Judicial recounts

175 posts / 0 new
Last post
janfromthebruce

[url=http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0...'s new job[/url]

I think it provides a bit of insight - and also the notion of not making judgments until you walk in someone else's shoes.

I have no insight into all sorts of things here, but when Glen was sitting on that backbench I don't suppose there were lots of "friends" stepping up to the plate, and when he resigned, knowing he was dragging the NDP down, I guess there wasn't alot of "friends" waiting in the wings. Think about the costs associated with having to clear his name, and also having to support his family. Perhaps a lesser person would have "folded up" but Clark scrapped his way back up. This man gave him a chance and knew him slightly as he entered politics.
I doubt Glen has changed his social democratic roots (or we would have heard about that), but he has probably gained some very invaluable insight into not making blanket judgments. For all we know, he might have also had an affect on Jimmy Paterson who might also have grown from his relationship with Glen.

1948

Some corrections/observations.

- I think the conspiracy theory against Uj was that he deliberately undermined Clark because he wanted to be Premier. I never heard the conspiracy that he deliberately blew the election. It's temptoing to believe, because he really really blew it but I think the fact that he was utterly shitty at it is his own damn fault - not a Liberal plot. The Liberals (stupidly) thought they could scoop NDP vote by scoping Uj after he reduced his party to two seats. The opposite has turned out to be the case.

- Glen Clark was, by his own admission, basically unemployable and Pattison offered him a job that would allow him the time to beat his court challenges. As a sales manager! Big sell-out. Can you tell me what nefarious right-wing plot he was fulfilling selling signs?

jas

I don't know, ask the conspiracy theorists. I'm merely pointing out that deriding one former NDP premier for taking a job with the federal Liberals - something *gasp!* a politician might do - while saying nothing about another former NDP premier who takes a job with a hardcore Social Credit supporter and contributor (not to mention a Reaganite) is a wee tad contradictory if not hypocritical. Dosanjh doesn't have a family to support?

The actual facts of the matter I couldn't care less about. If I was Glen I would have taken the job, too.

Stockholm

There is a HUGE difference between taking a job in the private sector that is essentially apolitical but where your boss might be a supporter of a rightwing party (Clark) and actually running for public office as a candidate of another party (Dosanjh).

Ujjal Dosanjh was making a good income at his very lucrative law practice after he lost power in 2001 - its not as if he had to run as a federal Liberal candidate in order to feed his family!

Unionist

Gotta admit Stockholm has a point.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

You don't get it so I will try again. A private citizen has the right to their privacy a politician because they are seeking public support is a proper target for political commentary.

I'll try to explain it by asking you a few questions that I consider to be none of my business because you are not running for office that I know of but they are meant to serve as an illustration.

Who do you work for?
Is your boss a believer in Reaganomics?
Has you boss every donated to the Conservative party or the old Socred party?
Did you know your boss was right wing when you accepted your position?
Have you ever taken a job because of the pay and not its social utility?
Have you ever accepted an inheritance?
What percentage of your income do you give to causes you believe in?

Who the fuck are you to sit in judgement of someone who is not seeking your support for anything in the public realm? Let Ujjal Dosangh go back to private law practice and he no longer will be a proper subject of commentary IMO.

As long as he is in public life trying to convince me and other voters that the liberal way is the way to go then his political views are fair game including whether or not his becoming a liberal was a sell out.

Just so you know it is not his leaving the NDP and going to the liberals that makes me spit when I hear his name it is the fact that he joined the NDP in the first place because he was seeking political power and he didn't care which party he joined as long as he could get elected. I always thought he was a liberal and he proved it too me. He was never a social democrat but used the party vehicle fort his own political ambitions.

As for Glen well I can proudly say I was one of the 25% or so of the convention that voted for Corky nor Glen. I thought at the time he was too young and arrogant to be the leader and needed some more time as a cabinet minister.

quote:

Originally posted by jas:
[b]I don't know, ask the conspiracy theorists. I'm merely pointing out that deriding one former NDP premier for taking a job with the federal Liberals - something *gasp!* a politician might do - while saying nothing about another former NDP premier who takes a job with a hardcore Social Credit supporter and contributor (not to mention a Reaganite) is a wee tad contradictory if not hypocritical. Dosanjh doesn't have a family to support?

The actual facts of the matter I couldn't care less about. If I was Glen I would have taken the job, too.[/b]


jas

quote:


Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]
Who do you work for?
Is your boss a believer in Reaganomics?
Has you boss every donated to the Conservative party or the old Socred party?
Did you know your boss was right wing when you accepted your position?
Have you ever taken a job because of the pay and not its social utility?
Have you ever accepted an inheritance?
What percentage of your income do you give to causes you believe in?

