Misleading Robocalls Went To Voters ID'd As Non-Tories 148
silentbrad writes "An investigation by CBC News has turned up voters all over Canada who say the reason they got robocalls sending them to fictitious polling stations was that they'd revealed they would not vote Conservative. Although the Conservative Party has denied any involvement in the calls, these new details suggest that the misleading calls relied on data gathered by, and carefully guarded by, the Conservative Party. Known as 'CIMS,' the database assigns a 'smiley' face to supporters, and a 'sad' face to non-Conservatives. Liberal and NDP politicians say it would make no sense to call randomly, since many of the voters misled would be Conservatives."
well, obviously (Score:5, Insightful)
The Conservative party is the party representing the interests of powerful people who wish their interests to be represented in law (*). It is in the interests such people to have such a party in power. It is a logical consequence that they will use any means possible to get this party into power.
Owen Jones said of the granddaddy English Conservative Party, quoting a speaker at his college: "What you have to realise about the Conservative party is that it is a coalition of privileged interests. Its main purpose is to defend that privilege. And the way it wins elections is by giving just enough to just enough other people."
(*) Contrast e.g. philosophical libertarians who in principle (at least) will not want the government to give them special favours.
Re: (Score:3)
(**) Other than the privilege of land ownership of course. (If for a moment we assume that with libertarians you mean Rothbard style libertarians and not Geolibertarians.)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I agree, but the libertarian movement as a whole is overrun with Rothbard type loonies ... I never quite understand why sane people want to identify with them, the name is tainted.
Re: (Score:1)
I guess the point could be restated by contrasting with what the Conservative party is/was not.
Old Labour was in no way the party of the rich elite. Old Labour brought about Legal Aid, the National Health Service, needs-based allowances and a massive programme of nationalisation of industry. The country had the unique position of suffering vicious wounds of war without having been occupied or made an invalid. The people believed that a society comprises the sum of inputs of all its members, and that a socie
Morbo says... (Score:1)
It was a coincidence and nothing more!
some U.S. scandals recently as well (Score:4, Interesting)
Listing the wrong date seems to be a favorite tactic of misleading American robocalls. There was some legislation [projectvote.org] recently introduced to specifically tackle it, but it's probably illegal under existing laws as well. The main game seems to be whether, as here, political parties can feed the data to "third party" callers without it getting traced back to them.
Who is responsible? Irrelevant... (Score:1)
Maybe the conservative party is behind this, maybe not... but does it really matter?
Let's go with the assumption that someone high up in the party organization is to blame. How many people knew about this tactic being employed? Three? Five? Seven? How many people are employed by the party? Three hundred? Five hundred? Seven hundred? How many people voted for them? Twenty million? (I really have no idea, actually. But the point is, we're talking about many, many orders of magnitude in difference here)
So,
Re:Who is responsible? Irrelevant... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is they got a thin majority, and that some of the ridings they won were won by fewer than 1000 votes. Many of those ridings, there are reports of this kind of robocall happening. There is every possibility that they wouldn't have won, or at least wouldn't have won a majority, if this kind of disenfranchisement wasn't happening.
More than that, it's illegal to represent yourself falsely as an official working for Elections Canada. It's also electoral fraud. Strictly speaking, under the law, they can have their charter as an official party revoked over this, meaning that if this goes all the way, we don't currently have a legal government, and our last election was invalid. Particularly interesting considering that Canada is one of the few countries that always gets asked to send observers to foreign countries to make sure the election is done properly.
Re: (Score:2)
The Kosher Guy
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Who is responsible? Irrelevant... (Score:5, Insightful)
How about anyone subsequently imprisoned under the omnibus crime bill?
Seniors?
Veterans who've had their benefits cut?
"Find a victim" of the Harper government is easy. Getting the Harper government to admit that the people are being victimized to pay for "anti crime" legislation and the screwed up F-35 delivery schedule is another thing.
CANADA is the victim. All of it.
