Naw, we don’t need to count *every* vote….
On October 14 Liberal Ujjal Dosanjh won his seat in Vancouver South by a margin of 33 votes, which under Elections Canada rules triggered an automatic recount. Here’s the curious thing, though: the judge in charge of the recount didn’t open all the ballot boxes. According to some sources, only 28 out of 184 ballot boxes — fifteen percent — were counted, after which the judge declared Dosanjh the winner by a now diminished margin of 22 votes. The Conservative candidate, Wai Young, said only “a sampling” of ballot boxes were recounted.
A sampling? In such a tight race, and with each counted box showing the race to be tightening, why on earth is it reasonable to stop after counting fifteen percent of the ballot boxes? Is it just too tedious, or…? And if a recount of fifteen percent of boxes brought Donanjh’s lead down from 33 to 22, wouldn’t that suggest that there might be some other, different numbers further down in all those uncounted ballot boxes? In Brossard-La Prairie for example, the BQ candidate who was declared the winner on election night by a margin of 102 votes was found by a recount to have lost to the Liberal candidate by a margin of 69 votes — a 172 vote swing.
Joanne at Blue Like You:
“What it all really boils down to is this: Why was there only a partial recount done in Vancouver South when the vote differential between the incumbent and the closest runner-up started to decrease?
“The second question is, do we have a right to know? Should Canadian voters be given some kind of explanation as to why this decision was made?
“The third question is, what kind of recount process is occurring in all the other ridings? If every vote gets counted in all other recounts, then why is Vancouver South the exception?”
This whole recount-“sample” procedure is fishy. There’s no good reason to not count all the votes cast. The usual suspects in the MSM aren’t concerned about the issue, but you can find info and links at Blue Like You.
UPDATE: Candidate Wai Young will be taking her case for a full recount to the BC Supreme Court on Thursday. (h/t Ruth)
“It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”
~Joseph Stalin
Elections Canada admitted whose side they were on when they investigated the CPC offices to see if money was spent at the federal or constituency level which is a bigger crime apparently than the liberals who just stole at least a million we know of and who were never investigated even though they know at least 10 MP’s are supposed to have the money.
MP’s who by my understanding should never be allowed to run again.
Wouldn’t this count as elections fraud or something similar under elections Canada?
Shouldn’t this person be in jail about now?
Stop confusing Canadian law with American law!
Unless there is a specific law stating that all the ballots must be counted, they do not have to do it. They, are the Queens government and are sovereign and as such do not answer to the people. This is what happens in an upside-down power structure like Canada and Britain has, God-Queen-Government-People.
IN the USA the default position is constitutionally mandated that the government act in a fair and transparent on all things government (with certain dubious exceptions). This is because the people are citizen-sovereigns and thereby omnipotent. The power flow goes God-Citizen-Town-County-State-Federal Government.
Its like in 04 I inquired as to where I could watch them count the votes and I was told basically to F Off. So much for democracy in Canuckistan.
I see the tin-foil hat brigade is out in force early this week.
If this is such an affront to democracy why is Young conceded and accepting defeat? There is an appeal process that Young doesn’t feel is necessary. Young is not even outraged or upset but only “disappointed” by the choice to sample the ballot boxes.
Elections Canada, headed by a Harper appointee, has followed a procedure and the results have been accepted by the parties involved. Time to move on to the next black helicopter conspiracy theory to whine about.
Would election ballots be covered under federal access to information laws? If one suspected impropriety could they count the ballots themselves?
And Ted… I don’t believe for a second that if it were the other way around you and all your leftard buddies wouldn’t have had a hissy fit over this already so how bout a nice steamy bowl of shut the hell up?
Well Ted, what is wrong with counting ALL the ballots? If the process lets a judge do a sample counting, then the process needs fixing. A margin of 22 votes out of tens of thousands cast is so slim that the only fair thing to do is count them all.
You lost, you lost, you lost, you lost, you lost, you lost, you lost, you lost, you lost, you lost, you lost…
Get over it!
Spoken like a true lawyer, Ted. The unwillingness (if true) of Young to not use an available appeal process speaks more about Young than the process. Canada’s electoral system, regardless of what anyone thinks of it, is an absolute system, not a statistical one. There is a principle to be upheld. Canadian law isn’t just a meal ticket for certain stakeholders, its actually supposed to be a model for societal behavior too. Who’d guessed you’d be such a libertarian?