Who the fuck are you ... [/b]


I'll tell you who I'm not. I'm NOT a former NDP premier who just tanked the party.

I don't really want to prolong this, because I know that you already understand the point I'm making. It's not like Clark got a job managing a business, say, the obscure owner of which happened to run with Social Credit types. The Pattison name is, or was, practically synonymous with Social Credit.

It was a very public job offer made to a very public political figure by a very public and controversial business figure, a veritable mover and shaker behind the Social Credit party. It was shocking and puzzling for many to see the vanquished NDP premier take a job at Pattison Group. It was broadcast on the news. The optics. Credit to Clark, actually, for weathering that criticism. Criticism which, to my mind, was obviously justified.

You can't just separate your business activities from your political activities when you've been in a very high-profile public office and have taken great pains to let your political ideals be known. "Yeah, I'm social democrat union-supporter, but I'm just gonna spend a few years helping an anti-union billionaire capitalist make even more profit..." Clark's joining Pattison's ranks immediately after leaving office automatically draws questions about his political principles and values, if not prior political motives.

I find it bizarre that I'm having to argue this far on this matter. There are apparently many Clark supporters here. Where were you when he needed a job? [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

Stockholm

The vast majority of us work for companies that are owned by people who probably vote Conservative. Do you think that anyone who works for GM is some object of derision because they work for a company that is owned by someone who donates to Republicans in the US>

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

From the link above. Its Macleans but what ever.

quote:

A case in point is the new Penticton plant, championed by Clark but approved by all four senior managers at the Pattison Sign Group, and, ultimately, by Pattison. The site choice, a former food warehouse, was finalized in December. By March most of the Clark-managed renovations - now there's an act of faith - were completed, and the first of what may eventually reach 70 or 80 staff were at work.

For Wayne Tebbutt, economic development officer for the city of 41,000, landing a "blue chip" Pattison company was a coup. He gives Clark full credit. "He's a good businessman. He stated clearly what he wanted and he never moved from that line. It was a good experience," says Tebbutt, before offering the ultimate compliment. "I wouldn't mind sitting on his deck." By locating in B.C., where Pattison's sign operations are unionized, Clark had to deal with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Clark, once an organizer for the Ironworkers' union, handled negotiations. If the Penticton move was to happen, he warned, he needed a flexible, competitive workforce. The union, happy for the jobs, tempered its demands. Among those across the negotiating table from Clark was Harry Van Beest, a business representative for the IBEW. "He knows both sides of the fence," says Van Beest. "He knew what the company needed, and he also understood how far we could bend."


How many unionized jobs have you created?

How many business people do you think would make sure their expansions were unionized?

Most workers in Canada have worked for right wing assholes especially if you look at the ownership level. How many newspaper people have worked for one of Black's papers? Does it mean that anyone who did is not as good a progressive as you are?

But back to the thread at hand. The Conservatives have filed for a judicial recount that will have all the ballots recounted. And I still hope he goes down in flames and if he then goes into private practice I will thankfully forget all about him.

jas

Really?

So if he loses his seat and then, rather than go back to his private practice, gets a job offer from, say, the Fraser Institute, or, I don't know, the tobacco or the private health care lobby, and takes it, nobody here would say, "oh, yeah, we knew that's what his true colours were! Hypocrite! Turncoat!" Right? Because he's out of public office. He would be immune then. He has to feed his family. Right? No one here would have [i]any[/i] criticism for Dosanjh then.

Because what you do in private has NO bearing on what you have done in public office. It's just food on the table. That's why we don't care at all what kinds of appointments former politicians get when they leave office. It has NO bearing on or relationship to the kinds of decisions they made when they were IN office, right? When they leave office, they leave their political history behind them, and we certainly have no right to comment on what they do from then on. They're a blank slate, as it were. Completely disinterested agents, just trying to get by in the big, cruel world like the rest of us.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

quote:


Originally posted by jas:
[b]I don't know, ask the conspiracy theorists. I'm merely pointing out that deriding one former NDP premier for taking a job with the federal Liberals - something *gasp!* a politician might do - while saying nothing about another former NDP premier who takes a job with a hardcore Social Credit supporter and contributor (not to mention a Reaganite) is a wee tad contradictory if not hypocritical. Dosanjh doesn't have a family to support?