Re: (Score:2)
I could give you dozens, but I'll just say: Kyoto.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think there were that many close races. Guelph, which seemed to be sort of an epicenter of ill deeds, was still won handily by a Liberal. To unseat the Tories would mean having to vacate the results of eleven or twelve seats (depending on where the Speaker came from). I think I'd heard there might be four or five ridings where there was trouble reported and where there sufficiently tight races to lead to questions about the result, which still gives the Tories a majority. So I don't think, per se, t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seven hundred is not nearly enough. In one riding yes, across 31 ridings, no.
Re: (Score:2)
How many calls were made in that riding? And how many people haven't reported calls there, or elsewhere?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not disputing that there were some close ridings, and that may mean results have to be vacated. I just don't see how it's going to be enough to kill the Tory majority.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To find 31 ridings void would mean you would have to find substantial evidence of vote suppression. We're talking about hundreds if not thousands per riding. As of yet there is no evidence that that many people were prevented from voting.
I'm not defending the Tories here, I'm just saying that we have no evidence that the effect was that huge. I'll wager we won't see more than a handful of ridings where Elections Canada will find sufficient evidence to vacate ridings.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be enough to vacate the riding, not enough to unseat the Tories. And if the party paid for it, it will be fined, whoever was responsible could face jail time. You can be sure the senior leadership would not have been told, plausible deniability and all that. The Tories are there until 2015, I'm afraid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Incumbency, plus the major opposition party sabotaging itself with infighting in the last two elections ("Wahh, I don't want to win if he's the leader.").
That said, we will kick a party out based on a corruption scandal â" if we can find a replacement. As much as I'd enjoy an NDP/Green coalition, what's really going to happen, eventually, is that the Liberals will recover with an electable leader and sell the concept of the Conservatives as arrogant and corrupt. I think Rae
Re:Who is responsible? Irrelevant... (Score:5, Insightful)
"A couple of bad apples"? Are you serious? You might want to study some recent history. It's always the conservatives spying on people and generally pulling dirty tricks. They're the scum of this world.
Re: (Score:1)
Nope all sides spy and pull dirty tricks.
Conservatives are stupid enough to get caught.
Re:Who is responsible? Irrelevant... (Score:5, Insightful)
By definition, liberals spy on government and conservatives spy on people, so really, your argument falls flat on its face.
All sides spy and pull dirty tricks, Conservatives are evil enough to do it to people; liberals do it to corporations, which conservatives would like us to believe are people.
Re: (Score:2)
If we are allowed to bring strawman party specific definitions
You just failed the "allowed to post a rebuttal" test: Political ideologies (conservative, liberal) are not parties. You may try again after you check yourself before you wreck yourself. I suggest a dictionary, asshole.
Re: (Score:1)
Political ideologies (conservative, liberal) are not parties
UM...
http://www.liberal.ca/ [liberal.ca] (The Liberal Party of Canada)
http://www.conservative.ca/ [conservative.ca] (The Conservative Party of Canada)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, egg on half of face. But that's not how I meant it, and calling yourself the liberal or conservative party is bullshit anyway, because parties regularly take inconsistent stances. Liberal and conservative are words which have specific meanings.
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot have a government _capable_ of spying on people if you have a conservative government, the whole fucking ideology is based around limited (ie: CONSERVATIVE) government.
WRONG.
There are four primary poles to the political spectrum. Anything like this is only an approximation but it's how the words work, don't shoot me over it.
Liberal means someone who wants government regulated but personal freedom left alone. Conservative means someone who wants personal freedom regulated, but who wants government left alone. A populist is someone who wants government to control both. An anarchist is someone who wants government to control neither. The only one of these ideologies which in
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about the Conservatives in Canada, But I know the American variety *claims* to be for small and ineffectual government but somehow the government manages to grow even bigger and become more intrusive under the conservatives' watch AND it provides less benefit to the people (so I guess they at least get the ineffectual part domestically). Under liberals it still grows bigger and more intrusive but it at least makes some effort to provide benefits (however poorly).
