious about the same question: what law was broken?

Anyone?

You're just making things up as you go along, Davenport, constantly changing tack, avoiding the issue, and moving the goalposts wherever you want them to be in any given comment.

It's not within Election Canada's mandate to "focus" on and encourage voting among a particular, selected demographic - which in this case happens to be one that, compared to the rest of the population, tends to vote NDP/Liberal. Show us one piece of evidence, Davenport, showing that the agency's duties include picking up on the current "focus" of certain political parties on side of the spectrum during a campaign, and making that focus part of Election Canada's activities as a "special initiative".

Elections Canada:

"In light of the focus on youth...participation at the 41st general election, and on efforts to increase voter interest and turnout among this group, a well-intentioned returning officer undertook a special initiative to create an opportunity for students...to vote by special ballot. Once Elections Canada officials were made aware of the local initiative in Guelph, the returning officer was instructed not to engage in any further activities of a similar nature. All returning officers have received this instruction."

You have provided no evidence that it's EC's job, or that it's within their mandate, to "focus on" and promote and encourage voting among a particular demographic during an election campaign, yet you continue to make that false and royal claim.

You're embarrassing yourself, Davenport.

I guess this is where you make something else up again, and expect us to believe it's the case simply because you say so.

"What law was broken?" - Alex

Suppose a particular group of local government employees are mandated to, I don't know, to fix potholes, and that this group of employees, acting on their own initiative, started going door to door collecting taxes. There would obviously not be a specific law on the book stating that "civic employees who fix potholes are strictly forbidden to go door to door collecting property taxes"; you'd need a billion-page book full of laws to address all the possible permutations. In the hypothetical instance described, it would simply be the case that the particular agency was performing a non-permitted task that was not part of their mandate.

Similarly, it's not part of EC's mandate to "focus on", and encourage voting among, a particular demographic, in the midst of a heated election campaign.

In this case, the demographic that the rogue official "focused on" is the demographic that the NDP and the Liberals have been focusing on, because they tend to vote left compared to the population in general.

Davenport is the perfected, entitled Liberal: if a non-partisan governmental agency behaves in a partisan fashion in a way that helps out her particular cause, then it's perfectly A-OK.

"Suppose a particular group of local government employees are mandated to, I don't know, to fix potholes, and that this group of employees, acting on their own initiative, started going door to door collecting taxes."

Actually, this wold be more like them going and fixing a pothole in the wrong time of town, at the wrong time of day.

"In the hypothetical instance described, it would simply be the case that the particular agency was performing a non-permitted task that was not part of their mandate."

Ok, then:

1. You need to stop calling it "illegal", since you admit no laws were broken.
2. You need to show that what they did was "non-permitted". At the time, AFAIK, there was no such restriction on setting up special ballot areas.
3. The "not part of their mandate" bit is irrelevant, since we regularly reward people for going above-and-beyond their normal duties.

Also, how does the fact that the military gets it's own voting centers figure into your calculations? Isn't the military "a particular demographic"? Does this mean that deployed members shouldn't get a vote, or should be required to fly back in order to vote?

"Okay, then: You need to stop calling it 'illegal', since you admit no laws were broken." - Alex

I didn't use the word "illegal", Alex. Not once.

Okay then.

What I said was that the rogue officer's "special initiative" (which he was told by EC to halt at once, and never initiate again) to "focus on" (EC's words) a particular demographic in order to "increase...turnout among this group" is not part of EC's mandate. Go to EC's home page.

The rest of your comments were a dog's breakfast of illogic, red herrings and unintended, and addled misdirections.

"the 'not part of their mandate' bit is irrelevant, since we regularly reward people for going above-and-beyond their normal duties."

No, Alex. Bureaucrats who are entrusted with a particular and narrowly defined task are not rewarded for going "above and beyond" their normal duties, they are sanctioned.

Think first, then type.

Answer the question please. I know that resorting to insults is your usual strategy for avoiding inconvenient questions, but don't expect it to work with me.

