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)
A full recount should be done.
If Young won and for some reason decides not to serve?
Step down, resign, whatever.
All this does is encourage more voter apathy.
“My vote doesn’t count? Forget about voting the next time…”
I left an earlier comment but it probably got stuck in the filter since it contained a link.
In any case, thanks for the traffic, Kate.
Dr. Dawg’s picked it up now, as has Kady O’Malley.
Hopefully we’ll get some answers with enough exposure.
Wow, I find myself agreeing with Ted. Will wonders never cease. 😉
Seriously, though, although it seems fishy to me, and seems only right that a recount involve counting all ballots, I cannot, in any good conscience, pretend to know why the judge chose not to count all the ballots, but just a sampling.
Regardless of the reason, even if it’s allowed by EC edict (which I’m not sure it is–seems a little fuzzy to me), it’s wrong. All ballots must be counted in order to make for a legitimate recount. Otherwise, at best, we can call it a re-estimate.
I do find it interesting, though, that this has not been picked up as a huge story in the MSM. Again, I won’t speculate as to why. I just think this is a bigger story than Coulliard’s … other things.
ted – what is obvious is that the judge didn’t do a full recount. Therefore, it is equally obvious that at some point in time, he stopped the recount.
My insertion of a cause as to WHY he stopped the recount is, certainly speculative. But there has to be a reason why he didn’t fulfil section 2.7.2 of the Electoral Act on Judicial Recounts and count all the ballots. So – what’s your explanation?
After all, you speculated that since the MSM did not report Ms Young as ‘upset’, then, according to you, she wasn’t upset and that meant the win/lose issue was not serious.
Again, I’d like to ask if anyone knows where it says that it is an Elections Canada Rule where a recount, carried out by a judge, can be only partial rather than full. As I’ve said, I can’t find such a rule in Elections Canada. Instead, it says the opposite – that all ballots are recounted.
I seriously doubt that the Judge is doing the counting personally. Therefore we can discount laziness, shortness of time, and expense as considerable reasons for not doing a complete recount of all the ballots.
Corruption is the only option left as an explanation.
If Ted or anyone else has no explanation why ALL of the ballots have not been counted, it is unreasonable to discount corruption as an explanation in absence of any other because sampling the ballots only IS corruption of the democratic system and corruption is the only explanation.
(Occam’s Razor)
It has nothing to do with laziness! Check out Dawg’s Blog as well (someone whom I argued with all the time as he’s trapped in postmodernism).
But Dawg is saying the same thing. There’s no rule in the Elections Canada Manual that allows a recount to be partial. The recount can be by several methods.
Arithmetic, where you simply tally the results of the already-counted ballots, to check for errors in addition.
Recount, where you, or your supervised agents, recount ALL the ballots. The recount can include only the already-defined as valid ones, or the whole set. But, it’s a full recount.
This hasn’t been done in Dosanjh’s riding. The Electoral Mandate requires a judicial recount in that area because of the low win ratio. The judge didn’t carry out the legal requirement.
Again, this ‘myth’ that a judge can carry out a recount by doing only a sample of the boxes – where does that story come from? It’s not in the Law!
Ted; in your last response to EBD you were trying to push Dumbo out of the livingroom. It’s exactly for the reasons you hold up for ridicule (public distrust) that a full and absolutely transparent recount is ESSENTIAL!
This lack of confidence in our institutions is a growing cancer.
“what is obvious is that the judge didn’t do a full recount. Therefore, it is equally obvious that at some point in time, he stopped the recount.”
That is illogical, ET. If the judge determined at the outset that only samples would be counted, then he did not “stop the recount”.
So again ET, please provide your evidence that the Judge “refused” to open other boxes, which of course implies that he was otherwise expected or obliged to do so.
Based on what we know from this article, Young was “disappointed” and the Conservative Party has not complained of corruption or even that the judge’s sampling process was improper.
Like I said, I think there should always be a full re-count, but I don’t have any evidence of corruption or impropriety so, unlike the conspiracy theorists, I don’t jump to conclude corruption and bias like so many here.
Corruption and bias charges for the right are like racist charges for the left. So overused and used in such an automatic knee-jerk reaction manner without any connection to available facts that the terms become meaningless.