The actual facts of the matter I couldn't care less about. If I was Glen I would have taken the job, too.[/b]


I don't recall anyone criticizing Ujjal Dossanjh's career choices post-premiership - until he chose to re-enter the fray as a Liberal.

Likewise, Bob Rae.

Frankly, if one were to judge by this thread, Jimmy Pattison comes across way better and way less judgemental than you.

adma

So, what's the talk about judicial recounts, then?

robbie_dee

[url=http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=edaf... Sun: Conservatives to challenge Vancouver South judicial recount[/url]

quote:

VANCOUVER - Lawyers for the federal Conservative party are expected to be in court Thursday to challenge a judicial recount that upheld Liberal Ujjal Dosanjh's victory in the Vancouver South riding.

A recount following the Oct. 14 election confirmed Dosanjh's victory over Conservative candidate Wai Young, but narrowed his margin to 22 votes from the 33 recorded on election night.

Conservative party official Ray Leitch said earlier that the review looked at only 28 of 184 ballot boxes, and that the party wants a B.C. Supreme Court judge to order all votes counted before the result is declared official.

The case, which the Conservatives could take to the B.C. Court of Appeal if their request is denied, has brought into sharp focus the process of judicial recounts in Canada.

An Elections Canada representative would not speak specifically about the situation in Vancouver South, but did explain the rules around recounts.

Diane Benson said a judicial recount is automatically triggered when the margin between the top two candidates in a federal race is fewer than one one-thousandth of the total number of votes cast, a test comfortably met in Vancouver South.

A candidate can also apply for a recount if he or she believes votes were not properly scrutinized, recorded or tabulated.

In British Columbia, judicial recounts are conducted by a Supreme Court judge, who has the power to determine the exact way a given result should be reviewed.

According to an Elections Canada handbook, the judge can choose simply to check the math on the sheets that summarize the votes, or opt to recount only the ballots already deemed to be valid, or can review all ballots.

The judge can either count the votes in person or supervise teams.

At any recount, the riding's returning officer is required to be present, and each candidate is allowed to supervise, along with up to three other representatives.

During the count, votes can be rejected for a number of reasons, including:

- A ballot has markings that identify the person who cast the vote.

- A ballot is marked for more than one candidate.

- A ballot has not been marked in a circle next to the corresponding candidate's name.

Ballots cannot be rejected if they are marked with a symbol other than an X, or if the mark extends outside the circle.

It was not clear exactly what happened in the Vancouver South count.


Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Seems to me that if there is a net change of four votes after 28 ballot boxes, it is not at all unreasonable to think there could be a net change of a further 23 in the remaining 156 boxes.

I mean, 4 in 28 means an net change of one vote for every seven ballot boxes. Notionally if that average remained constant, there would be another 22 (and change) net in the remainder.

They should recount all the ballots.

madmax

Now the CPC know how Democrats felt in Florida [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]

Krago

[url=http://enr.elections.ca/ElectoralDistricts_e.aspx?ed=1378]Tories win Kitchener-Waterloo recount by 17 votes.[/url]

Wilf Day

quote:


Originally posted by Krago:
[b][url=http://enr.elections.ca/ElectoralDistricts_e.aspx?ed=1378]Tories win Kitchener-Waterloo recount by 17 votes.[/url][/b]

In the 16 ridings of southwestern Ontario, Liberal voters made up 27.0% of the voters. You would think they would elect at least four MPs. They elected only one, London North Centre. New Democrat voters, at 22.9%, elected three.

Outside the GTA, Montreal, and parts of Atlantic Canada, Liberals need PR as much as, or more than, the NDP does. Unfortunately, Toronto Liberals mostly won't let the rest say so.

adma

Would Guelph barely qualify as SW Ontario as well?

Wilf Day

quote:


Originally posted by adma:
[b]Would Guelph barely qualify as SW Ontario as well?[/b]

Some of these definitions have to be a bit arbitrary.

To analyze the election results, I divided Ontario into seven regions averaging 15 MPs each. Much like Scotland's regions of 16 MSPs each. When I first looked at electoral reform for Canada I thought Scotland's regions were the best template. Then I tried to get fancier with German-style province-wide proportionality. The latest Quebec model on the table is like that, and I'd love to copy it if they implement first. But otherwise, from the Ontario referendum it seems clear that we need a simple model, with regions small enough to use an open-list system to elect the regional top-up MPs. That's Scotland, after all.

So here's what I found.

1. In the 36 Quebec ridings outside Montreal and Eastern Quebec, our skewed system favoured the Bloc Quйbecois to an absurd degree. When its voters there deserved only 16 MPs, the winner-take-all voting system doubled its result, giving it 32 MPs, all but four.

