2011 Canadian Election Thread

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Not so fast!

Dammit! OK. Anarchy it is!

(that wasn't really a lie though, just a misnomer. Can I stll be asst. Dictator?)

[Ark2]

Here's an interesting quote that's emerged in the aftermath of the election:

Unlike most campaign ads, these didn’t appear on the party’s website or on YouTube. The Conservatives never announced they were running these ads. In British Columbia, the ads accused Layton of wanting to impose a gas tax through his carbon cap and trade scheme; and of scheming with the Bloc separatists to form an usurping coalition. In Ontario, the ads were a hybrid of the Conservatives’ patriotic and anti-Ignatieff messages. They began with Harper standing tall while Canadian flags flapped and inspirational music played. Then they faded to the old TV footage of Ignatieff telling an American audience that the U.S. was “your country as much as it is mine.”

The ads were designed to push Liberal votes to the NDP. In the closing days of the campaign, the Conservatives were campaigning for Jack Layton in Ontario without admitting it. In the Conservative war room, staffers chipped in a few bucks for the traditional betting pool. The bulk of the betting action put the Conservatives between 151 and 165 seats. They would need 155 for a majority.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/08/t...ge-wave-rises/

[Canuck-Hater]

Originally Posted by Azure

Why should the media let it die? The NDP intentionally lied trying to get votes and now they should pay for it.

And the Conservatives havn't? Did you know its against the law to campaign on election day? Harper was on CKNW Vancouver and blatantly encouraged people to vote conservative on the radio.
Look most politicians are dishonest human beings thats just a sad fact. It would be hypocritical for any political party to call out this young MP
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/22...n-election-day

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

And the Conservatives havn't? Did you know its against the law to campaign on election day? Harper was on CKNW Vancouver and blatantly encouraged people to vote conservative on the radio.
Look most politicians are dishonest human beings thats just a sad fact. It would be hypocritical for any political party to call out this young MP
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/22...n-election-day

That law applies to paid advertising though. You can still ask people to vote for you, I'm virtually 100% sure of that.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Slava

That law applies to paid advertising though. You can still ask people to vote for you, I'm virtually 100% sure of that.

Your correct and he wasn't the only one who campaigned either.

I think I have a bit of an election hangover. I don't care about the NDP barmaid or which party crossed what legal line.

Lets see the budget and what else Harper has in store for Canadians. The great thing about a majority government is that one party gets the credit or the blame. It will be easy to know what Harper is all about by next election. I'm sure Harper was the safest choice on election day. This next 4 years will tell us if he was a good choice.

[Resolute 14]

I think the fake signatures on her nomination papers are the biggest concern for me. If those claims are accurate, that is outright fraud and cannot be explained away. The college diploma thing is easy - they probably asked her for a brief bio, she said she went to that school, and someone made a bad assumption.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I think the fake signatures on her nomination papers are the biggest concern for me. If those claims are accurate, that is outright fraud and cannot be explained away. The college diploma thing is easy - they probably asked her for a brief bio, she said she went to that school, and someone made a bad assumption.

The nomination papers were dealt with last week; Elections Canada looked into this and gave it the all clear. This latest part is just about the college diploma.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Slava

The nomination papers were dealt with last week; Elections Canada looked into this and gave it the all clear.

It will be up to the courts to ultimately decide on that matter.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fire

It will be up to the courts to ultimately decide on that matter.

Is it going to court? Last I saw Elections Canada was satisfied and the other candidates were unhappy...but I kind of take that with a grain of salt. While lots of people are laughing that this girl got voted in, I would really suck to have actually run a campaign against her and still lost.

[Ark2]

You need 100 signatures to be a candidate in a riding. She had 128. Even is those two signatures were forged, it doesn't make any difference. Other parties should just take heed that Quebec is in play and work on building support from the grass roots.

[Canuck-Hater]

Originally Posted by Slava

That law applies to paid advertising though. You can still ask people to vote for you, I'm virtually 100% sure of that.

Yes but thats not entirely true, yes it includes advertising but:

Types of offences

Sections 480 to 499 of the Canada Elections Act list the offence provisions, categorized according to whether intent is required, and the burden of proof required to prosecute them. Offences include:

• illegally attempting to influence the vote of an elector or the results of an election
• illegally hampering or delaying the electoral process
• contravening the limits and obligations set out for contributions and expenses, including circumventing, attempting to circumvent or colluding in circumventing the rules for ineligible contributors, for concealing a contributor's identity and for exceeding contribution limits
• contravening the limits and obligations set out for third party election advertising
• publishing the results of an election opinion poll during the blackout period or without the accompanying information required by the Act
• election advertising during the blackout period
• prematurely publishing election results
• partisan action by an election officer
• using personal information from a voters list or from the National Register of Electors for unauthorized purposes
• acting as an officer of a registered political party while knowing that the party does not include participating in public affairs among its essential objectives
• as a party leader, certifying a declaration or report while knowing that the document contains false or misleading information
• accepting or soliciting contributions for a political entity while representing to the contributor that part or all of the contribution could be transferred to some person or entity other than the registered party, candidate, leadership contestant or electoral district association
• failure to register (referendum committee)

To me what Harper did could fall under illegally attempting to influence the vote of an elector or the results of an election Could that be considered influencing the results of an election?