University students can get off their asses and vote in their riding on election day, or mail their vote by the mail deadline. Members of the military deployed in combat cannot and have more important things to worry about. Therefore, they have a legitimate excuse. Not sure why you even need to ask the question Alex.

So what you're saying is it's ok to offer special election options to people who are more likely to vote conservative, but not to people who are more likely to vote liberal. And you're not sure why I need to ask the question?

You're right - I don't need to ask the question because I already know the answer. If this had happened at a conservative-friendly venue, you would have turned a blind eye. The issue here isn't that they did anything wrong - the issue is that they're probably not voting the way you want them to vote.

The Bible has a very useful aphorism: advice for thoughtful, right-minded people attempting to talk sense and use logic with certain folks: “Do not throw your pearls before swine lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you.”

The Bible also has useful, but usually unheeded, advice for the attackers: “If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”

(Although the “swine” might be impervious to facts, good sense, and logic, providing them for the many here who “have ears to hear” is a most worthwhile exercise.)

At Pajamas Media, here’s a topical article, “As Prosser Wins, the Dems Get the Blame for Wisconsin”

The article starts, “There as elsewhere, incompetence serves liberal interests.”

Which is why those of us, who are not “progressives”, have our antennae twitching over the Guelph “anomaly”: we know that it’s virtually always the lefties who go in for this sort of thing—because it’s the kind of people they are and they believe they deserve to win every time. Cheating’s in their genes: “It’s OK if it serves our ends.”

Read more here:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/as-prosser-wins-the-dems-get-the-blame-for-wisconsin/?singlepage=true

You assume too much Alex. For someone who prides themselves as being smarter than the "common rabble" here, you come to some foolish conclusions. If the same thing occurred in a Conservative-friendly venue, I would be just as angry because it would make our side look like their cheating the system.

"The issue here isn't that they did anything wrong - the issue is that they're probably not voting the way you want them to vote."

They DID do something wrong, otherwise why would EC order the returning officers not to do something similar again? Fairly simple to understand.

Bottom line: University students have no excuse to not go to the poll in their riding or mail in their vote. Military members in combat do because they don't get access to the normal voting channels like us normal citizens do.

Alex at April 16, 2011 5:53 PM: You are dead wrong. It wasn't who did it, it is the fact that it was done. NO ONE should be able to pull that kind of nonsense. Why even bother to have an election day? Why not just have random votes by random groups of people when ever the he11 they feel like voting? The vote must be valid and effective immediately! Of course that is unless someone else forms a vote the next day that invalidates the one previous. At the core of democracy is fairness and people just holding random votes is fair to no one.

Well said, Chairman Caga and Joe. But don't expect the "pigs who can't hear" to get it. They never do. The comments over at PJM, that follow the article I linked to above, attest to the cheating ways of the anti-democratic left over and over, all over the place.

Here’s Comment 10 over at the Pajamas Media (PJM) article, by someone called Thomas_L......:

“And as we’ve seen this week in the Canadian federal election, when conservatives even dare to question the goings on and rather suspicious activities during an advanced poll at a Toronto [sic: it was Guelph] university, they are accused of trying to block democracy and preventing young people from voting. Yet if Conservative Party operatives had have done the same thing at the city’s old folk’s homes, the CBC would have ensured we never heard the end of it.

“‘Liberals’. They want elections where only votes for their candidates are counted. You know, becaues they’re right and we’re evil.”

There are lots of other comments in response to the article, which verify that the DemocRats behave exactly the same way our left-wing parties do. (And we have FOUR of them!)

"If the same thing occurred in a Conservative-friendly venue, I would be just as angry because it would make our side look like their cheating the system."

Awesome - let me know when you've finished writing your article about special-ballot allowances for the military.

EBD: "It's not within Election Canada's mandate to "focus" on and encourage voting among a particular, selected demographic..."

You want evidence, EBD? Fine. Here's the Report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada on the 39th General Election of January 23, 2006.

