Conservative 'Robocalls' tricked voters in last election

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
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

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
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.

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

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
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.

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

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
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

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
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

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
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

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
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."
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
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

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
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.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
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
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
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

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
He said he quit because the media coverage was interfering with his work, lol
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
(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

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
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?

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.

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

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,666
113
Northern Ontario,
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...
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
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.