Conservative 'Robocalls' tricked voters in last election


damngrumpy
#211
Remember the candidate is ultimately responsible whether he or she knew is immaterial as the
candidate is to be informed of all actions and is the final stop in check and balance that is why a
riding can be overturned. The candidate is at the mercy of those in the campaign and saying the
candidate did not know is unfortunate but not a valid excuse.
Candidates are informed of this there is a series of papers that so few read including high profile
candidates. I read everything and I wish I had the original stuff here to comment there is a lot to
remember if you are the candidate. The penalties range from a five or ten thousand dollar fine,
to a jail term. to having the riding results overturned. And by the way if you are overturned you
as the candidate cannot re-run. You are expelled from office for at least five years as I recall.
 
Tonington
+3
#212
Quote: Originally Posted by [URL="http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/columnists/94656--hebert-chantal"

Chantal Hébert[/URL];1553855]
The NDP was not identified as the sponsor of the calls and recipients were not told that if they pressed 1 to signal their displeasure with St-Denis, they would be re-directed to her riding office — where they swamped the phone lines for a number of days.

There is nothing illegal about the ploy and NDP strategists profess to be totally comfortable with it.

But should it have its place an ethically moral political environment?

If the strategists for any party were being frank, I'm sure they would all do the same.

An ethically moral political environment? Is there even such a place? It's not that there aren't ethical and moral politicians, it's just that they normally don't last. It's no different than the baseball players juicing because that's what they need to do to be competetive, to get those lucrative contracts.
 
earth_as_one
+1
#213
Most people don't lie, cheat or steal. But a few do and that tends to make everyone jaded. If someone is caught, then they must be held accountable for their actions.

I don't like Harper, but because of what he says and does. I don't hold Harper or any other candidate responsible for the actions of others. But if they knew or should have known, then let the chips fall where they may.
 
Goober
#214
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

I will immediately rethink my position...


lol

I think you have a new friend.
 
Vanni Fucci
#215
I wonder how long it will take Harper to prorogue Parliament when the truth comes out...

I also wonder if he properly registered his smoking gun
 
JLM
#216
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

I wonder how long it will take Harper to prorogue Parliament when the truth comes out...

I also wonder if he properly registered his smoking gun

Don't jump to conclusions before the cop's report is submitted!
 
mentalfloss
#217
I said earlier that unless there's a smoking gun, it will be tough to prove a systemic problem. This is seeming to be the case even with anecdotal evidence gradually revealed.

In the robo-call affair, time and the law favour the Tories

If the Robo-call affair does spiral out of control, North Bay, Ontario may become ground zero – the scene of a by-election that could gravely damage the Harper government.

But the odds against that by-election ever being called are high, which is why the Conservatives may well weather this latest controversy.

The NDP and Liberals allege that Tory operatives may have tried to rig the vote in a number of ridings across Canada by using automated calls that directed voters to non-existent polling stations. Impersonating an Elections Canada official is illegal and can land you in jail. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, however, strongly denies that anyone in the senior ranks of the national campaign knew of or condoned any illegal activity.

In the riding that is receiving the most attention, Guelph, the Liberals won the election. In others where allegations are flying, the Conservatives won by many thousands of votes. In both instances any dirty tricks were futile tricks. But Nipissing-Timiskaming is different.

Former Liberal MP Anthony Rota had held the Northern Ontario seat, dominated by the city of North Bay, since 2004, usually winning by comfortable margins. But last May, he lost it to Conservative MP Jay Aspin by a mere 18 votes.

At the time of the election, at least two voters complained to the returning officer that they had received calls falsely telling them that their polling location had been changed. Since the controversy broke last week, at least a dozen others have come forward claiming they received similar calls, according to Mr. Rota.

“At the time, everybody just thought it was a fluke,” Mr. Rota told The Globe and Mail’s Tamara Baluja. “It’s only now that all these reports are coming up that I think we’re realizing this was something more orchestrated.”

Mr. Aspin’s office declined a request for an interview. But in the North Bay Nugget he said that anyone who engaged in illegal activity should be charged.