Re:Who is responsible? Irrelevant... (Score:5, Interesting)
Nope, they pull *far* more than any one else; others don't even come close. Just check out the number of votes of no confidence that they pulled when Martin had a minority; they didn't even try to make it work. At that point the Cons pushed for a coalition government, then when the Cons get a minority and the other parties go for a coalition Harper cries about it not be democratic, etc taking advantage of the electorates ignorance of how our system of government works. Not to mention during that minority they attached a no confidence rider to bills so they'd pass. He promised he wouldn't do it during the following election, but then that next time he gets in, what's one of the first things he does? That's right, the same bloody no confidence rider BS.
I could say the same thing about their Economic "action plan." According to the PBO it was their policies that got Canada into the situation it's in (made it worse that is) and their plan to get out of it was to do more of the same type of policies!?!?!?
And now with their majority, what do they do? They don't listen to every study done with regards to mandatory minimum sentences (they don't work), nor anything even approaching Science (hey, why use logic when yah got ideology). Thus, C-10 passes. Similarly, for C-11 with regards to digital locks and no doubt once the fire dies down with C-30 (the spying bill). As in, after C-30 passes, they'll, by regulation (add/delete by reg is already in the bill), add in information that'll be available without a warrant.
I could go on. (It's funny what a memory can do when used, eh.)
Harper is a two faced asshole that does nothing but dirty political gamesmanship. He's a disgrace. Same goes for Vic Toews and Dean Del Mastro and...
Now, I'm not saying that the other parties are squeaky clean. But, in comparison, Harper et al look as though they have been rolling in the mud while the other parties might have scuffs on their shoes (Liberals likely worse than the NDP).
Seriously, this election fraud shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. But, what would be nice is if the Cons would see at least some repercussions for their actions.
Re: (Score:2)
Harper isn't a two faced asshole. He's quite content with showing to the world that he's an asshole, thing is some people actually like it. You don't even need to dig to find out what he's doing, he doesn't bother covering up anything anymore. He's got his majority.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Harper isn't a two faced asshole.
Mod +insightful.
Harper appears to lack a human face entirely. In its stead there appears to be an asshole (of goatse proportions) uncontrollably spasming his vile ordure on the people of Canada.
Re: (Score:2)
Well he effectively is when people don't know about it and it isn't readily reported. You actually have to dig to find it. That isn't to say that you have to dig much. You're right in that the veil is... thin. However, generally people don't even attempt to dig these days. And if/when it is discovered, people generally go into a daze with rolling their eyes and just saying something along the lines of, "Politicians, eh." That without remembering it at all.
It's kind of ironic that the Liberals got oust
Re: (Score:2)
Conservatives admit.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter who did it. If enough people didn't vote in some ridings due to the Robocalls then those elections are null and void and there needs to be bye-elections in those ridings.
If there are enough of those ridings that the bye-elections could remove the Conservatives majority then Royal Assent should be withheld on all bills until after the bye-elections.
Re: (Score:2)
The extent of the calls suggests otherwise, that CIMS was used. It's beyond belief to imagine that independently several Tory campaigns compiled lists of voters sufficiently accurate to be able to make misleading calls directed at non-Tory voters, all being done at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
Stupidity is a good enough reason to vote someone out.
Re: (Score:1)
WTF? Do you apply this to every crime? Assuming the content of your message was supposed to support the subject, saying that it's irrelevant who was responsible.
"Okay, if we could catch the axe shop-lifter/axe murderer we could prosecute them but how many people in their neighbourhood aren't implicated? Surely we're not going to burn down the whole neighborhood! So what does it matter who actually did it at all??? Let's just sweep the whole thing under the carpet and let them get on with it."
Why so many excuses? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Should everyone stop voting for the party they felt to represent them the best, because of a couple of bad apples?
Canada is not the USA, we have more than two parties. We have dozens of parties! Are you so ideologically blind as to vote for one party, even if you know they are corrupt and do not represent your best interests as a tax paying citizen? Really? Are you that cynical? Because if so, that is incredibly sad. We deserve the best government money can buy. If there is corruption, it should be routed out. If a party is rotten, it's leader should resign. If the Prime Minister can no longer guarantee he/she has the trust of the citizenry, a confidence vote should be called. We have many options in our democracy, we do not have to accept corruption, lies, deception.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally I'd prefer the best government money can't buy.