There is real racism out there and the left have done themselves and all of us a great disservice by casting out cries of racism whenever a minority is involved. Similarly, there may be real corruption in our voting systems, at the very least the need for certain reforms, but the constant cries of corruption and fraud drown out any real voice for reform.
“Corruption and bias charges for the right are like racist charges for the left. So overused and used in such an automatic knee-jerk reaction manner without any connection to available facts that the terms become meaningless.”
~Ted
Rather than slander the reasonable Right by comparing it to emotionally driven Left why don’t you have ANY explanation to offer as an alternative to corruption in this particular instance?
An blanket ad hominem attack against the Right and a strawman argument, no matter how general, isn’t going to cut it.
If you don’t have an alternative explanation you have no reason to rule out corruption.
The point, dear Oz, is that accusing someone of fraud and corruption is an extremely serious charge, espcially if they are in a position of power and authority or a judge.
Yet, with no evidence, and as far as anyone is aware the principle parties not making any claims of even impropriety, let alone criminal conduct, so many automatically assume that corruption must be disproven before it can be ruled out.
I think that it is a habit of many conservatives here to make that kind of assumption and I think it is bad for democracy to always so automatically assume corruption without any evidence. I think the more obvious and stronger and more logical conclusion is that, if there was even a hint of corruption or fraud, we would hear about from those that were – unlike everyone here – actually there or actually had a direct stake in the results, i.e. Wai Young and the Conservative Party.
Even Joanne True Blue, who started this with her post, doesn’t claim corruption. That is only an add-on by the conservative conspiracy theorists here who, like conspiracy theorists of all political stripes, have never relied on evidence to support their pet conspiracy.
As ET has stated, the law calls for the recounting of every ballot.
The purpose of a Judge is to see that the letter of the law is adhered to.
The Judge is not adhering to the law.
The alternative explanation to corruption and the Judge failing to do a job of work is…(crickets chirping)
I have an explanation, you Ted dearie, do not.
“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!
-Devin Maxwell
Devin (mate) -a.k.a “Numb-nuts”
If you can’t see that is common sense for ALL votes to be counted in a close election then you (my friend) are a complete moron.
Discussions with people like Devin are like playing cards with my brothers kids!
Alienated, you have brought up another issue that was reported over at Blue like you: voting more than once. Apparently, at this polling station the tally book of the DRO hac 500 voters marked off but there were 800 ballots in the box! The whole election could be overturned if this fraud occurred in other ridings.
I was a scrutineer for my CPC M.P. here in the Yukon and I heard two very disturbing conversations about multiple voting because I stepped outside for a smoke beside the pay telephone – where I heard two people talking about their success about being ‘sworn in’ and voting again. EC Canada was doing all the bingo sheets FOR us – I was told there was no point in me going over to the polling station because there would be nothing for me to do (at the CPC office!). I went anyway and I saw quite a few other irregularities that really upset me. This was another ‘tainted’ election, IMO.
Maybe we won in a landslide but do we want a ‘do over’? Maybe people should participate more and take control of our Democracy before EC Canada takes it over for us.
Maybe people should participate more and take control of our Democracy before EC Canada takes it over for us.
Jema 54, if there is one lesson to take away from this, you just said it there. Don’t assume that everyone will play by the rules.
Get involved. There are never enough scrutineers.
yes, ted, the judge was obliged, legally, to open all the boxes and do a full recount. Read Elections Canada, Judicial Recount, Section 2.7.2.
There is nothing in this law that enables a partial recount. Nothing.
Kady O’Malley has made an error in her blog, when she posts a section from this same Elections Canada blog (I’ve tried to post sections but Kate’s spam rejects my posts when I do so). Kady’s section is from General Information, Backgrounder, and tell us that a judicial recount can refer to ‘some or all of the ballots’. But, when you go into the Detailed Section on Judicial Recounts, you find that this general term refers to counting only the valid ballots, or to include the spoiled and rejected ones as well.
Again, a recount is, legally, to include all ballots. Not just a few boxes. All boxes.
Ted, I agree with you about ‘conspiracy theories’ which are emotional rather than rational. But, this fact, that the judge did not carry out the judicial recount according to the rules of Elections Canada, ie, to count ALL boxes of ballots, is an illegal action on his part.
