The Canadian Press
Published: April 15, 2011
OTTAWA - Elections Canada says ballots cast at the University of Guelph are valid.
The elections watchdog has issued a statement slapping down a Conservative party effort to have the votes annulled.
Elections Canada agrees the special balloting at the university was not pre-authorized before the election campaign, as it should have been.
Nevertheless, the agency says the votes were "cast in a manner that respects the Canada Elections Act and are valid."
10 comments:
"The elections watchdog has issued a statement slapping down a Conservative party effort to have the votes annulled.
Elections Canada agrees the special balloting at the university was not pre-authorized before the election campaign, as it should have been.
In other words, Elections Canada admits that the voting was improper, that the rules were violated, but hey, we're gonna let the votes stand anyway. Nice. That's the way to show everyone the law is applied equally to all.
Why didn't they say anything in 2008? Nice try Rat
Something tells me that if it was a bunch of seniour citizens instead of a bunch of students the votes would be disallowed and they'd cite that "rules are the rules".
It's stuff like this that lends more credence to the right's opinion that Elections Canada is not impartial.
The rules seem to be different depending on who it's in favour for.
Why did they stop the balloting in 2006 @ the UofT when the Liberals asked? The situation seems to be equivalent.
"Something tells me that if it was a bunch of seniour citizens instead of a bunch of students the votes would be disallowed and they'd cite that "rules are the rules"."
Got any proof? If that is part of what you think lends credence then you are most definitely wrong. It's conjecture on your part.
If the Conservatives have a problem with how this special balloting was being handled dont you think they could have handled it better than having their communications director make a grab for the ballot box? To me that lends credence that the right is behaving more like this is an election in Nigeria or Sudan. Regardless of your gripe, this is not how a political staffer of a potential MP should behave.
You have a right to see how Elections Canada's explanation should be question. Indeed, a more detailed answer explaining how they reached that conclusion is deserved but any explanation will be unacceptable if its received wearing a tin foil hat.
Mark Sonos should have kept his mitts to himself. The simple act of reaching for a ballot box outweighs any postering that you might have a gripe with. Cripes, if it was any other party that pulled this off I would be just as pissed. Why cant you get over your partisan bent and realize that bad behaviour like that is bad for all of us regardless of political stripe.
Heck, I want to live in a free Canada, not some bumbling country where underlings think they can grab a ballot box if they dont like something.
"Why didn't they say anything in 2008? Nice try Rat"
You mean like Tony Ianno did in Trinity-Spadina? As I said, that's a nice way to show that the law is applied equally to all...
I would have given EC the benefit of the doubt a few years ago but they squandered that with the years of extensions on the Liberal leadership loans.
If Sonos did indeed grab at the box, his behaviour should be rightfully criticized, but that hardly outweighs the primary issue in this whole incident of improper voting.
"Cripes, if it was any other party that pulled this off I would be just as pissed"
I doubt we would have even heard about it if it was any other party.
The only person who doesn't have a problem with a returning agent setting up a polling station wheverever and whenever they want and taking votes without EC permission is a partisan who thinks they will get some kind of a benefit out of it.
That goes for all sides.
We've come a very long way from the days when "technically deficient" generally meant "illegal".
If it were the case that, for some reason, pre-approval would not have been granted if asked for, then this would indeed be a problem.
But yes, I guess I can see where the counter-argument comes from. After all, this isn't nearly as trivial as, say, exceeding spending limits by a million dollars, or claiming rebates for expenses not incurred, in which case one might reasonably say that it can be justified on the basis that different people might interpret the law differently.
And you'd be absolutely right if the NDP didn't do the exact same thing and escape ant repercussions. Once again, that's the way to show everyone the law is applied equally to all.
This is BS.
Elections Canada and in particular Mr. Maynard (sp?) have shown their bias.
We need to request UN scrutineers for this election.
Post a Comment