Re: (Score:2)
Well said... Altough I think I get what you meant, the turn of phrase
We deserve the best government money can buy.
sort of undermines your point.
Re: (Score:2)
You have the best government money can buy. It's not your money that buys it, but rest assured, just like any other whores out there, they don't do it for free.
Re: (Score:2)
Orientation note for foreigners: it's really more like three or four.
Re: (Score:1)
Should everyone stop voting for the party they felt to represent them the best, because of a couple of bad apples?
I'm not sure what sort of a "should" that is. Certainly people are entitled to stop voting for a party on the grounds that it's culture is one that has allowed criminals to gain influence within it. Beats deciding on whether you like their faces or even if they seem charming in interviews let alone tribal loyalties. What sort of factors do you think the average voter takes into account in deciding which part "best represents" them?
Re: (Score:2)
Normally it goes like this: In every election district, where this happened, the candidate most likely to profit from it gets disqualified, and the runner-up is declared winner. Any honest candidate falling victim to it can then thank for the support by unwanted robocalls.
Re: (Score:2)
The most likely scenario is that a by-election would be called.
Re: (Score:2)
No. I don't talk about guilty. I talk about profiteering from an illegal action, even if you are not the one organizing it. If you buy a stolen good, you have to return it to the rightful owner - and you don't get your money back.
Re: (Score:2)
Sabotage your own candidates in close races so that, a year later, they might get to run again in a by-election? I've accused the Liberals of not really wanting to win, but that's ridiculous.
The person who registered the burner phone was a bit of an ass, apparently. I used to know a Tiny Tory who would have loved that joke — not that
Re:Who is responsible? Irrelevant... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
There's nothing wrong with knowing who your friends are and which they aren't or at least who you don't know are likely to vote for you. The only wrong is attempting to interfere with their right to vote. The penalty for that should be severe prison sentences.
Re:Who is responsible? Irrelevant... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the conservative party is behind this, maybe not... but does it really matter?
Yes. Aside from being very illegal and possibly throwing a number of elections, it's a blow to the reputation of that party. if they're leaking confidential information to a sleazy robocaller, then what else could they leak? Credit cards? It might also have legal consequence for the party even if "a few bad apples" did it.
And yes, such a display of criminality and incompetence would affect my voting decisions.
Re: (Score:1)
if they're leaking confidential information to a sleazy robocaller
Not just confidential information but private information that is illegal for anybody else to have. If you're a corporation (or non-profit, etc), there's a set of privacy laws that covers you. If you're the government, there's another set of privacy laws that covers you.
There are no privacy laws that apply to political parties in Canada. They can collect anything they can get their hands on and do whatever they want with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Political parties have built a blank cheque into the privacy legislation both at the Federal level and in pretty much every Province as well. There's been no big shit-storms from the Opposition parties either, because they benefit from it. This is all the politicians, regardless of affiliation or ideology, getting together and deciding to allowing themselves to compile databases with probably the most sensitive and important information one can gather on a voter; who their preference is. Frankly, w
Re:Who is responsible? Irrelevant... (Score:4, Insightful)
Should everyone stop voting for the party they felt to represent them the best, because of a couple of bad apples?
If you are represented best by a bunch of criminal thugs, then feel free to continue voting for them. Your apologetics are every bit as disgusting as their tactics.
Re: (Score:2)
does it really matter?
Does it really matter if they stole the election? Does it really matter if the government is run not by democracy, but by fraud?
Should everyone stop voting for the party they felt to represent them the best, because of a couple of bad apples? As disgusting as this tactic was, I have hard time seeing how "Yes" would be a reasonable response.
If you feel that the party of the anti-democratic, election-stealing, frauds and liars is the party that represents you...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it matters. I am cynical and assume all politicians are criminals who simply haven't been caught yet. There have been a few exceptions that I think honestly wanted to bring changes and meant what they said, but the rest I think are lying through their teeth to get power and influence.