2. In Ontario outside Toronto, Peel and York, the voting system left 740,546 Liberal voters badly under represented: they elected only eight MPs when they deserved 20.

3. In Toronto’s 22 ridings, 244,455 Conservative voters elected no one when they deserved six MPs.

4. Across Canada, 940,747 Green Party voters elected no one when they deserved at least 19 MPs.

Ontario details:

In Toronto’s 22 ridings, 244,455 Conservative voters elected no one when they deserved six MPs. This was a "wrong second-place" result: the 182,632 New Democrat voters elected two and deserved four. Green voters elected no one and deserved two MPs. Liberal voters deserved 10 MPs and got double value, electing 20.

In Peel and York Regions’ 15 ridings, New Democrat voters deserved two MPs and Greens one, while Conservative voters elected five MPs when they deserved six. The Liberal voters also deserved six MPs, but elected ten.

In the 15 ridings of Hamilton-Niagara-Halton-Guelph, 231,038 Liberal voters elected only one MP, when they deserved five. The Greens deserved an MP too. The NDP elected four but deserved only three, and the Conservative elected ten when they deserved only six.

In the 16 ridings of south-western Ontario, 205,426 Liberal voters elected only one MP, when they deserved four. The NDP elected three but deserved four. The Greens deserved one too, but the Conservative elected 12 when they deserved seven.

In the 15 ridings of Oshawa-Barrie-Peterborough-Owen Sound, 208,290 Liberal voters elected only two MPs, when they deserved four. The NDP and Greens each deserved two MPs. The Conservative elected 13 when they deserved only seven.

In the 14 ridings of Eastern Ontario, 240,170 Liberal voters elected three MPs and deserved four. NDP voters elected one and deserved two, while the Greens deserved to elect one. The Conservatives elected ten when they deserved only seven.

In the nine ridings of Northern Ontario, 95,792 Liberal voters elected only one MP when they deserved three. Conservative voters elected only one and deserved two. New Democrats were, for a change, over-represented, electing seven when they deserved only four.

[ 01 November 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

madmax

quote:


In the 16 ridings of southwestern Ontario, Liberal voters made up 27.0% of the voters. You would think they would elect at least four

No, I wouldn't think that. I would think that the LPC had so many people sickened by thought of Dion being the leader and his carbon tax, that they wanted to get rid of Liberals not get more of them. So many Liberals stayed home, they weren't thinking of staying home so that Liberals could get more seats.

quote:

MPs. They elected only one, London North Centre.

quote:

New Democrat voters, at 22.9%, elected three.

Perhaps you need to count the NDP votes in the 3 ridings they won and compare them to the CPC?

The LPC fell to 3rd in each riding, while the CPC rose to 2nd.

NDP-New Democratic Party Joe Comartin 20,914 48.7
Conservative Denise Ghanam 10,276 23.9

NDP-New Democratic Party Brian Masse 20,791 52.5
Conservative Lisa Lumley 8,954 22.6

NDP-New Democratic Party Irene Mathyssen 17,672 43.1
Conservative Mary Lou Ambrogio 12,659 30.8

So, I have a hard time understanding why you might want to reward the LPC for losing ground.
The Liberals had strong numbers in these ridings up until this election.

quote:

Outside the GTA, Montreal, and parts of Atlantic Canada, Liberals need PR as much as, or more than, the NDP does. Unfortunately, Toronto Liberals mostly won't let the rest say so.

While PR is interesting and there are many threads on it...., I don't know how wise it is to pitch PR as a saviour to the political system when the public didn't want the LPC in most Provinces and ridings.

I do recognize that the NDP has been short changed more than any party with regards to the FPTP system, short of the 1993 Progressive Conservatives.

Selling the idea to the LPC that they suck politically and can save their bacon, with a PR system over a FPTP system isn't going to fly.

No LPC establishment mover and shaker is ever going to entertain such nonsense as it would be the end of their Majority Monopolies and they do not believe they failed in this election. They believe Dion and his less then spectacular platform failed them all.

If you talk to people on the streets, many who just couldn't stomach Dion or his Deals with the GP, I think they would be horrified to see the Liberals get more seats. Most people are happy, very happy to see Dion take a hike. Liberals are happy about one thing. They weren't punished as badly as John Turner in 1984 with regards to seat count. As you know the LPC came back 9 years later with a large majority government.

They won't bite on PR.

adma

quote:


The Liberals had strong numbers in these ridings up until this election.