Bobbo – just asking a simple question: if it is such an outrage, then why does the Conservative candidate not seem to care?
IF any of this story of “Sampling” of ballot boxes is at all true, then this is indeed cause for serious concern.
IF this “Sampling” is true, then it would presage a remarkable era of partisan-based and ideolog-driven, Liberal-leaning contempt FROM the courts.
IF this story has any basis in fact it would strongly underline the subverting of Canadian Charter and Constitutional Rights, at the hands of a “progressive,” activist ande Liberal-friendly judiciary.
IF these stories are true, then PMSH wasn’t too far off the mark when he posited the belief that the Liberal “stacked senate and judiciary would keep a tight reign on his government,” or words to that effect.
IF aathese stories are tru then we must be very nervous at the other recounts slated for this week.
IF these stories are true, why bother with any further elections? Elections Canada and an intimate coterie of proper-thinking judges could inform the nation of who exactly shall be in government for the next four years. Much more economical that way.
Low cash outlay, low level of democracy outlay as well.
IF these stories are true, the judge in question must be held responsible for forcing the lit match-stick to be moved to the tip of the fuse of the powder-keg.
tj
t.e.&.o.e.
Young “said she would take the weekend to ponder her next step.”
But, “The Canada Elections act gives the judge presiding over a recount the option of recounting votes from some or all of the ballot boxes, along with spoiled and rejected ballots…*the results of the recount are considered final*” (CP)
To reasonable people, i.e. excluding blog-comment remora like Ted — good morning, Ted — there’s no reasonable excuse to not count all the ballots, not when counting fifteen percent of them narrows the already tiny margin of victory.
You know, Ted, you miss the point with every new “point” you make, here or on any other thread. Diverting and naysaying sure opens up a range of random considerations — the possibilities are mindless — but it’s functionally useless. Go tool around with people who can actually locate a moral center in any of your “positions.”
The question remains: “What is wrong with counting ALL the ballots?” (JMD, 10:41) I’ve yet to hear any argument for only counting a few ballot boxes and then rendering judgement on who won.
The question remains: “What is wrong with counting ALL the ballots?” (JMD, 10:41) I’ve yet to hear any argument for only counting a few ballot boxes and then rendering judgement on who won.
Posted by: EBD at October 27, 2008 11:17 AM
Totally agree with this.
Reminds me of a Reform candidate in Edmonton who won her riding. Her opponent demanded a recount and ended up with around 130 more ballots than there were constituents. When Linda Robinson filed a complaint with Elections Canada, the response was literally “sour grapes”. It was reported that way in the newspaper. We were cheated out of our Reform candidate. I’ve always wondered how many of the 52 ridings in Ontario that Preston Manning came a close second in were also the result of cheating. Were we also cheated out of PM Manning?
Who won or lost is not really known for certain. The recount of only some of the ballots resulted in the chosen winner losing ten more votes. How do we know who a total recount would produce as the winner? We don’t so a cloud hangs over the whole process in this democracy. Looks like some votes are more equal than others.
Were we cheated out of Kyle Seeback? I want to know.
Free:
Whoever told you “basically to F Off” was probably reacting to your request as an ordinary citizen to witness the ballot count.
Next time you can get involved as a scrutineer or, as they’re called nowadays, a Candidate’s Representative.
Candidate’s Representatives (up to two per candidate) are permitted to remain behind after the polls close and watch (scrutinize) the count and are even permitted an opinion as to whether or not a ballot is rejected.
If you chose not to work for a particular candidate you can still be present by making yourself available as an election worker. Deputy Returning Officers (each poll consists of a Deputy Returning Officer and a Poll Clerk) are the only ones authorized to count the ballots while the Poll Clerk keeps track of votes cast.
Other election officials such as the Registration Officer and Information Officer are welcome to remain behind to watch the counting but are otherwise free to leave as soon as the polls close.
Get involved.
This past election we could have had up to 32 Candidate’s Representatives witnessing the count at our four poll station but only one was on hand.
Also, our local Elections Canada office was severly short-handed so some positions went unfilled. Some people consider it a fun way to meet their neighbours, take part in the democratic process and make two hundred bucks at the same time.