“Let Elections Canada get to the bottom of this as soon as possible,” he said. “We can go from there.”

If there is enough evidence that enough voters were illegally deterred from voting to throw the Nipissing-Timiskaming result into question, a by-election could result that would be deeply embarrassing for the Conservatives. But how exactly does that happen? This is where circumstances favour the government.

Under the Canada Elections Act, any voter within a riding can apply for a judicial order nullifying the result of an election in that riding on the grounds of “irregularities, fraud or corrupt or illegal practices.”

In practice, no judge will entertain such a motion unless there is good evidence the irregularities could have put the outcome in doubt. Allegations involving a hundred voters won’t get very far if one side won by 10,000 votes. But Nipissing-Timiskaming was so close that it might not take much to get a judge’s attention.

An Elections Canada report alleging misdeeds in the riding would be the most credible evidence of potential fraud. But the Commissioner of Canada Elections typically makes no declaration about a riding unless and until it agrees with the Office of the Public Prosecutor to lay a charge. That might not happen for many months, if ever.


If there was sufficient evidence of wrongdoing in Nipissing–Timiskaming to bring that 18-vote plurality into doubt, a judge could nullify the election, which would force a by-election. But before that happened, either side could appeal the decision directly to the Supreme Court.

In other words, even if there was hanky-panky in the riding so serious that it warranted a by-election, if could take years before that by-election was called. It might even be overtaken by a general election.


No wonder the Conservatives are hunkering down on this one.

In the robo-call affair, time and the law favour the Tories - The Globe and Mail
Last edited by mentalfloss; Feb 29th, 2012 at 07:56 AM..
 
Machjo
#218
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

Remember the candidate is ultimately responsible whether he or she knew is immaterial as the
candidate is to be informed of all actions and is the final stop in check and balance that is why a
riding can be overturned. The candidate is at the mercy of those in the campaign and saying the
candidate did not know is unfortunate but not a valid excuse.
Candidates are informed of this there is a series of papers that so few read including high profile
candidates. I read everything and I wish I had the original stuff here to comment there is a lot to
remember if you are the candidate. The penalties range from a five or ten thousand dollar fine,
to a jail term. to having the riding results overturned. And by the way if you are overturned you
as the candidate cannot re-run. You are expelled from office for at least five years as I recall.

Not necessarily. A candidate has zero control over a rogue operative.
 
mentalfloss
#219
In-depth article from the National on the 57 compromised ridings. It's too long to post here, but they detail the strategy employed in each riding.

Measuring the impact of robocalls in the 57 targeted ridings | News | National Post
 
Vanni Fucci
+1
#220
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Not necessarily. A candidate has zero control over a rogue operative.

Maybe they have no control, but they still assume responsibility for the actions of anyone on their staff...
 
mentalfloss
#221
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

Maybe they have no control, but they still assume responsibility for the actions of anyone on their staff...

Yes, just like Rae's example with the vikileaks staffer, although the greatest form of responsibility any leader will really endure is an apology or some other bit of PR - and of course, the repercussions of public opinion on votes in an upcoming election.
 
Machjo
#222
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

Maybe they have no control, but they still assume responsibility for the actions of anyone on their staff...

Not necessarily. First off it may have been a rogue conservative who was not a staff member. Secondly, even if it was a rogue staff member working on his own time, or without approval of the candidate and without his knowledge, is on his own. You cannot expect a candidate to have godly control over other persons.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Yes, just like Rae's example with the vikileaks staffer, although the greatest form of responsibility any leader will really endure is an apology or some other bit of PR - and of course, the repercussions of public opinion on votes.

Rae managed to learn about that staff member. Now let's suppose that staff member decided to keep this secret from Rae, no one would still know abou it. Would that be rae's fault? I say if Rae has taken reasonable measures that the rogue intentionally circumvented, then I say Rae would not ahve been to blame. Same standard for any leader or MP or candidate.
 
mentalfloss
#223
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Not necessarily. First off it may have been a rogue conservative who was not a staff member. Secondly, even if it was a rogue staff member working on his own time, or without approval of the candidate and without his knowledge, is on his own. You cannot expect a candidate to have godly control over other persons.