First, go to section 1.4.3, wherein EC states that "Elections Canada pursues outreach activities on an ongoing basis. While some occur during election periods, others are undertaken between elections," and then provides specific instances involving Aboriginal peoples and youth.

Next, check out 3.6.1, wherein EC describes its activities re: special ballots for university and college students during the 2006 election.

Now, your turn...

"Show us one piece of evidence, Davenport, showing that the agency's duties include picking up on the current "focus" of certain political parties on side of the spectrum during a campaign, and making that focus part of Election Canada's activities as a "special initiative"."

Let's be clear -- that's YOUR spin of the events, so the onus would be on YOU to provide evidence that the reporting officer SPECIFICALLY and INTENTIONALLY focused on a Liberal/NDP-leaning demographic.

We're all on the edge of our seats in anticipation, EBD. Remember -- you implied intentionality, so do prove evidence of intentionality.

EBD: "It's not within Election Canada's mandate to "focus" on and encourage voting among a particular, selected demographic..."

You want evidence, EBD? Fine. Look up "The Report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada on the 39th General Election of January 23, 2006" (the SDA spam filter is eating my direct link).

First, go to section 1.4.3, wherein EC states that "Elections Canada pursues outreach activities on an ongoing basis. While some occur during election periods, others are undertaken between elections," and then provides specific instances involving Aboriginal peoples and youth.

Next, check out 3.6.1, wherein EC describes its activities re: special ballots for university and college students during the 2006 election.

Now, your turn...

"Show us one piece of evidence, Davenport, showing that the agency's duties include picking up on the current "focus" of certain political parties on side of the spectrum during a campaign, and making that focus part of Election Canada's activities as a "special initiative"."

Let's be clear -- that's YOUR spin of the events, so the onus would be on YOU to provide evidence that the reporting officer SPECIFICALLY and INTENTIONALLY focused on a Liberal/NDP-leaning demographic.

We're all on the edge of our seats in anticipation, EBD. Remember -- you implied intentionality, so do prove evidence of intentionality.

lookout: "The Bible has a very useful aphorism: advice for thoughtful, right-minded people attempting to talk sense and use logic with certain folks..."

In other words, you CAN'T cite any specific federal law that either the returning officer or the Guelph students broke. Got it.

I'll leave it to others here to decide for themselves whom, between the two of us, is the one using logic, and whom is the one making unfounded accusations.

Chairman Kaga: "They DID do something wrong, otherwise why would EC order the returning officers not to do something similar again? Fairly simple to understand."

Yes, the returning officer did something wrong -- but what she did wrong was "merely" break EC policy (which is why EC ordered all returning officers not to do something similar). The special ballot at Guelph was neither illegal (which is why the Conservatives haven't pressed the issue further) nor against EC's overall mandate (which is why EC has allowed the votes that have been cast to stand).

This too is fairly simple to understand, if you don't let your ideological blinders to get in the way.

Good heavens, Davenport . . . I was talking about people like you, not Guelph!

(BTW, “who” is the subject, not “whom”, as in “I'll leave it to others here to decide for themselves whom, between the two of us, is the one using logic, and whom [sic] is the one making unfounded accusations.”)

(Another upgrade for you, Davenport: It's "I'll leave it to others here to decide for themselves whom [sic], between the two of us, is the one using logic." That's because one would say, "who . . . is the one", not "whom . . . is the one using logic".

Try parsing: it's a logical way of dealing with many grammatical questions.)

lookout, the short answer is "you're wrong".

http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/difficulties/whowhom.html

The long answer is, "who" and "whom" are essentially interchangeable in moder usage, so even if he had used the word incorrectly it would be largely irrelevant. The fact that you're trying to be a pedantic douche even though he actually used the correct word ... well, let's just say it doesn't paint a very flattering picture of your persona.

lookout: "BTW, “who” is the subject, not “whom”..."