Could you provide an explanation for his failure?
And your bringing in that Young and the CPC haven’t complained (how do you know this?) is not relevant. Are you seriously supporting a legal system where, if the victim doesn’t complain, then the illegal action is OK?
Oz:
There are lots of other far more likely and far more logical possibilities that are far more consistent with the evidence.
Maybe he made a mistake in applying the law or was in fact incompetent. Maybe we are all misinterpreting Young’s comment – maybe Young was disappointed that the judge chose to count only valid ballots as he is permitted instead of spoilt ballots too. The Elections Canada website says that a sample is allowed – “The judge makes the recount from the statements contained in the ballot boxes, or recounts some or all of the ballots returned by the deputy returning officers. The judge then totals the ballots cast for each candidate as well as spoiled or rejected ballots” – so maybe he just decided not to go on. Maybe he was lazy.
Again, if those who were ACTUALLY there and have an ACTUAL DIRECT stake in the results are not complaining about corruption and fraud… and the only ones who are are the fringe in the blogosphere… then most reasonable people looking at this from the outside would conclude that (1) they don’t know and (2) there is no evidence of corruption.
And Oz, others, just a tip: if you want to go on libelling someone, the absence of any supporting evidence is not a defence.
I talked about this subject on Readers Tips last Saturday after reading the articles on it in the Herald & on ctv.ca
How can you have a Fair & Unbiased Recount if all the ballots are not checked, This does not make any sense at all.
I also said that if the shoe was on the other foot, well think about it.
Today looking around i see this is making traction with NNW now posting a few pickups on the subject.
And No i don’t believe this is going to Quietly go away.
This partial recount is an outrage. Given the trend for the commie win to decrease as more ballot boxes were recounted it appears that the conservative candidate won. Time to flood elections Canada with protest letters.
Is there any option for a private citizen to take this issue to court? I don’t think that most of us are interested in making yet more contributions to fight totalitarianism but this is a cause I’d be willing to put in $100.
Ted, you’ve lost the argument give up.
There can be no legitimate excuse for not recounting all ballots, to do anything less is a sham,a scam, a farce and a mockery of our democratic process. If this is the case, why bother to recount at all?
This is a glaring example of incompetency or bad judgment on the part of the Judge. He has no idea what opening and counting all ballots will reveal unless they’re counted. We take our democratic system seriously and it’s not a guessing game.
ted – that quote from Elections Canada General Information does NOT mean that a ‘sample’ is allowed in a judicial recount.
When you move from reading ‘General information’ to the section 2.7.2 on the actual details of a judicial recount, you see that the ballots referred to aren’t a sample. The recount can refer only to valid ballots, or, he can also recount both the valid ballots plus all spoiled and rejected ballots.
Again, this interpretation of the General Information sentence to mean that a recount allows a sample is a false interpretation. Go into the actual rules for a judicial recount, and the words used are ‘all’. The actual words are ‘counting all the ballots’ and ‘each ballot is counted again’.
There is absolutely no legal grounds for the judge to have only counted a few boxes. It’s all the valid ballots, or all the valid ballots plus all spoiled and rejected ones. He didn’t do this.
There must be a legal recount.
Freda:
I’d be frustrated by losing at cards to my nieces and nephews too…
Not having voted in the last two or three Federal elections, I was surprised to discover they are still using the old style ballots where I voted this time. No optical scanners/counters in use anywhere? Seem to recall them being used in provincial and municipal elections and even some other elections in the past.
Not having voted in the last two or three Federal elections, I was surprised to discover they are still using the old style ballots where I voted this time. No optical scanners/counters in use anywhere? Seem to recall them being used in provincial and municipal elections and even some other elections in the past.
Liz J: I think we are in full agreement so I’m not sure what you mean by “lost the argument”. My single and only issue here is that no one has enough evidence – or any evidence for that matter – that this was out and out corruption and fraud. And the evidence points to any number of possibilities that don’t involve fraud. That’s all. Oz, ET, EBD, etc. are libelling a judge by claiming so and I find the casual fact-free conclusions of fraud and corruption offensive for the reasons stated above.
On whether or not there should be a full recount – whether or not a partial recount is permitted – we are in violent agreement as they say.