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

Yes but thats not entirely true, yes it includes advertising but:

Types of offences

Sections 480 to 499 of the Canada Elections Act list the offence provisions, categorized according to whether intent is required, and the burden of proof required to prosecute them. Offences include:

• illegally attempting to influence the vote of an elector or the results of an election
• illegally hampering or delaying the electoral process
• contravening the limits and obligations set out for contributions and expenses, including circumventing, attempting to circumvent or colluding in circumventing the rules for ineligible contributors, for concealing a contributor's identity and for exceeding contribution limits
• contravening the limits and obligations set out for third party election advertising
• publishing the results of an election opinion poll during the blackout period or without the accompanying information required by the Act
• election advertising during the blackout period
• prematurely publishing election results
• partisan action by an election officer
• using personal information from a voters list or from the National Register of Electors for unauthorized purposes
• acting as an officer of a registered political party while knowing that the party does not include participating in public affairs among its essential objectives
• as a party leader, certifying a declaration or report while knowing that the document contains false or misleading information
• accepting or soliciting contributions for a political entity while representing to the contributor that part or all of the contribution could be transferred to some person or entity other than the registered party, candidate, leadership contestant or electoral district association
• failure to register (referendum committee)

To me what Harper did could fall under illegally attempting to influence the vote of an elector or the results of an election Could that be considered influencing the results of an election?

Yeah... I really don't think he did anything wrong there. Asking people to get out and vote Conservative on election day is not a crime.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Here's an interesting quote that's emerged in the aftermath of the election:



http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/08/t...ge-wave-rises/

I've read all 6 parts, and that is the by far best part of the whole article. Harper and the Conservative are one hell of a political machine.

[yads]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

Yes but thats not entirely true, yes it includes advertising but:

To me what Harper did could fall under illegally attempting to influence the vote of an elector or the results of an election Could that be considered influencing the results of an election?

He didn't go around roughing people up if they didn't vote conservative. Nothing about what he did was illegal based on the list you provided.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Slava

Is it going to court? Last I saw Elections Canada was satisfied and the other candidates were unhappy...but I kind of take that with a grain of salt. While lots of people are laughing that this girl got voted in, I would really suck to have actually run a campaign against her and still lost.

Looks like the Conservatives and Liberals are not going to push this into the courts. So Elections Canada decision will stand but I don't think they really investigated the issues. They just said if you wanted to argue the signatures, the other parties should have done that before the election.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by yads

He didn't go around roughing people up if they didn't vote conservative. Nothing about what he did was illegal based on the list you provided.

Exactly, the only thing present here is typical left wing BS whining that always occurs when the candidate they oppose wins.

Chretien Majority in 1997: 38.46% Popular vote
Left wing Commentary: meh

Harper Majority in 2011: 39.62% Popular Vote
Left Wing Commentary: "Undemocratic", "fascist", "60% of the people want someone else", "illegal", "Thirteen new stars to appear on the US flag", "Health Care will be gutted", "Storm Troopers take the street and sieze candy from all babies, before harvesting said babies themselves to be ground into meat to be eaten at 24 Sussex!"

[Devils'Advocate]

That's pure BS. The commentary in 1997 was that this country was in dire, desperate need of proportional representation. Can you find me some Canadian leftist commentary AGAINST PR from 1997 or later? I can tell you that personally, I have been supporting PR from well before '97 and think that it stinks that ANYONE have a majority with 38% of the popular vote.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Fire

Looks like the Conservatives and Liberals are not going to push this into the courts. So Elections Canada decision will stand but I don't think they really investigated the issues. They just said if you wanted to argue the signatures, the other parties should have done that before the election.

The majority of people in that riding voted NDP. It is not fair to the voters for the courts to overturn the election in that riding now. If guilt is found I hope it results in a fine for the NDP party and this women; nothing more.

[burn_this_city]

The west had been asking for PR for years. I guess it just wasnt in the cards when the Liberals controlled the house and senate.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

That's pure BS. The commentary in 1997 was that this country was in dire, desperate need of proportional representation. Can you find me some Canadian leftist commentary AGAINST PR from 1997 or later? I can tell you that personally, I have been supporting PR from well before '97 and think that it stinks that ANYONE have a majority with 38% of the popular vote.

I do agree with PR, but I disagree that it's so bad now. Obviously with 5 parties you aren't going to get 50%+ of the electorate agreeing. It's not surprising or awful. It is what it is. Win your seats.

The worst it ever was for seats vs vote was the BQ. And they are gone now!