In other words, you CAN'T cite any specific federal law that either the returning officer or the Guelph students broke. Got it.

As Mrs. Meers, rolling her eyeballs, would say, "Shoo Sho, Shoo Sho".

For all your relentlessly humourless hysterics, Davenport, all your "outreach" evidence showed is that you are willing to bend/stretch the meaning of any given word or phrase to mean whatever you want it to mean. I can't check your evidence because you didn't provide a link, but based on your spare and selective quotations - it's all I have to go on at this point - I would just suggest that the term "outreach" might evoke for many people a process of teaching children about the voting process and how elections work, for example, or how ballots are counted, or perhaps ensuring that voters in remote locations get to vote, but to you it's self-evident - because it suits your 'argument' - that "outreach" means encouraging a Liberal-leaning demographic to get out and vote in the middle of an election campaign.

"The onus would be on YOU to provide evidence that the reporting officer SPECIFICALLY and INTENTIONALLY focused on a Liberal/NDP-leaning demographic."

I'm nothing if not compliant. Try this most recent (yesterday's, in fact) EKOS report. Scroll down to page 14, "Federal Vote Intention - Ontario." Among Ontarians overall, 36.6 percent of respondents overall say they would vote Liberal if an election were held tomorrow, with 38.8% Conservative. Among people under twenty-five years of age, the Conservative numbers are even higher: a remarkable 43.7% compared to the Liberals's 27.1% --- surprising, almost shocking figures that bode well for the future of our country. But I digress: Among those with a university education, you'll note, the Liberal number jumps over eleven percent to 47.8%, while the Conservative numbers drop about seven percent. In other words, the larger the University student vote, the better a chance the Liberals have.

I understand that you, as a Toronto Liberal, think Elections Canada isn't pro-bureaucracy and pro-Liberal, but those of us who've been watching their ridiculous shenanigans harbour no such illusions.

Anyway, Davenport, the Ontario numbers don't lie: University educated Ontarians are significantly more likely to vote Liberal than the other Ontarians.

Why do you think the CBC and the Liberals have been hammering on the "Vote Mob" and 'student vote' theme so aggressively?

The bottom line, IMO, is that if University students are too stupid or lazy or indifferent to figure out how to vote, they probably shouldn't vote. I'm not at all surprised that you believe that university students should be provided with "help" from government bureaucrats to motivate them to vote, or to save them the hassle of finding their nearest polling station and casting their ballot the same as everyone else in the country, but my opinion is that if an 85-year old arthritic woman in Moose Jaw can figure out how to vote and get to her nearest polling station, so can these healthy young, disproportionately *Liberal-leaning* university students.

From a letter sent by the Conservative Party's lawyer to Pierre Boutet in the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer:

"After our various discussions, you expressly confirmed to me that no advance poll or other form of polling had been sanctioned by Elections Canada for any location at the University of Guelph that day, and that accordingly, any ballots which had been received and placed in the ballot box then located at the University of Guelph were a nullity, which would not be recognized, counted or used for any purpose relating to the 41 st general election now underway."

[...]

"You will know that in a subsequent telephone discussion between us yesterday afternoon, further concerns were raised regarding potential polling or supposed 'registration of voters' which was being conducted on the campus of York University in North Toronto. In that subsequent telephone discussion, you once again confirmed that no polling at any university campus had been sanctioned by the CEO, and that as such, no person purporting to be on a voter’s list should have been provided a ballot under any circumstances on April 13 at any polling station which was not located within the office of a Returning Officer.

"Following our discussions, I am advised that the Returning Officer for the electoral district of Guelph, or an individual identifying herself as the Returning Officer personally attended at the University of Guelph to order that the collection of completed ballots from supposed voters continue, and further, that the hours the poll would remain open were extended for a second time that day, such that this supposed poll remained open beyond 7:00 p.m. Indeed, the final ballot was cast and put into a supposed special ballot box at 8:00 p.m. last evening..."

There's so much more. Read the whole sorry thing.