However, whether or not that is true, if we want a system that works, we need to hold politicians up to a higher standard than their voters. If they break the law then they need to be held accountable. Too much goes on thes
Re: (Score:3)
Next step is to see if the people above them knew or should have known about the corruption. Either way, they should be on notice that they MUST vigilantly police this sort of thing in the future.
Of course, if the party keeps attracting a disproportionate number of bad apples, it might be worth a good apple's time to think about how well represented they really are.
Perhaps it's worth considering if the party's philosophy is creating a framework where corruption can thrive. I know *I* wouldn't want to help c
Re: (Score:2)
You're right on one level. It's unlikely that that many people knew about this. You don't want it widely known, even among the campaign ranks, because someone with a conscience might just say "fuck it" and call Elections Canada. And you certainly don't let the highest echelons, particularly the leader, because if there ever could be a line drawn between the act of fraud and the leader, it would likely lead to catastrophic damage to the party, both legally and electorally.
That being said, the political parti
When will people learn (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't tell them who you're going to vote for. They have no right to know.
Re:When will people learn (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't tell them who you're going to vote for. They have no right to know.
There are good reasons to tell them that you're not voting for them (and explain why): If they are able to understand the reasons why people aren't voting for them, they can change their policies to reflect what the public want. If no one ever explains that they aren't voting for them (and why) then the party is left losing the election and having to guess what people want for the next time around, by which time what people want may have changed.
Certainly, there are good reasons to _allow_ people to keep their votes secret, but there are also good reasons for people to opt to waive that right to secrecy.
Re: (Score:1)
There are good reasons to tell them that you're not voting for them (and explain why): If they are able to understand the reasons why people aren't voting for them, they can change their policies to reflect what the public want.
If you still think that people change their views based on outside feedback, you probably aren't old enough to be allowed to vote yet.
Re: (Score:2)
People will occasionally change their minds about things they don't care much about based on outside feedback. It's possible that the points you disagree on are things which aren't all that important to them.
Re: (Score:2)
If you still think that people change their views based on outside feedback, you probably aren't old enough to be allowed to vote yet.
I change my views based on outside feedback. Not directly because I want to change my view to please people, but because feedback lets me see the subject from a different perspective which allows me to realise when my view doesn't mesh well with reality.
If you're the sort of person who never changes their view based on new information, I guess you're some kind of religious nut?
Re: (Score:2)
I change my views based on outside feedback. Not directly because I want to change my view to please people, but because feedback lets me see the subject from a different perspective which allows me to realise when my view doesn't mesh well with reality.
If you're the sort of person who never changes their view based on new information, I guess you're some kind of religious nut?
Maybe I'm just bitter. Everybody has certain principles, based probably on upbringing. Those only change very very slowly (over decades).
Changing the perspective is something else, since you're only providing new information to enhance someone's world model, not trying to change what someone believes. For example, you'll never get modern conservatives to not feed as much money as possible into the military, no matter what you tell them.
Many people don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)
Many people don't understand how serious this issue is, including many of my fellow Canucks, friends, and family.
Several of the ridings which the Harper "government" won were very closely contested and were victimized by these robocalls directing people to non-existent polling stations. Whether they were smart enough to realize it was fraud, checked it out with Elections Canada, or were actually duped by the calls is irrelevant.
It was illegal for anyone to try to interfere with the vote in this fashion. The fact that there was interference invalidates the results in the affected ridings.
That means that there are more ridings that need to be re-elected than the Harpercrites had "won" to achieve their "majority." The quotes are because the only people who believe they have a legitimate majority any more are die-hard Conservatives who refuse to accept their party was involved despite the increasing evidence that not only were they responsible, but the how of the crime is being dismantled as well by investigators.
This is a serious, serious threat to the very foundation of democracy in Canada.