NeilD
If they were actually using the sample as a sample indicating the accuracy of the first count, Dosanjh lost by 30-40 votes.
Merle, not only have I not heard any arguments for counting a “sample” of ballot boxes in a really close contest, I can’t even *imagine* what those hypothetical arguments might be — “C’mon, that would take hours“? Or…?
I wish Elections Canada would explain the seemingly bizarre procedure.
What a bunch of silly Canucks we are, actually thinking that a recount meant you actually RECOUNT the frickin ballots! What are we, nuts?
Thanks for highlighting this story, Kate. This is a non-partisan issue. We should all be concerned.
Saskboy isn’t impressed either.
At the very least, I believe we are owed an explanation.
Well, after all of the fuss about the “stolen” election in Florida in ’01, a media consortion including the NYT’s went there and re-counted all of the ballots independently and confirmed that yes indeed Bush won on the recount.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/05/25/reminder-bush-won-florida-recounts-conducted-media
Recounting ALL ballots matters. It would have been a farce to have recounted only a sample with such a razor thin margin.
It’s always disingenuous lefties like Ted that want protected from democracy.
Voter Apathy!!!! This sends a clear message to Canadians that the one vote that every Canadian is entitled to is not worth counting.
No wonder voter turn out is declining.Vancouver south is full of new Canadians and they are being told that their vote does not count. Way to go Elections Canada!! Have all the honest ,hard working Canadians left Elections Canada? Is this what you stand for now. Speak up and tell the truth. By allowing Elections Canada to manipulate democracy, Canada is losing respect in the world.
As far as the MSM, well Canadians already know they crawl around the gutter. Shame!!Canadians deserve better.
re·count (r-kount)
tr.v. re·count·ed, re·count·ing, re·counts
1. To narrate the facts or particulars of. See Synonyms at describe.
2. To enumerate.
recount
Verb
to tell the story or details of [Old French reconter]
It obvious Elections Canada is going by the old French definition of “recount” and the story or narrative is that Liberal Ujjal Dosanjh has won Vancouver South, end of story.
EBD:
The point I am making is quite simple: if you are going to publish a post implying some outrageous corruption is involved then why does the candidate, who had scrutineers at every ballot, not share your outrage or concern over corruption.
I happen to agree with you that every ballot should be re-counted in such a situation, just like they should have been in Florida in 2001 (funny, how quickly the sides flip on principles when it is now in their favour to re-count every cast ballot!).
The question you raise in your post was not about who won or not, but whether there are corrupt practices involved. As I said, Young had scrutineers available and is dissappointed not outraged.
What I find outrageous – and the left is just as guilty – is that lately whenever there is an unwanted results partisans go full hilt for the jugular. In this case, it can’t be that the Conservative lost, it can’t be that it was even simply a miscount, but the WHOLE system is corrupt and favouring the other side!!!
The sky isn’t falling Mr. Little.
So did a Liberal PM appoint this judge ?
How much money did this judge contribute to which Federal Party ?
EBD – It just amazes me that the elected democratic government of Canada would not do this on it’s own. We are a country that sends rep’s to other countries that are experiencing democratic problems in vote counting. Then we do this?.
As “NielD” put it, they earn $200 for the day as a elections counter/monitor, kind of pales in comparison of the “$300 million?” they spent to get elected as a representatives of the Canadian Parliament.
308 seats/10 volunteer’s per seat @ $200 per volunteer = $308000.
1 judge to give his election Canada verdict = @ least $308000 plus all benefits with retirement for life.
I don’t know about you but I would have paid the volunteer’s another 2 days pay and recounted the works. That would have cost $2000 and they could of took out of the “GG’s” budget for their families vacation plans for France.
“GG” shouldn’t mind because country comes first.
Ted, I never said that the Conservative candidate didn’t lose, I’m saying it’s impossible for anyone on earth to actually *tell* who won if you don’t actually count the ballots. If counting, say, fifteen or twenty percent narrows the margin from 33 to 21 votes, there’s no reason to stop counting.
I never said the system is favouring the other side, either, and I never said the whole system is corrupt. I just believe — as do you, I now understand, now that you’ve said so — that it’s important to actually count all the votes. It’s not rocket science — separate the ballots into two giant bins and then count them all.
I can’t think of any reason not to. It’s hard to believe it’s even an issue in Canada. Just unfathomable, really.