ET:
Still waiting for your evidence that the judge deliberately refused to keep counting and stopped the counting process.
Any shred of evidence? Your guesses don’t count.
Alienated’s comments are very interesting and I’m surprised that elections Canada hasn’t gone to a computerized database system to ensure that people vote only once. I had the option in voting in one of two ridings this election since I can argue that I live either in the interior of BC or Vancouver. Having to come up with some identification which shows my address was a problem as I not have mail going to 6 different addresses (trying to simplify this now). I chose to vote in the interior as the Conservative candidate there won and it was a novel experience to actually vote for someone in a federal election who won. (Aside from Stan Waters in 1988).
As it turned out, I didn’t have to provide proof of address, or even official government ID (Hospital ID badges seem to be accepted almost unquestioningly) but I could have flown to Vancouver and voted there as my drivers license still has a Vancouver address.
It would be very simple to setup a temporary network which would enter the names of everyone who voted in a computerized database and check if they had already voted or whether they had voted in two places. I presume that the voters list has been checked to look for duplicates as one can get the situation of two people with identical names and birthdates living in different parts of the country.
I don’t like the idea of electronic voting unless the system is open source as the US system has the potential for considerable abuse. Paper ballots are a lot harder to forge (because one needs so many of them) and a combination of a paper ballot together with electronic system to ensure that people don’t vote more than once would probably be optimum. The purple dye on the thumb has come up but that system is a lot easier to foil with various solvents than a computerized database.
I’ve always assumed that when a recount was done all of the ballots were recounted. I’m really shocked to learn otherwise. I’ve just checked Elections Canada’s website and the results of the recount in Vancouver South STILL have not been posted. This must be investigated.
Don’t be shocked Bruce.
The way this was done isn’t the way it’s supposed to be done.
A sample count isn’t described in the Election Recount Rules.
Only a full recount is.
The Judge with the duty to carry out the recount is not carrying out his duty according to the law in this particular instance.
ted – grow up and don’t introduce a red herring into this discussion.
I said it was speculation. But speculation based on the observable facts. What are the facts? That he didn’t carry out his legal requirement – which is to count ALL ballots. That’s what it says in the Elections Canada rule book for a judicial recount. All ballots have to be recounted.
I’m equally waiting for your evidence that Ms Young was ‘not upset’; and therefore, that the situation is not serious. Oh, and your opinion on why he stopped the count and didn’t count all ballots in all boxes.
Don’t get into a red herring issue just because you and I have little in common to say on any issue.
The Court Party is again interfering with electoral process in Canada.
It was not enough that they handed blood stained Order of Canada to Morgentaler on the eve of election and rubbed it into faces of all social conservatives living in this country by showing them that their protests mean nothing. Now they send their goon from Canadian Judicial Council “to do a recount” and he blatantly refused to do what was expected of him.
Once again they will show all Canadians who is running this country.
What red herring ET? You said it was obvious that he refused to continue counting. I’m still waiting for a scintilla of evidence to support what you claim is “obvious” corruption.
All that any of you know is that the Canadian Press has reported that Young said she was disappointed that not all of the ballots were counted. I guess we also know that the Conservatives have not made any press release regarding this and that Young has conceded.
There is no law that requires all ballots to be counted. Read the act. The judge can either count the valid ballots or excluding spoilt ballots, or all of the ballots including spoilt ballots.
Was Young disappointed that the judge only did a sampling? Or was Young disappointed that the judge only chose to count valid ballots? If it was fraud, then why have we not heard a peep from the Conservative Party, from Young or the many scrutineers for the the Conservatives or the NDP?
I don’t know. And unlike some conspiracy theorists here I prefer to draw my conclusions on what I know and what the evidence says. And based on the evidence we have, what we know (and not what we guess or hope for), I can’t see how anyone conclude there is fraud.
This is politics: no one waits for all the evidence to come in before making accusations (as we see in this post and commentary), and yet we have no comments from anyone actually involved, only the wild speculation from those on the fringe in the blogosphere.
For heaven’s sake, ted, the law is clear. Don’t now inform us that ‘there is no law that says that all ballots must be counted’. What country are you living in? The Elections Act is clear: ALL ballots must be counted. Not a sample. Not just a few boxes. But ALL ballots.