If the Harper "government" is allowed to continue in power after this kind of blatant vote interference, Canada will have allowed itself to be taken over by an organization using tactics no more ethical than that of any totalitarian regime or banana republic. This is as bad as or worse than the "votes" in the Ukraine and Russia, which are perpetually questioned by the entire world.
Yet sickeningly enough, it's our own Canadian observers who are requested to go and monitor elections in countries like Ukraine and Russia and to report on them.
The Elections Canada investigation is moving along as quickly as it can. While I wish it were moving faster, my one fervent hope is that they start tagging ridings as invalid and pulling the "elected officials" from power in those ridings, regardless of who is behind the calls.
That's the key point: I don't care who is behind the calls. The identity of the person, persons, organizations, companies, foreign interests, or political parties who were behind the calls does not really matter to me all that much. What matters is that the election results in those ridings are invalid and the seat-holders can not be allowed to remain in power without a re-election in those ridings. Not if Canada is to be able to continue to claim to be a "democratic" country instead of one where electoral fraud and interference are shrugged off as being "normal."
Re:Many people don't understand (Score:5, Interesting)
By the way, the reason I have absolute confidence that the robocalls happened is I received one.
Roughly two weeks after rudely informing the Conservative party pollster that I was deeply offended that they would even ask who I'm going to vote for (because it's an invasion of my right to a secret vote), and thereby would definitely NOT be voting Conservative, I received a robocall directing me to a supposed polling station west of the General Hospital here in Regina.
I did check into it, and did vote successfully. But that's because I was skeptical about my polling station changing two days before the election, not because someone didn't try to trick me into missing out on my chance to vote against these vote-frauding neanderthal jackboots.
I have many reasons for hating the Harpercrites, a list of issues built up over a decade. I'm actually glad they stuck their neck in the noose with the robocalls, regardless of whether it was a few party underlings or a "big plan" by the higher ups. Because the end result is the same: The Canadian Reform Alliance Party (the true roots of the Harpercrite Conservatives) may be dissolved as a party entirely, or subjected to fines so heavy that they can't afford to continue operations.
And in my books, that would be terrific for Canada. Because the Harpercrites have a long-standing tradition of fighting against the very Charter of Rights and Constitution which define the obligations of a sound a legally-moral Canadian government to the people of this country. And I do not like seeing any politician of any stripe violating those ethics, regardless of how "moral" their stance may be.
From my perspective, the history of violating the Charter should itself be sufficient justification for removing these "people" from power.
Re: (Score:2)
So you said you were offended at being asked how you were going to vote, and told him anyway? You let your emotion and righteous indignation override your sensibility, and gave him exactly the info he wanted when he called you.
The iocane powder routine from The Princess Brid
Re: (Score:2)
NYFB either.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, yes. The most hilarious detail is a burner phone registered to "Pierre Poutine, Separatist Street, Joliette Quebec." It's one of our best/worst political scandals in a generation.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. I think if it goes much further, it will likely go over the top of the Sponsorship Scandal that ultimately destroyed the Liberals.
Stupid fucking Conservatives, they were actually gaining some momentum. They probably would still have had a majority in the last election (if somewhat slimmer), but now they're getting buried in this, and that nasty piece of work Del Mastro is making it worse every times he opens his mouth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The easiest way is to watch Harper's reaction. IF it was a Liberal ploy, Harper would be all over inquiries and everything - anything to make the opposition look bad and tie up their time and money in investigations to weaken/kill them.
Harper's an excellent politician (not to be confused with leader).
Dump Harper... (Score:1)
...and repeal all laws passed by the Republican, er, PC party since they came to power, and forbid them from acting in any capacity in Canadian government for the next 20 years as punishment for their gross malfeasance and betrayal of trust.
This will never happen, but one can dream.
Canada had a silent coup (Score:5, Interesting)
Contact the Governor General [mailto] and demand he dissolves Parliament and call new elections.
These Conservatives (party of "Law & Order") have committed several counts of election fraud (In & Out and much more [sixthestate.net]).
Fascinating how they love to claim something along the lines of, "Libruls got a speeding ticket, we committed election fraud, everyone's the same". Like speeders & murderers are somehow equivalent in their law breaking.
