Judicial recounts
Sun, 2008-10-19 18:54
#1
Judicial recounts
Sun, 2008-10-19 18:54
#2
There are three listed on the Elections Canada website: Egmont, PEI; Kitchener-Waterloo, ON; and Vancouver South, BC.
[url=http://enr.elections.ca/JudicialRecount_e.aspx]http://enr.elections.ca/J...
Sun, 2008-10-19 18:54
#3
There are three listed on the Elections Canada website: Egmont, PEI; Kitchener-Waterloo, ON; and Vancouver South, BC.
[url=http://enr.elections.ca/JudicialRecount_e.aspx]http://enr.elections.ca/J...
Sun, 2008-10-19 18:54
#4
There are three listed on the Elections Canada website: Egmont, PEI; Kitchener-Waterloo, ON; and Vancouver South, BC.
[url=http://enr.elections.ca/JudicialRecount_e.aspx]http://enr.elections.ca/J...
Sun, 2008-10-19 18:54
#5
There are three listed on the Elections Canada website: Egmont, PEI; Kitchener-Waterloo, ON; and Vancouver South, BC.
[url=http://enr.elections.ca/JudicialRecount_e.aspx]http://enr.elections.ca/J...
Sun, 2008-10-19 19:57
#6
It's not officially a "judicial" recount, but the Cons candidate has requested a recount in Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca where Keith Martin (Lib) won by only 68 votes.
Sun, 2008-10-19 19:57
#7
It's not officially a "judicial" recount, but the Cons candidate has requested a recount in Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca where Keith Martin (Lib) won by only 68 votes.
Sun, 2008-10-19 19:57
#8
It's not officially a "judicial" recount, but the Cons candidate has requested a recount in Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca where Keith Martin (Lib) won by only 68 votes.
Sun, 2008-10-19 19:57
#9
It's not officially a "judicial" recount, but the Cons candidate has requested a recount in Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca where Keith Martin (Lib) won by only 68 votes.
Mon, 2008-10-20 09:38
#10
Elections Canada shows Egmont as a judicial recount "requested by an elector." That was a Conservative victory by a margin of 62 votes, or 0.38% (narrow, for sure, but larger than the margin of 0.1% required for an automatic recount).
Is the situation in Egmont, PEI different than the situation in Esquimalt, BC? Otherwise I am not sure why its not reported on the Elections Canada website, unless the request has not yet formally been made?
[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]
Mon, 2008-10-20 09:38
#11
Elections Canada shows Egmont as a judicial recount "requested by an elector." That was a Conservative victory by a margin of 62 votes, or 0.38% (narrow, for sure, but larger than the margin of 0.1% required for an automatic recount).
Is the situation in Egmont, PEI different than the situation in Esquimalt, BC? Otherwise I am not sure why its not reported on the Elections Canada website, unless the request has not yet formally been made?
[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]
Mon, 2008-10-20 09:38
#12
Elections Canada shows Egmont as a judicial recount "requested by an elector." That was a Conservative victory by a margin of 62 votes, or 0.38% (narrow, for sure, but larger than the margin of 0.1% required for an automatic recount).
Is the situation in Egmont, PEI different than the situation in Esquimalt, BC? Otherwise I am not sure why its not reported on the Elections Canada website, unless the request has not yet formally been made?
[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]
Mon, 2008-10-20 09:38
#13
Elections Canada shows Egmont as a judicial recount "requested by an elector." That was a Conservative victory by a margin of 62 votes, or 0.38% (narrow, for sure, but larger than the margin of 0.1% required for an automatic recount).
Is the situation in Egmont, PEI different than the situation in Esquimalt, BC? Otherwise I am not sure why its not reported on the Elections Canada website, unless the request has not yet formally been made?
[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]
Mon, 2008-10-20 09:46
#14
quote:
Originally posted by robbie_dee:
[b]
Is the situation in Egmont, PEI different than the situation in Esquimalt, BC? Otherwise I am not sure why its not reported on the Elections Canada website, unless the request has not yet formally been made?[/b]
Esquimalt still has only "preliminary results" rather than "validated results" on elections.ca. The judicial recount determination is based on "validated results" and those don't seem to be ready there yet (the returning officer has a period of time in which to validate the results, but in most ridings that task is completed well before the deadline).
Mon, 2008-10-20 09:46
#15
quote:
Originally posted by robbie_dee:
[b]
Is the situation in Egmont, PEI different than the situation in Esquimalt, BC? Otherwise I am not sure why its not reported on the Elections Canada website, unless the request has not yet formally been made?[/b]
Esquimalt still has only "preliminary results" rather than "validated results" on elections.ca. The judicial recount determination is based on "validated results" and those don't seem to be ready there yet (the returning officer has a period of time in which to validate the results, but in most ridings that task is completed well before the deadline).