Don’t slither, as you usually do, by trying to introduce a different semantic meaning to the term ALL. The Election Act is very clear about judicial recounts. It refers to all valid ballots or, all valid ballots plus all spoiled and rejected ballots. The key term is ‘all’.
This set of all ballots (valid or valid plus spoiled and rejected) is not semantically equivalent to ‘sampling’. It’s not semantically equivalent to ‘just counting a few boxes’. So, stop slithering.
The problem is – the judge did not carry out his duties as required by the Election Act. Section 2.7.2. OK?
He didn’t count all ballots. He just counted those in a few boxes.
And now, you are informing us that the judge counted all ‘valid ballots’? Heh, that’s not what we’ve been told. We’ve been told that he only counted those in a few boxes. The Chronicle Herald and the CBC both reported that he chose to open only a few boxes. But, the Law requires that he open all, and count all the valid ones. Or, all the valid ones plus all the spoiled ones. But, he has no right to only open a few boxes.
Again, your thesis that the victim is not upset but is merely disappointed, is irrelevant. The law is the law, no matter what the victor or victim feels about it.
Again, you haven’t told us why you think the judge only opened a few boxes and didn’t count all the ballots.
ET:
Still have that reading comprehension problem I see.
What part of “I don’t know” is difficult for you to understand? What part of “he should count all the ballots” do you not understand? What part of “there isn’t enough evidence to conclude corruption” do you not understand?
You fail to make any sense whatsoever, ET. Yes the law permits the judge to re-count only validly cast ballots instead of all ballots. But that is, as I SAID, not relevant.
So stop trying to change the issues ET. You made the assertion that it was “obvious” he refused and that it was “obvious” that he “stopped” the re-count. I’ve asked again and again where is you evidence? Where is your evidence of corruption?
ET you have done your reseach and there seem to be no point engaging with TED.Joannes blog has lot’s of info on the format as well.
If the judge decided not to follow EC rules it’s quite simple:
1.He’ didn’t read the rules
2.He’s intellectually challenged
3.He’s got an agenda
4.He ran out of time…had to get home to a dinner party.
Gee we best not to second guess any motives here, eh Ted?
If only 28 of 184 ballot boxes were counted and produced an 11 vote shift in the results, could we assume that counting 56 more boxes would produce a tie with the 22 vote margin disappearing entirely? If so, count 57 or more boxes and Ujal loses; count them all and he’s finished.
On the other hand perhaps less than an 11 vote difference was discovered by counting 28 boxes, and the actual difference, say 1 or 2 votes was extrapolated or projected into 11 votes for the entirety.
Either way, it’s just too close to call. Being a late Friday afternoon in a stuffy recount room, should have no bearing, or adjourning without properly completing the recount.
As far as the so-called “conspiracy theory” from an obviously bored reporter, if she’s this disinterested in her job, let her find a new one. I am insulted by her flippant suggestion. Democratic process is more important than cheap shots.
If 28 boxes were re-counted then the re-count was started. If less than 184 boxes were re-counted, then re-count was stopped before it was complete. The definitions of these words and the temporal behaviour involved is a matter of English and logic, Ted’s opinions don’t enter into it.
After 40 years of Socialism what did we expect? Anyway I do believe that the only way to fix it, is to start reforming every govermental Department, by the Govener General. For sure have some referendums on the topics our politicians weaseled out of to the courts, & let this society mend by a Democratic consensus.
Just heard on the news that Young will be going to court for another recount. Perhaps she is more upset than Ted thinks.
Randall, do you have a link or at least can you give the news source? Thanks.
The issue is getting serious blogo-legs — thanks, Joanne. Right now the questions are growing faster than the answers. Dr. Dawg suggested at his site that Elections Canada is the wrong target here; the judge did have discretion, he says, but”counting some valid ballots and not others is not among those options.” At Macleans.ca Kady O’Malley’s disagrees, saying that the B.C. judge’s “sampling” recount is within the guidelines set out in the Canada Elections act. Dawg replied, in her comments, that she is mistaken, and she responded with a link to the EC rules, which seem to favour her interpretation: the night of an election, all ballots boxes must of course be opened and counted — rooty-toot-toot for that one — but if there’s a recount, which, if I understand correctly, only occurs when a race is very close, that’s when a mere “sampling” (to use Con. candidate Young’s “a sample”) is actually allowed:
“The judge makes the recount from the statements contained in the ballot boxes, or recounts some or all of the ballots returned by the deputy returning officers. The judge then totals the ballots cast for each candidate as well as spoiled or rejected ballots.” (emph. mine).
