News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6K     0 

I think my issue with using the single returned-mail vote as enough of an irregularity to force a byelection is that it would occur in this one-vote-victory scenario and create theoretical precedence for a riding won by far more votes. What would the threshold for a victory need to be for a returned-vote of this type to force a byelection again? One? Five? Fifteen? Five-hundred? Tread carefully.
 
Mihairokov said:
I think my issue with using the single returned-mail vote as enough of an irregularity to force a byelection is that it would occur in this one-vote-victory scenario and create theoretical precedence for a riding won by far more votes. What would the threshold for a victory need to be for a returned-vote of this type to force a byelection again? One? Five? Fifteen? Five-hundred? Tread carefully.
Click to expand...

Generally, if there is a tie a by-election is called to resolve it.

If the difference is only 1 vote and there are a number of unresolved questions about the legitimacy of the mail-in ballots then a by-election should be called. There are enough disputed mail-in ballots to change the results of the election and because of that, it needs an official re-do.
 
Richard White said:
Generally, if there is a tie a by-election is called to resolve it.

If the difference is only 1 vote and there are a number of unresolved questions about the legitimacy of the mail-in ballots then a by-election should be called. There are enough disputed mail-in ballots to change the results of the election and because of that, it needs an official re-do.
Click to expand...
If all these disputed ballots are identified, they should just review the disputed ballots through the normal judicial recount proces.

If it can't be resolved for other reasons, then any elector or candidate can contest it and it gets escalated through the normal court process, eventually to the Supreme Court. That is the actual process, where they will determine if there was corruption, irregularities, illegal acts, etc.

A by-election is just a waste of money when all the information is already available for review.
 
Last edited:
Finally, as reported over on the Carny thread, the Liberals are at 169...


...I am going to presume at this point all the recounts are a done deal. And if anything changes from here on can be posted over said Carney channel:

PM Mark Carney's Canada

Catch all for the recent election of Mark Carney as LPC leader
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca

Thus closing this election, as well as requesting admin (@PinkLucy) to lock this thread behind a UT memory door if I may be so bold.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PL1
evandyk said:
The guy who stepped down got 82%. This is a foregone conclusion.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but Poilievre might not get 82%. By the time that by-election happens, Albertans will see their Edmonton-raised PM and his Liberals committing to new gas and oil pipelines to two or even all three oceans, making significant hydrocarbon promotion, taking leaps to end to western alienation (Carney will be dancing with Smith before Christmas), a huge boost to the military, and working to remove interprovincial trade barriers so that Alberta-made goods can sell nationwide. All with limited tax increases. What’s not to like if you’re an Albertan? And what can Poilievre offer beyond Trumpian slogans? My guess is that with the right Liberal candidate (and Carney will put in a ringer), Poilievre wins at best 65-70%, with unprecedented gains by the Liberals at the loss to the NDP. A mediocre victory in the CPC heartland could be a potential deathblow to Poilievre.
 
Last edited:
Admiral Beez said:
Agreed, but Poilievre might not get 82%. By the time that by-election happens, Albertans will see their Edmonton-raised PM and his Liberals committing to new gas and oil pipelines to two or even all three oceans, making significant hydrocarbon promotion, taking leaps to end to western alienation (Carney will be dancing with Smith before Christmas), a huge boost to the military, and working to remove interprovincial trade barriers so that Alberta-made goods can sell nationwide. All with limited tax increases. What’s not to like if you’re an Albertan? And what can Poilievre offer beyond Trumpian slogans? My guess is that Poilievre wins at best 65%, with unprecedented gains by the Liberals at the loss to the NDP.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think it was the Trudeau factor that kept the LPC supressed in Alberta. Pierre did alot of damage there.

Mark Carney however is making an effort to include Alberta in the conversation which I think goes a long way towards reconciling differences.

Having said that you are correct about Pollievre. He is nothing without slogans. Infact he reminds me alot of the the Tea Party Republicans down south.

If you recall, the Tea Party faction of the GOP had very little substance and was nothing more than a soap box for the more extreme aspects of the party.
 
They should just introduce a refundable deposit of a few hundred dollars to get on the ballot. That would put these clowns out of business. They're not accomplishing anything other than inconveniencing the citizens of the ridings they choose to target.

Pay $1000 to register and you get it back if you get 2% of the vote. Simple. You don't even have to make them pay it up front. Simply require them to lodge a letter of credit from a bank whereby the bank promises to pay the $1000 if you don't make it. The cost of the letter will reflect the bank's view of the likelihood of you making it. So PP will get the letter for a penny, and my cousin (who I'm sure will be on the ballot again) would have to pay $1000.
 
evandyk said:
They should just introduce a refundable deposit of a few hundred dollars to get on the ballot. That would put these clowns out of business. They're not accomplishing anything other than inconveniencing the citizens of the ridings they choose to target.

Pay $1000 to register and you get it back if you get 2% of the vote. Simple. You don't even have to make them pay it up front. Simply require them to lodge a letter of credit from a bank whereby the bank promises to pay the $1000 if you don't make it. The cost of the letter will reflect the bank's view of the likelihood of you making it. So PP will get the letter for a penny, and my cousin (who I'm sure will be on the ballot again) would have to pay $1000.
Click to expand...
This would be deemed a barrier to participation in democracy that the courts would likely shoot down. There's currently a petition going around by a CPC MP from Manitoba I believe asking for $500 to run, which would also be shot down by the courts.

Instead it would make more sense for every candidate to have a different official agent to represent them "legally" as candidates. That would resolve a lot of this, IMO.
 
Mihairokov said:
This would be deemed a barrier to participation in democracy that the courts would likely shoot down. There's currently a petition going around by a CPC MP from Manitoba I believe asking for $500 to run, which would also be shot down by the courts.

Instead it would make more sense for every candidate to have a different official agent to represent them "legally" as candidates. That would resolve a lot of this, IMO.
Click to expand...

I wonder if the not-withstanding clause would be applicable here.

I see your point with it being a barrier however it also acts a barrier if you have a ballot longer than iJustine's AT&T bill.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top