Result of what is happening (Score:1)
The noose tightens on the Cons (Score:3)
Globe & Mail [theglobeandmail.com] article about former chief of staff to Harper calling for investigation.
Don't forget, write the Governor General [mailto] and demand Parliament be dissolved until new election has been held.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes the Governor General could, but he won't, not unless he were to be presented with a sufficiently compelling case that the calls in fact caused a completely invalid result. To invoke the Reserve Powers prematurely would only serve to bring his office and his personal judgment into question. The power to dissolve Parliament without the advice of the Prime Minister or without a vote of no confidence is there for the most extreme of circumstances, and as bad as this is, it's nowhere near that point yet, and
Treason (Score:1)
Actively subverting a democratic process should be considered treason. It is in essence, an attempt to destroy a government, and should be treated as such. Those found guilty of such activities should be shot or jailed for life.
Guess who I would not vote for now! (Score:1)
Treason (Score:2)
I don't know how else to define acting to maliciously interfering with the underpinnings of a functioning democracy. This is one crime that we could benefit being prosecuted more vigorously. Canada, you first.
Re: (Score:1)
Prior to elections in Canada you receive a document from the government telling you where you will vote and contact information should you have questions or issues. You are instructed to keep it in a safe place and even bring it with you to the polling station. That said, this list of voters is pure gold. Nigerian or other scammers would probably pony up some serious coin for hundreds (thousands?) of names of people void of common sense and who will believe anything a phone caller tells them. Our local NDP member of parliment has been doing much hand wringing over the fact that these poor people where so deceived and someone's gunna' pay... blah, blah, blah. But I see no wringing of hands of how folks seem to have abandoned the notion of being self reliant, responsible, skeptical or just admitting they got duped because they are chumps. You've got your tempest and your teapot. Nothing to see here.
Ofcourse there is nothing wrong with defrauding voters... how would conservatives ever get elected if honesty was a requirement?
Re:Kettle, black, etc (Score:5, Informative)
You're confusing accusations with facts. It was a Liberal staff member that leaked the information about Toews, not an NDP politician as the Conservatives initially claimed (without evidence).
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/02/27/pol-liberals-vikileaks.html [www.cbc.ca]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You mean "leaked" the publicly available divorce information about Toews porking his babysiter?
All information on divorce dockets is freely available on the internet. Suck it.
Re: (Score:3)
No it's not. It's a paper file stored at the courthouse which you have to sign out to view. That's how we know who was responsible: the record of who has viewed your divorce file is also "public" information.
These kinds of divorce records are 'public' in the sense that anybody can look them up, which is public in the same sense that your personal whereabouts are public, since somebody can always follow you around, or the government could track your car's license plate. If your car's location is public, but
Re: (Score:1)
Odd, cause the NDP were fessing up to it according to the National Post.
Lies. Damned lies. You're caught lying and your answer is to lie more. Stephen Harper, is that you?
Re:Kettle, black, etc (Score:5, Insightful)
Rae was NDP back when he was premier of Ontario, but he's federal Liberal leader now.
I certainly hope you're not trying to put the Vickileaks Twitter prank, a protest against the provisions of Bill C-30, in the same category as scumbag election tampering. One hurt the feelings of a cabinet minister who'd just called everyone who didn't support his stupid bill child molesters; the other was an attempt to stop people from voting.
The Conservative agenda proceeds apace, with an austerity budget — hey, everyone's doing it, great excuse to gut the public sector — out in a week or so.
Re:Kettle, black, etc (Score:5, Insightful)
the Liberals are .. well the liberals, but their last leader didn't do them any favours with his here again, back to america tomorrow antics.
Fucking liar. Ignatieff accepted a position at U of Toronto [utoronto.ca].
Why do conbots like free trade and the ability of the most talented to be able to accept the highest paid, most prestigious positions anywhere in the world... except when it's to their political advantage to smear someone for doing exactly that? (Note, I'm not a big fan of Ignatieff, but compared to what we've got, he's several orders of magnitude better.)