Well look at Rae. Naturally, he did not have control over the vikileaks staffer, but he still accepted responsibility for his actions. This is understood even in judicial contexts - ie. vicarious liability.

Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Rae managed to learn about that staff member. Now let's suppose that staff member decided to keep this secret from Rae, no one would still know abou it. Would that be rae's fault? I say if Rae has taken reasonable measures that the rogue intentionally circumvented, then I say Rae would not ahve been to blame. Same standard for any leader or MP or candidate.

Like I said, it is understood that the party leader may not be directly responsible for the actions of someone in another department or even someone in his own caucus. But what's understood by "accepting responsibility" is simply to act in good public faith. Of course, the actual negligent party loses their job or is subject to the law (if they committed a crime).
 
Machjo
#224
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Well look at Rae. Naturally, he did not have control over the vikileaks staffer, but he still accepted responsibility for his actions. This is understood even in judicial contexts - ie. vicarious liability.

But he eventually gained a knowledge of the situation. Let's suppose Rae still did not know to this day because teh staffer took every precaution not to be known, would you now be blaming Rae for not knowing?

Heck, would you blame the police for not knowing or for being incompetent if this staffer took every measure to not get cought?
 
mentalfloss
#225
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

But he eventually gained a knowledge of the situation. Let's suppose Rae still did not know to this day because teh staffer took every precaution not to be known, would you now be blaming Rae for not knowing?

Heck, would you blame the police for not knowing or for being incompetent if this staffer took every measure to not get cought?

No?

Nor are we blaming Rae for the actions of the vikileaks staffer because he's not directly responsible.

Like I said - "accepting responsibility" is simply a social construct. It's best characterized as basically an apology to the public on behalf of the negligent party.

On this point, that is why Rae was comparing his style of leadership to Harper's. I happen to agree with him that making a sympathetic gesture is important to being a good leader.
--

On a side note - you might be surprised that vicarious liability is imposed on all employers for their employees in the form of worker's compensation.
 
Machjo
+1
#226
Again, Rae knew of the staffer. Had he not known, he would not have apologized yet. And seeing that many campaign staffers are volunteers, it's a little different.
 
mentalfloss
#227
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Again, Rae knew of the staffer. Had he not known, he would not have apologized yet.

It would still look bad on Rae if he did not issue a public apology on behalf of someone affiliated with the Liberal party committing an act of this nature and he didn't know the person first hand.

Just like it looks bad on Harper to distance himself with local MPs and their administrative staff by claiming: "not my problem."
 
JLM
+2
#228
One thing about politics, all parties are equal when it comes to hypocrisy.
 
taxslave
+1
#229
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

No?

Nor are we blaming Rae for the actions of the vikileaks staffer because he's not directly responsible.

Like I said - "accepting responsibility" is simply a social construct. It's best characterized as basically an apology to the public on behalf of the negligent party.

On this point, that is why Rae was comparing his style of leadership to Harper's. I happen to agree with him that making a sympathetic gesture is important to being a good leader.
--

On a side note - you might be surprised that vicarious liability is imposed on all employers for their employees in the form of worker's compensation.

Not sure that workers comp is a good example. Unless yours is significantly different than B.C. Here a worker can be fined independent of the company for unsafe work practices.Also for third party damages resulting from unsafe practices. Vicarious liability does not always follow to the company if an employee was committing fraud that had no benefit to the company either.
 
mentalfloss
#230
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Not sure that workers comp is a good example. Unless yours is significantly different than B.C. Here a worker can be fined independent of the company for unsafe work practices.Also for third party damages resulting from unsafe practices. Vicarious liability does not always follow to the company if an employee was committing fraud that had no benefit to the company either.

Right, it does depend on the industry in practice and jurisdiction.

If you get into a car accident while on the job, worker's comp typically kicks in, whereas if it is on personal time, it would be your own auto insurance company that handles the claim.
 
petros
#231
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

If you get into a car accident while on the job, worker's comp typically kicks in....

If you pass the piss test.

Piss test tham all!



This message has been approved by the Conservative Party of Canada.
 
mentalfloss
#232
This is a bit rich, but entertaining!

