Andrew Coyne and his fellow Media Party partisans (and liberal "experts") continue their hysterical campaign to discredit changes that amount mostly to common sense administrative minutiae in the electoral process. Arguably, the biggest issue in their litany of gripes, disallowing the practice of vouching, rises above the level of minutiae. But even if, as they claim, there is little evidence of its having been fraudulently used, vouching is wide open to fraud and so should be banned. Banning it is a no-brainer. Vouching is not permitted in either Ontario or Quebec elections (over 60% of Cdn voters) - have Coyne et al ever hyperventilated about this travesty? Didn't think so.
Ezra Levant's rebuttal of the hysteria highlights the 2006 election result for the Sask. riding of Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River - a razor-thin defeat of an incumbent Conservative by a Liberal. Vouching was involved at an Indian reserve where more than 100% voter turnout was observed and a big-screen TV raffled "to get out the Liberal vote" (all laughed off by Elections Canada "investigators").
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The Liberal way...vote early and vote often...even if you have to use a dead persons ID. Thank god for Ezra Levant....pointing out the obvious...bias by Elections Liberal....Canada and Mark Mayrand's panel of hired guns, taxpayers are paying almost 1/2 a MILLION dollars to listen to their paid crock of bull opinions, along with the usual..Solomon, Fife, At Issue(Govt.Smear Campagne)Not a decent bone in their bodies, the lot of them.
Coyne has repeated his main argument in a number of columns, and as BC Blue pointed out only learned yesterday that Ont doesn't allow vouching. His assertion that the "experts" have it right, and that Minister Poilievre is wrong is worth considering. Sheila Fraser is an accountant and auditor and without doubt an expert in her field. But testifying before the committee she was speaking as an elections authority. I can see no evidence that she ever ran for office, worked as a scruitineer, managed a campaign or anything to set her aside from a normal voter. Yet all the members of the committee would have done some or all those things. Secondly she did not volunteer at the outset she was employed by Elections Canada, this further lowers her credibility. After all, Mayrand has testified a couple of times, we already know the position of EC.
I'm a former card carrying Liberal. I quite the party when Ignatieff became leader and I voted Conservative in the last election, first time federally. I'll probably vote Conservative again next time but the way you guys handle files like the Fair Elections Act is baffling. With issues like these I always wonder if there couldn't just be one Tory who could step back and take a look at things from the outside side and then say, "OMG, wtf are we doing?!" The overwhelming consensus is opposed to you on this. But let's suppose they are wrong and you are right. So what? I mean sometimes losing significant support is worthwhile if it profoundly improves our quality of life. Mulroney took those chances with free trade and the GST. He was right and we're all the better for him taking that chance. You guys choose things like this? Or scrapping the long form census? And that latter point I actually agree on, but get real. You guys pick the most useless and bizarre things to draw a line in the sand and go to war with anyone who dares to oppose you. Like I wrote above, I'll probably still be voting Conservative. But for your next insane battle could you please choose something where the outcome will actually concern say even 1/3 of Canadians.
I agree with anonymous #1. This might go over well amongst the base, but its exactly the type of bill if it gets enough attention that could alienate the key swing voters to winning an election. The removal of vouching is a minor problem. The real problems are requiring all poll captains to be appointed by the incumbent rather than Elections Canada, banning Elections Canada from trying to encourage people to vote, banning Elections Canada from compelling those who may have witnessed fraud to testify, and requiring anyone under investigation to get prior to notification. This smacks of blatant partisanship and a bill to just to try to increase the chances of the Tories winning. Even if good ideas, when you have all experts against you that never looks good. I cannot see how this helps the Tories in the long-run, so better to start over and as done in the past consult with as many people as possible. I am a supported on the Ontario PC party and was a Progressive Conservative prior to the merger while have voted for both the Liberals and the Conservatives and a bill like this makes me less likely to vote Conservative. I also think Justin Trudeau is a complete lightweight who is running off his good looks and famous Dad so really I should be a solid Tory but bills like this make he have second thoughts.
"... The overwhelming consensus is opposed to you on this."
[Any supposed "consensus" would have to be based on an assumption that everyone has been swayed by the Media Party's hype. Possible I suppose, but hardly conclusive.]
"... for your next insane battle could you please choose something where the outcome will actually concern say even 1/3 of Canadians."
[So, the supposed "overwhelming consensus" consists of fewer than 1/3 of Canadians? Likely not far off the truth.]
"... bills like this make [m]e have second thoughts."
It's doubtful that anyone whose vote would be swayed by one minor Media Party hyped "issue" like this is being sincere about their support for conservatives.
I disagree as someone whose Great-Grandfather fought in WWI or Grand-father in WWII, anything underming democracy is a deal breaker for me. Also not everyone opposing this are liberal biased media. Sheila Fraser is a well respected public servant who brought to light the sponsorship scandal that helped destroy the Liberals so tough to accuse her of partisanship. As laid out in anonymous #2, the vouching is a minor part, things like parties appointing polling captains and preventing elections Canada for compelling witnesses to testify are far more serious in my view.
I'm anonymous number one. By consensus of opinion I meant expert opinion. Thank goodness the Senate listened to the expert opinion and brought forward changes that were so obviously needed in this bill.
And fortunately common sense has now prevailed.
Post a Comment