If sampling the ballots instead of counting them all isn’t evidence of corruption, and no reasonable explanation exists for not counting them all, then why are the ballots being sampled?
Who instituted sampling at all and what end can it serve if not some corrupt end?
If samping is preferable to counting why not abolish elections and just rely on polls.
Canadian election practices are, to the uninitiated, somewhat odd. I posted an account of my experience as a scrutineer in a federal by-election several election cycles in the past (http://bolditalic.com/quotulatiousness_archive/004044.html), which was when I discovered one of the biggest hurdles for small parties to grow to being bigger parties: no matter how many votes you receive, they still have to be _counted_ correctly.
Only a total recount will clear the air. The people of the riding should demand it as should the candidates and their respective parties and all of us who value our democratic right to vote and be counted.
The Judge in this case is making poor judgment, it’s not a court case he’s dealing with, it’s people’s rights to have their votes counted and recounted if necessary and in their entirety.
There’s no other excuse, it’s totally unacceptable and no one can excuse this practice for any reason.
Ted once again misses the point. Follow the link. Lot’s of info on EC regulations.This isn’t over.
And we know that if it was the CPC candidate that ‘won’ by counting only a sampling of ballot boxes the media would be swarming over this and it would be the Ballot-gate scandal of ’08.
I am so looking forward to PMSH running the government as if he has a majority.Time to clean up the beaurocracy.
Has anyone in MSM picked this up?
I notice CTV.ca still has the feature on Couilllard…cause that is soooo newsworthy.
I would be completely shocked if this went any further than the blogs. Shocked.
You’re a dumb-ass, Ted. Gore only wanted a partial in selected Dem-heavy counties. Bush’s lawyers said, “No way, padre,” and the rest is history.
But don’t worry. It wouldn’t have mattered. Bush would have won anyway even then:
Oh, and it was in 2000, not 2001, but then we’ve already established you’re an idiot.
First we had landslide Anne, now we have….(with a little help from his friends!!)
Judges of provincial Supreme Courts are appointed by the Federal Minister of Justice. (39 Justices make up the amazingly powerful Cdn Judicial Council)
Patrick Dohm was first appointed to the BC Supreme Court by Jean Chretien in 1980 and subsequently elevated to Associate Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of BC by Allan Rock in 1995.
Could we get a grip here folks? Personal attacks are NOT the accepted fallback position at Daimnation, when in disagreement, eh?
as for the topic:
a) I just assumed that “recount” meant that EVERY ballot was examined, approved, and counted, under the close personal supervision of a rigorously honest Judge.
b) I’d be right pissed off if it was MY ballot that was being ignored.
c) this process isn’t a ‘recount’ by any stretch of the word. What it IS is a statistical analysis of the accuracy of the ORIGINAL count…and that seems to have been proven inaccurate.
bluetech…..Of course the media has not picked up on this,they are too busy reporting on the American air strikes in Syria and Pakistan.According to an”expert”the Americans are just killing civilians and turning the populace against them.I’m surprised that no American tourists have been killed in these countries with such indiscriminate bombing.
Oops (*very embarrassed expression*) make that SDA…and delete the personal attack not being the fallback position concept.
(note to self: more coffee)
ted – I don’t think you can object to our outrage at the Judge not recounting all the ballots by saying that Ms Young was not reported by the MSM as ‘upset’ but only as ‘disappointed’ – and that we ought to accept her MSM-reported reaction.
It is obvious that the judge, after opening only a small number of boxes, realized that Dosanjh was losing – with a ‘win’ down from 33 to 22, and refused to open the rest of the boxes.
What I can’t find in Elections Canada, in their procedures of Counting Ballots 2.7.2, is any mention that the judge counts only a SAMPLE rather than all the ballots.
Does anyone know where, legally, in a recount, a judge has the right to recount only a sample rather than all the ballots? As I said, in the Election Canada act I’m looking at, dealing with recounts – all the ballots have to be recounted.
Oops (*very embarrassed expression*) make that SDA…and delete the personal attack not being the fallback position concept.
(note to self: more coffee)
Re: NeilD’s post @ 11:42AM
This past election, I did my civic duty by voting and then acting as scrutineer on behalf of my CPC candidate up here in Vancouver Island North.
I was informed that it was largely ceremonial, as there are enough safeguards in the Election Act to prevent cheating and skullduggery, but remained skeptical.