I’d be curious to know when — in what “era” — that bit was written in, and by who. Who is the author? EC? An EC lawyer? Some party lawyer? Or was it passed in parliament and by the Senate, or was it the work of EC bureaucrats, or…? It’s bloody ridiculous, regardless. If we read that in Zimbabwe a judge could recount just some ballot boxes in a close election and then declare the winner, we wouldn’t be surprised but…just strange.
From the comments at BLY: “I do agree with (O’Malley) that in Van South, the judge seems to have unilaterally decided on his course of action. However, I think it is incumbent on Elections Canada to step in and apply the rules, even if he is an Associate Chief Justice. Elections Canada seem to have no problem playing hardball with the federal government, but of course the local EC people may be somewhat less combative.” (emph. mine)
Right now, it seems like that judge WAS playing by the rules, as far as I can tell, which isn’t surprising. But who the heck made these rules, and what were they thinking?
BTW Ted, if you can’t see by now that the issue of how upset Young was/wasn’t as described by CP ISN’T THE ISSUE HERE, perhaps you should go somewhere where her described mood is seen by other commenters as being the hinge/critical issue. Good luck with that.
You’ve made your point repeatedly, implying that it somehow obviates the real issue — that all the ballots weren’t counted, in a close and tightening race — but it’s a complete red herring. Just drop it.
Moving on, it would be really helpful if someone from Elections Canada, or the person/people who wrote the rules, would explain the logic behind them.
The news source is cknw.com
The latest wee bit of good news….Thursday Supreme Court for a re-count of the re-count!!
http://www.cknw.com/Channels/Reg/NewsLocal/Story.aspx?ID=1035772
Thanks, Ruth.
http://cknw.com/Channels/Reg/NewsLocal/Story.aspx?ID=1035772
“The woman who lost a close race in the federal riding of Vancouver-South isn’t giving up the fight. The initial Count in the October 14th election gave Ujjal Dosanjh a 33-vote lead over Conservative rival Wai Young.
“The close result triggered an automatic recount (that) reduced Dosanjh’s lead to 22 votes.
“Now Young is off to BC Supreme court Thursday to ask for another count.”
Yes. If she loses she should take it to the Canadian Supreme Court.
Thanks, Ruth and Jan! This is awesome!!
SDA gets results! Cheers Joanne – I know you deserve HUGE credit for this blogburst because you started it!
Sorry, should have mentioned I heard it on CKNW radio. They didn’t have it on their website yet so no link was available.
The story from Canadian Press (on MacLeans site)has more details. Judge Dohm could turn this down and the Conservative spokesman says in that event they may have to go to the Court of Appeals!!!!
http://www.macleans.ca/canada/wire/article.jsp?content=n1027127A
EBD- no, as I pointed out in several posts above, Kady O’Malley was quite wrong in her interpretation of the rules.
She provided a link to only the General Information part of the Elections Canada Manual. It just gives an overview of counting and recounts. But, when you go into the specific section in that same manual on judicial recounts, you realize that the phrase ‘some or all of the ballots’ refers to ALL of the valid ballots OR ALL of the valid ballots PLUS the spoiled and rejected ballots.
Get it? ‘Some’ doesn’t refer to a sample; it It means that you don’t have to also count the spoiled and rejected ballots. Just all the valid ones.
I repeat. Go to section 2.7.2 and it sets out in clear and exact detail how the recount must be done. It’s very specific. The words used are ‘all the ballots’. Kady’s failure to check the Manual for the specific rules has led her to that incorrect interpretation of the general information wording.
No, the judge was NOT playing by the rules. He was in violation of them!
Thanks ET, I take your word for it.
If the judge was in violation of EC rules, Young’s upcoming appeal on Thursday to the B.C. Supreme Court should be a slam-dunk — unless all recounts are in fact “final.”
A lot of people are going to be watching this one.
(BTW, h/t to you too, randall g)
Hm mm, Cod. I smell fish!