For just once I wish these guys could stop slinging mud and do something productive, but this is politics we're talking about.
For just once I wish a conbot would knock it off with the false equivalencies about how murderers and speeders are the same because they both broke a law. (Conbots being the murderers in this analogy, in case you're too intellectually challenged to understand it.)
Re: (Score:2)
And if he were to accept a position in the U.S. tomorrow, would that then make you the fucking liar?
Of course not. To paraphrase Babbage, I cannot even conceive of the mental confusion that would lead to that question.
Or is it just convenient to your argument to fling self righteous remarks about?
I don't think that word [duckduckgo.com] means whatever you seem to think it means.
Seems you and politicians may have more in common than you think.
WTF does that even mean? Politicians are people. I have that in common with them, yes. No one that knows me would call me a lying power-seeking egotist, if that's your definition of politician.
Idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
The implication was that Ignatieff had returned to the United States following his failed leadership stint. Since he hasn't, really, the implication was false.
Re: (Score:2)
On the off chance that you're not trolling: this is why people tend to end their conversations with you by wincing in agony and shouting, "Oh, fuck you."
Re:It makes no sense at all (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering how much they got away with so far, it's only logical that they push the envelope further. The general voter apathy makes it even possible, if not likely, that they will still get away with it. What will happen? A committee will get formed that, after lengthy discussion, comes to the conclusion that no direct involvement of a party can be established, maybe a scapegoat or two gets sacrificed (read: someone who wanted to leave politics for a better paying career in the private sector anyway), then it gets closed. Voters are stupid enough to forget about it 'til the next time anyway.
Re:It makes no sense at all (Score:5, Insightful)
The general voter apathy makes it even possible...
Yes. Election fraud is a direct attack on democracy. Voters who doesn't care enough to be vigilant against scams like this are accomplices to the crime.
Re: (Score:2)
It's worth noting that Elections Canada is investigating, and they have burned the Conservatives before (on the so called "in-and-out" campaign spending limit violations). This won't go away entirely based on a committee of politicians meeting in camera and deciding that everything's dandy.
Re:It makes no sense at all (Score:5, Informative)
During their last term, the Conservatives:
- were convicted of campaign finance fraud (the in-and-out scandal), using accounting tricks to funnel more money than allowed into critical campaigns,
- suspended parliament to kill an inquiry into the treatment of Afghan detainees,
- were found in contempt of parliament for refusing to disclose the cost of several big ticket items (including law & order programs, corporate tax cuts and purchasing fighters.) This is the first time a British style parliament anywhere has been found in contempt.
Then we had an election, and voted them back in, this time with a majority. So, yeah, they figure than pretty much get away with it.
Re: (Score:3)
During their last term, the Conservatives:
- were convicted of campaign finance fraud (the in-and-out scandal), using accounting tricks to funnel more money than allowed into critical campaigns,
Which the NDP - the official opposition - also engaged in. After the Conservatives were convicted, the NDP settled and repaid.
- suspended parliament to kill an inquiry into the treatment of Afghan detainees,
Which happened under the previous Liberal administration.
- were found in contempt of parliament for refusing to disclose the cost of several big ticket items (including law & order programs, corporate tax cuts and purchasing fighters.) This is the first time a British style parliament anywhere has been found in contempt.
Which is about as relevant to Canadian politics as Bill Clinton's impeachment was to American politics: the other parties got together and voted the Conservatives in contempt. Regardless of the merits, most Canadians view it as political maneuvering.
Then we had an election, and voted them back in, this time with a majority. So, yeah, they figure than pretty much get away with it.
Well the lastest polls show that: 1. they haven't lost any public support since
Re: (Score:2)
Did the NDP blow anywhere near as much hot air in denying any wrongdoing as the Conservatives did? Conservatives and their supporters were carrying on about Elections Canada being out to get them, and how dare anyone question the propriety of their practices... basically the same tone that they're taking now.
A lot of high-handed and infuriating stuff happened under the previous Libera