EBD: "I can't check your evidence because you didn't provide a link..."

Are you serious? I gave you the exact title of the report -- have you never used Google?

Oh whatever, here it is: elections.ca/res/rep/off/statreport2006_e.pdf

"I'm nothing if not compliant..."

Compliant, but not particularly sharp.

All you've shown with your EKOS poll is that university kids tend to vote Liberal/NDP. You still haven't established INTENTIONALITY on the part of the reporting officer. Since you're accusing this officer, and by extention, EC, of purposely and knowingly stumping specifically for the Liberals -- a serious allegation -- the evidence you need to produce is something that would show that she deliberately targeted particular voters with the express goal of bumping up Liberal ballots. That is, you need to prove not just the would-be effect of her actions, but the active intention behind it.

Good luck!

You're inadvertently hilarious. I proved, as per your manifest request, that the actions of the "well-intentioned" officer who undertook a -- Davenport-approved -- "special initiative" without the approval of Elections Canada were directed at a Liberal-leaning demographic. You responded - as if it was a self-evident coup de grace counter-argument to this proof you requested, and which I provided - by moving the goalposts and demanding, with the typing equivalent of a straight face, that I provide linkable online evidence about the internal mindset of the reporting officer.

There's really no end to your belligerent, entitled, humourless sophistry, is there?

You're not actually rational, Davenport, you're merely entitled. You insist, as a reflexive by-product of your rank-pulling, entitled mindset, that you are rational, and that others aren't.

It doesn't fly. The EC's chief electoral officer stated in an official communication that --

"...no advance poll or other form of polling had been sanctioned by Elections Canada for any location at the University of Guelph that day, and that accordingly, any ballots which had been received and placed in the ballot box then located at the University of Guelph were a nullity, which would not be recognized, counted or used for any purpose relating to the 41st general election now underway."

Subsequent to this official communication,

"an individual identifying herself as the Returning Officer personally attended at the University of Guelph to order that the collection of completed ballots from supposed voters continue, and further, that the hours the poll would remain open were extended for a second time that day..."

Please - please - entertain us further with your superiority-induced "explanations" for the legitimacy of such "outreaches" being undertaken by rogue officials working for Elections Canada.

I - seriously - look forward to your response, just for the sheer entertainment value. You never let us down in that regard.

Teach us tonight, Davenport. We *need* your oversight.

EBD: "It doesn't fly. The EC's chief electoral officer stated in an official communication that..."

Thanks, EBD, for personally demonstrating just how confused and ill-informed you are.

FYI - neither of these comments were made by EC's CEO, nor were they from "an official communication." Those comments were purportedly made by Pierre Boulet, spokesperson at the Office of the CEO, as paraphrased in a letter written by Arthur Hamilton, a Cassels Brock attorney working on behalf of the Conservative Pary. That was all prior to EC releasing their official statement, which affirmed that while the special ballot was unsanctioned, it was nevertheless legitimate (as evidenced by the acceptance by EC and the Conservatives of the cast ballots as valid votes in this election).

Sent this to Elections Canada:

I am gravely concerned about the recent mob voting at Guelph University. After watching the news and seeing these voters running in queue to the ballot box, it makes a mockery of our electoral procedures. More importantly, how can a non sanctioned vote be considered legitimate? You are basically teaching that you don't really have to follow all the rules. Also, if it has been confirmed that party litterature was displayed in the voting area, then this is indeed a far bigger issue that Elections Canada should be seriously looking into. Is this not your mandate?

I need to be assured that these voters will not be able to vote again in their residential riding (as they are likely on those voters lists as well). To simply say it is against the law does not make me confident that it can't be done. What exactly are the checks and balances?

Yes, Davenport, the special ballot was unsanctioned by Elections Canada, but it was "nevertheless legitimate."

We get it, even if you'd rather we didn't.

You're fortunate, in that your proverbial bull will never be gored by the - far more honest - conservatives in this country.