Mon, 2008-10-20 09:46
#16
quote:
Originally posted by robbie_dee:
[b]
Is the situation in Egmont, PEI different than the situation in Esquimalt, BC? Otherwise I am not sure why its not reported on the Elections Canada website, unless the request has not yet formally been made?[/b]
Esquimalt still has only "preliminary results" rather than "validated results" on elections.ca. The judicial recount determination is based on "validated results" and those don't seem to be ready there yet (the returning officer has a period of time in which to validate the results, but in most ridings that task is completed well before the deadline).
Mon, 2008-10-20 09:46
#17
quote:
Originally posted by robbie_dee:
[b]
Is the situation in Egmont, PEI different than the situation in Esquimalt, BC? Otherwise I am not sure why its not reported on the Elections Canada website, unless the request has not yet formally been made?[/b]
Esquimalt still has only "preliminary results" rather than "validated results" on elections.ca. The judicial recount determination is based on "validated results" and those don't seem to be ready there yet (the returning officer has a period of time in which to validate the results, but in most ridings that task is completed well before the deadline).
Tue, 2008-10-21 06:19
#18
The validated Esquimalt results were posted yesterday, and Martin ended up carrying the riding by a margin of 0.11%, just over the threshhold for an automatic recount. So the ball is in the Conservatives' court to request one. If they do request a recount, do they have to foot the bill if it doesn't change the result?
Tue, 2008-10-21 06:19
#19
The validated Esquimalt results were posted yesterday, and Martin ended up carrying the riding by a margin of 0.11%, just over the threshhold for an automatic recount. So the ball is in the Conservatives' court to request one. If they do request a recount, do they have to foot the bill if it doesn't change the result?
Tue, 2008-10-21 06:19
#20
The validated Esquimalt results were posted yesterday, and Martin ended up carrying the riding by a margin of 0.11%, just over the threshhold for an automatic recount. So the ball is in the Conservatives' court to request one. If they do request a recount, do they have to foot the bill if it doesn't change the result?
Tue, 2008-10-21 06:19
#21
The validated Esquimalt results were posted yesterday, and Martin ended up carrying the riding by a margin of 0.11%, just over the threshhold for an automatic recount. So the ball is in the Conservatives' court to request one. If they do request a recount, do they have to foot the bill if it doesn't change the result?
Tue, 2008-10-21 08:40
#22
quote:
If they do request a recount, do they have to foot the bill if it doesn't change the result?
Yes I believe that they do - why should the taxpayer pay?
Tue, 2008-10-21 08:40
#23
quote:
If they do request a recount, do they have to foot the bill if it doesn't change the result?
Yes I believe that they do - why should the taxpayer pay?
Tue, 2008-10-21 08:40
#24
quote:
If they do request a recount, do they have to foot the bill if it doesn't change the result?
Yes I believe that they do - why should the taxpayer pay?
Tue, 2008-10-21 08:40
#25
quote:
If they do request a recount, do they have to foot the bill if it doesn't change the result?
Yes I believe that they do - why should the taxpayer pay?
Tue, 2008-10-21 08:51
#26
If anyone can afford it, the Cons can. Does anyone have any sense how likely it is that a recount could change the result? Has it happened before?
Tue, 2008-10-21 08:51
#27
If anyone can afford it, the Cons can. Does anyone have any sense how likely it is that a recount could change the result? Has it happened before?
Tue, 2008-10-21 08:51
#28
If anyone can afford it, the Cons can. Does anyone have any sense how likely it is that a recount could change the result? Has it happened before?
Tue, 2008-10-21 08:51
#29
If anyone can afford it, the Cons can. Does anyone have any sense how likely it is that a recount could change the result? Has it happened before?
Tue, 2008-10-21 09:27
#30
Recounts rarely change the result of an election these days, particularly if the gap is more than 15 or so votes.
Tue, 2008-10-21 09:27
#31
Recounts rarely change the result of an election these days, particularly if the gap is more than 15 or so votes.
Tue, 2008-10-21 09:27
#32
Recounts rarely change the result of an election these days, particularly if the gap is more than 15 or so votes.
Tue, 2008-10-21 09:27
#33
Recounts rarely change the result of an election these days, particularly if the gap is more than 15 or so votes.
Tue, 2008-10-21 09:36
#34
I think the question in the Vancouver South recount is the number of rejected ballots - there are close to 200 rejected ballots with only a 33 vote lead - so if a certain number of them are allowed there could be a change.
In the poll that I DRO at in Vancouver Center I had only one rejected ballot and it was obvious as there was a tick mark beside each persons name.