Public faith in the 2011 vote is gone

Judicial inquiry needed
Fraud a serious attack on parliamentary democracy
Governor-general would be justified in forcing new federal election


Prime Minister Stephen Harper's long-sought majority government rests upon 11 seats.

The key to his narrow 2011 victory was Ontario, where the Conservative Party finally breached a Liberal stronghold.

It was in crucial Ontario swing ridings where Conservatives won, often by razor-thin margins, that the government's majority was decided.

And, it was in Ontario that evidence first surfaced of an apparently well-organized campaign of telephone calls which purported to be from Elections Canada and which told Liberal voters that their polling stations had been relocated and which directed them to bogus voting sites.

It was also in Ontario that evidence first emerged of Liberal supporters reporting bizarre, irritating and rudely aggressive telephone calls late at night and, in the case of some, on their holy days, which purported to be from their own party organizers.

A quick survey of ridings in Ontario, the vital key to the government's slim hold on power, shows that Conservatives won eight seats by a margin of less than 1,000 votes, three by less than 300 votes.

In Nipissing-Timiskaming, the difference between a Conservative victory and a Liberal defeat was 18 votes. In Etobicoke Centre, the difference was 26 votes. In Pickering-Scarborough East, it was 207 votes.

For the Conservative party to win these seats, a mere 251 voters who might have cast ballots for Liberal candidates - or 0.17 per cent of all those who voted in those three ridings - had to be dissuaded from casting those ballots.

It seems that attempts to confuse, misdirect and frustrate voters may have been national in scope. Complaints of similar phone calls now arise in 34 ridings, including Manitoba and British Columbia.

In 16 ridings across Canada, Conservative wins in 2011 were decided by less than 1,000 votes. The total margin of victory across these ridings amounted to a scant 8,047 votes. So, only 0.0331 per cent of Canadians registered to vote in the 2011 election had to be persuaded not to cast a ballot in particular ridings to affect the outcome of the election.

On this basis alone, the expanding scandal over vote suppression threatens to call into question the moral legitimacy of the government.

In the sponsorship scandal, the venal but commonplace sin was misappropriating taxpayers' money. A judicial inquiry was called by prime minister Paul Martin.

But an organized attempt to deliberately suppress citizens' most important democratic right, the unfettered right to an unencumbered vote on honest terms, would comprise a far greater and, for Canada, unprecedented sin.

Like it or not, this Elections Canada investigation now raises the ugly possibility of an election decided not by voters but by shadowy backroom tacticians who sought to rig the outcome by frustrating citizens' constitutionally guaranteed right to vote for the candidate of their choice without coercion.

Harper says the Conservative party knows nothing about this. Let's by all means take him at his word.

But when he challenges the opposition to prove any connection, let's dismiss that as disingenuous. It's Parliament's duty to now get to the bottom of this in a public and transparent way and that includes the government as well as the opposition.

The ethical and moral ramifications of what appears to have happened can't be overstated.

Any attempt to defraud any Canadian of his or her vote in an election that decides who will govern the country would comprise an assault upon the constitutional rights of every Canadian. It would represent an attempt to corrupt the fundamental principle of democracy itself, which holds that every vote is valuable and no vote is less valuable than another. Attempts to discourage voting or to disrupt the process represent an attack upon the very concept of Canada as a parliamentary democracy.

For a government elected by 40 per cent of voters, the possibility that it obtained power, knowingly or not, on the basis of some as-yet-unknown group's strategic attempts to suppress the turnout in key ridings can only bring into disrepute the integrity of the electoral process.

Frankly, the very existence and scope of the Elections Canada investigation is now sufficient to undermine public faith in the election results. To say this is shocking is an understatement. We now need a full, transparent and non-partisan judicial inquiry that goes beyond the current investigation into possible Elections Act transgressions.

If there's any attempt to prevent this, to trivialize it, to stonewall it, to deflect attention from it, then the governor-general should be pressed by the citizens of Canada to exercise his constitutional power to dissolve the government and send it back to the voters to obtain a clear and a legitimate mandate.