The 2 ladies running our table were both dippers of the first order, and somehow unnerved when I showed up as the scrutineer for the Conservatives.
Our constituency office received “bingo cards” periodically throughout the day, which just showed circled numbers of eligible voters who had voted, and when, throughout the day. I had asked my team leader what was to prevent someone from voting twice, or even more, at a station run by a friend, and they claimed it was next to impossible, yet the table I scrutinized showed 5 voter numbers circled twice, at different times of the day.
When voting closed, we counted votes and it was close. My table had the NDP incumbent ahead by 8 votes, but every other table had the CPC candidate ahead. He eventually was declared winner when all the ridings were tallied.
So how does potential fraud occur? Easy. X comes in at 7AM, votes at an assigned station manned by his/her friend for party Y. He/she returns at 11AM and repeats the process, because it’s his/her friend still registering. This can occur several times without raising suspicion, especially if the cheater changes clothing. The colluding party simply draws a line through the voter’s name repeatedly, then hands party X another ballot.
Now, I have no idea whether the person who voted repeatedly voted for the winner or loser. I made sure the ballots were all inspected properly and the votes recorded correctly. If one person was responsible for several of those ballots is open to conjecture, but this I know full well – voting fraud exists, and probably always will.
I’ve checked out the Elections Canada Manual referring to judicial recounts, which is section 2.7.2
This section says – and since this post has been rejected twice, I’ll only include phrases, but, the phrases are:
“counting all of the ballots” and “each ballot is counted again”.
There is no statement that refers to any partial recount. The words used are ‘all of the ballots’.
So, does anyone know where this reference to it being legal to only count some of the ballots comes from? Is it actually a rule or is it false?
“It is obvious that the judge, after opening only a small number of boxes, realized that Dosanjh was losing – with a ‘win’ down from 33 to 22, and refused to open the rest of the boxes.
ET – It is obvious that you don’t know what you are talking about. Please provide your evidence that a judge started opening boxes and then stopped the recount process when it went for Dosanjh. Obviously, you don’t have any.
“If this is such an affront to democracy why is Young conceded and accepting defeat?”
Well Ted, perhaps the candidate doesn’t have the funds left to fight on. Taking all this before a judge is expensive, and if you lose you wind up paying your competitors legal expensed. Trust me, I know because I’ve been down that road. How far are you willing to go in debt to protect your neighbour’s democratic rights Ted?
I find it down right scary that they only do partial recounts. Watching several election results at local level it was always interesting to see the votes from each poll as they came in and tying it to a particular geographical district. The polls by the universities tended to have different voting trends than say a poll from the suburbs or even the gov’mt housing. If they choose only a select number of boxes then who decides which ones to count?
There is a lot of talk down south about voter fraud but wouldn’t the old puprple voter’s thumb elliminate a lot of that fraud?
“The usual suspects in the MSM aren’t concerned about the issue…” because it helped a Liberal retain a seat that he may very well have actually lost to a Conservative. It’s a safe bet that were it the other way around, the Liberals’ lickspittle propagandists in the MSM would be screaming bloody murder.
Another thing Canada and America have in common-an MSM that is 90% incompetent, corrupt, biased.
EBD:
Thank you for your civil response. We agree that it is better for a re-count to be a re-count and not just a sampling. We also agree that there isn’t any justifiable reason not to do the whole thing. The only reason I can think of is where the apparently losing candidate questions the results of only one poll (i.e. results of one poll out of whack with others or with own knowledge of the riding), but even then, count the whole thing. For some reason it is an option available and it is the one chosen.
My point – and looking back I admit to blurring the lines between your post and the responses from commenters to it – is that if the people on the ground and present and with the most at stake in the results, i.e. the candidate and the CPC who had scrutineers at each poll, have not expressed any concern about corruption and voter fraud, I see no reason why so many here seem to just assume that the judge is corrupt.
This kind of tin-foil-hat-conspiracy-theory-all-the-institutions-are-lined-up-against-us whining and assuming by those on the extreme right and left is in my view a part of undermining of our democracy and the strengths of our country. The far left and the far right do it on every issue – it’s like they can’t understand why so few across the country support their view and why anyone would vote for the other side, so there must be some sort of institutional or corporate or foreign corruption at work. Because there could never be any other explanation.