Actually, the rot was already in place in the Windsor seats in 2006--26.4% vs the Tories' 25.3% and Comartin's 44.6% in Windsor-Tecumseh; 25.4% vs the Tories' 20.1% and Masse's 49.5% in Windsor West. The numbers were only "strong" in still being above the Tories'.

Wilf Day

quote:


Originally posted by madmax:
[b]Liberals are happy about one thing. They weren't punished as badly as John Turner in 1984 with regards to seat count. As you know the LPC came back 9 years later with a large majority government.

They won't bite on PR.[/b]


Ontario Liberals remember other things besides 1984.

When Dalton McGuinty's Ontario Liberals won in 2003, they knew all about manufactured majorities. They did not like them. From 1943 until 2003, the Liberals had been out of power for all but five of those 60 years. In 47 of those 55 years they had faced a government with a manufactured majority elected by a minority of voters thanks to our winner-take-all system.

When John Gerretsen was elected in 1995 in Kingston, the only Liberal elected between Toronto and Ottawa by 137,000 Liberal voters, he found himself facing a radical conservative government with a big majority — which the majority of voters had voted against. Some would have shrugged their shoulders. Gerretsen was a lawyer, and a long-time Mayor of Kingston who had been President of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. He had been born in the Netherlands with its full proportional representation system, but knew the German system and preferred it.

So he started working for electoral reform right away, as he finally disclosed publicly in June 2007. When the Liberals were elected, he continued advocating for MMP and a Citizen’s Assembly, and Premier McGuinty kept that promise.

Liberals for MMP included people like Ted McMeekin, MPP for Ancaster Dundas Flamborough Westdale; Dr. Marie Bountrogianni, MPP for Hamilton Mountain; David Alexander, City Councillor, Welland; Steve Fishman, then Liberal candidate in Simcoe-Grey; Selwyn Hicks, then Liberal candidate in Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound; Fred Larsen, Simcoe North Prov. Liberal Association President; Ian Wilson, former Ontario Liberal candidate in Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox & Addington; and many others from areas where Liberals have often been hurt by the winner-take-all system. As well as many Liberals in Toronto.

So the 2008 results, for Liberal voters in Ontario outside the GTA, were no fluke. They have seen this movie far too often.

Electoral reform must not be a partisan issue.

quote:

Originally posted by madmax:
[b]No LPC establishment mover and shaker is ever going to entertain such nonsense as it would be the end of their Majority Monopolies and they do not believe they failed in this election.[/b]

That's a fair description of the Toronto Star editors and the Toronto Liberal machine. Which is why I said "Liberals need PR . . . Unfortunately, Toronto Liberals mostly won't let the rest say so."

ghoris

It would be interesting to see an analysis of how PR would impact on all the various parties.

Wilf is quite right that the current Toronto-centric Liberal party establishment will not want to adopt PR if it means forsaking their stranglehold on 'Fortress Toronto', but those people need to realize that the Tory barbarians are already at the gate. Everyone agrees they need to start having more of a presence outside of Toronto and the West Island of Montreal, but what gets lost in the shuffle is that the Liberals *do* have support in Western Canada, parts of Quebec outside Montreal, and parts of rural Ontario, it just gets camoflauged by the effects of FPTP.

Under a PR system, the Liberals would probably have something closer to 20 seats in Western Canada instead of the 7 they got this election. They actually would have got about the same number of overall seats in Ontario, but in a regional PR or MMP system they would have been distributed differently. If you strictly apply the national popular vote to the seat count, they would have actually finished around 81 seats, slightly ahead of what they got, but it would have been a much more geographically balanced caucus than the current 'Bloc-Toronto-and-Montreal-Ouest'.

TCD

Seriously.

The Liberals don't support PR because they want to win a majority government. That's it.

The Conservatives feel the same.

The NDP and Greens support PR because their highest aspiration is "influencing" a minority Parliament. People in the NDP who want to win power don't talk about PR because they want to win a majority government. NDP sections that actually win power don't talk about because they want to keep winning majority governments.

Some don't like to hear this and there is a good case for the prepetual minority.

However, if PR has been in effect in Saskatchewan in the 40s and 50s Tommy Douglas would have spent half his time in a minority Parliament and likely wouldn't have got his agenda through. Same with Ed Schreyer's government. Same with Dave Barrett. Same with - for that matter - Clement Atlee in the UK.

By the same token, Bob Rae might have fucked things up less in Ontario if he had to negotiate with opposition parties. (Pity that the NDP's internal opposition was led by an ineffective self-promoting nitwit like Peter Kormos).

Pages