Public faith in the 2011 vote is gone (external - login to view)
 
Goober
#233
Tory staffer Michael Sona, who resigned amid robocalls scandal, denies involvement | News | National Post

But last night Mr. Sona claimed he had “no involvement in the fraudulent phone calls.”

“I wish to address the allegations and accusations levelled against me in the media over the last six days. I have remained silent to this point with the hope that the real guilty party would be apprehended. The rumours continue to swirl, and media are now involving my family, so I feel that it is imperative that I respond.

I had no involvement in the fraudulent phone calls, which also targeted our supporters as can be attested to by our local campaign team and phone records. On Thursday, I offered my resignation to my employer. The role of a staffer is to assist their employer in their responsibilities, and that was impossible to accomplish with the media continually repeating these rumours. It is for that reason and that reason alone that I resigned from my position.”

Mr. Sona’s statement further complicates the Tory Party’s damage control efforts after it was suggested a ‘rogue agent’ could have been behind the misleading phone calls.

Voters in ridings across Canada have reported receiving automated and live calls, purportedly from the Conservatives, that gave out erroneous information. Some of the calls told voters their polling locations had changed, while others allegedly impersonated Liberal candidates and deliberately called at inconvenient times.

Sona worked in Guelph for Conservative candidate Marty Burke during the federal election campaign.
 
mentalfloss
#234
He said he quit because the media coverage was interfering with his work, lol
 
Colpy
+1
#235
Interesting..............

“Who’s calling?” “The Conservatives.” - Capital Read - Macleans.ca (external - login to view)
 
MHz
#236
(in part)
On the second point, things get tougher. The allegation seems to be that we organized a widespread campaign to confuse Liberal voters into going to the wrong place, and thus get them to give up on voting altogether. The Toronto Star cites three call centre “whistleblowers” who seemed to have known on election day that they were directing people to the wrong voting stations. Of course, in the same breathless article, the three call centre employees also report that: call centre employees sometimes changed scripts on their own, without the knowledge of their superiors or the party; the callers were clearly instructed to identify themselves as representatives of the “Conservative Party of Canada;” some of their co-workers decided on their own to falsely say they were calling from Elections Canada.

What does it matter who was behind it, fasct is it happened and votes were lost for one party, that taints the election, ... period, Where does it say voter fraud has to be done by the 'winners' before it is a crime?
Turn over the workers and let them explain who they were working for, it sure wasn't the Liberals or NDP.
 
CDNBear
+1
#237
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

It's interesting that Dasleeper (one of this site's Conservative Party apologists) considers election fraud as "same ol', same ol'. Doesn't it say alot about the type of people the party attracts?

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Yes, I know and it appears you opinion is that election fraud is no big deal. That's hilarious considering Conservatives get so upset when the lefties say that Harper and the Cons are undemocratic.

Given your admitted stupidity. I can understand why you would cast judgment without all the facts.

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

It's called reserving judgement until you have all the facts. It's what intelligent, reasonable people do.

There's no wonder why so many don't take you seriously. Your admitted stupidity aside, it's no secret that you just aren't reasonable either.
 
DaSleeper
+3
#238
All this from a misinterpretation, on purpouse might I add of Cannuck aka "Jim-bo" of a "WOW" sarcastic comment from "Moi" on one of Flossy's multiple Copy and Pastes
But what do you expect from a poodle...
 
lone wolf
+1
#239
Roda's pizzed.... He lost Nipissing by 18 votes

Poor Tony....


BTW Da.... Betcha the spelling gets yapped upon....
Last edited by lone wolf; Feb 29th, 2012 at 06:10 PM..
 
CDNBear
#240
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

All this from a misinterpretation, on purpouse might I add of Cannuck aka "Jim-bo" of a "WOW" sarcastic comment from "Moi" on one of Flossy's multiple Copy and Pastes
But what do you expect from a poodle...

You mean yet again he made an ASSumption. In the future, he should ask for clarification, it may help him to not look foolish. I doubt it but it may.
 

Similar Threads

126
Conservative voters have amnesia!!!
by JonB2004 | Jun 2nd, 2006
no new posts