Tue, 2008-10-21 09:36
#35
I think the question in the Vancouver South recount is the number of rejected ballots - there are close to 200 rejected ballots with only a 33 vote lead - so if a certain number of them are allowed there could be a change.
In the poll that I DRO at in Vancouver Center I had only one rejected ballot and it was obvious as there was a tick mark beside each persons name.
Tue, 2008-10-21 09:36
#36
I think the question in the Vancouver South recount is the number of rejected ballots - there are close to 200 rejected ballots with only a 33 vote lead - so if a certain number of them are allowed there could be a change.
In the poll that I DRO at in Vancouver Center I had only one rejected ballot and it was obvious as there was a tick mark beside each persons name.
Tue, 2008-10-21 09:36
#37
I think the question in the Vancouver South recount is the number of rejected ballots - there are close to 200 rejected ballots with only a 33 vote lead - so if a certain number of them are allowed there could be a change.
In the poll that I DRO at in Vancouver Center I had only one rejected ballot and it was obvious as there was a tick mark beside each persons name.
Tue, 2008-10-21 10:09
#38
Given that a seat or two one way or the other will have no substantive effect on the outcome - I have to say that I would not shed a tear to see two of the most revolting people in the federal Liberal caucus like Doctor Professor Keith Martin and Ujjal Dosanjh dumped as a result of recounts -even if it means two more Tory seats.
Political discourse in Canada would improve without both of those goofs.
Tue, 2008-10-21 10:09
#39
Given that a seat or two one way or the other will have no substantive effect on the outcome - I have to say that I would not shed a tear to see two of the most revolting people in the federal Liberal caucus like Doctor Professor Keith Martin and Ujjal Dosanjh dumped as a result of recounts -even if it means two more Tory seats.
Political discourse in Canada would improve without both of those goofs.
Tue, 2008-10-21 10:09
#40
Given that a seat or two one way or the other will have no substantive effect on the outcome - I have to say that I would not shed a tear to see two of the most revolting people in the federal Liberal caucus like Doctor Professor Keith Martin and Ujjal Dosanjh dumped as a result of recounts -even if it means two more Tory seats.
Political discourse in Canada would improve without both of those goofs.
Tue, 2008-10-21 10:09
#41
Given that a seat or two one way or the other will have no substantive effect on the outcome - I have to say that I would not shed a tear to see two of the most revolting people in the federal Liberal caucus like Doctor Professor Keith Martin and Ujjal Dosanjh dumped as a result of recounts -even if it means two more Tory seats.
Political discourse in Canada would improve without both of those goofs.
Tue, 2008-10-21 10:58
#42
N.Beltov
Hell hath no fury like an NDPer scorned.
Tue, 2008-10-21 10:58
#43
N.Beltov
Hell hath no fury like an NDPer scorned.
Tue, 2008-10-21 10:58
#44
N.Beltov
Hell hath no fury like an NDPer scorned.
Tue, 2008-10-21 10:58
#45
N.Beltov
Hell hath no fury like an NDPer scorned.
Tue, 2008-10-21 11:41
#46
I don't really care one way or the other about Vancouver South. But in Esquimalt Juan De Fuca, the NDP came within a little over 2000 votes of defeating Keith Martin in 2006, before falling back to third place in the last election. I am wondering if there was some "strategic voting" at issue here this time, to stop the Conservatives? I am also wondering whether, if the Cons manage to knock Martin out of the picture, the NDP could mount a resurgence in the riding next time around? This is Dave Barrett's former riding, after all. If so, I'd be more interested in the results of this recount.
[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]
Tue, 2008-10-21 11:41
#47
I don't really care one way or the other about Vancouver South. But in Esquimalt Juan De Fuca, the NDP came within a little over 2000 votes of defeating Keith Martin in 2006, before falling back to third place in the last election. I am wondering if there was some "strategic voting" at issue here this time, to stop the Conservatives? I am also wondering whether, if the Cons manage to knock Martin out of the picture, the NDP could mount a resurgence in the riding next time around? This is Dave Barrett's former riding, after all. If so, I'd be more interested in the results of this recount.
[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]
Tue, 2008-10-21 11:41
#48
I don't really care one way or the other about Vancouver South. But in Esquimalt Juan De Fuca, the NDP came within a little over 2000 votes of defeating Keith Martin in 2006, before falling back to third place in the last election. I am wondering if there was some "strategic voting" at issue here this time, to stop the Conservatives? I am also wondering whether, if the Cons manage to knock Martin out of the picture, the NDP could mount a resurgence in the riding next time around? This is Dave Barrett's former riding, after all. If so, I'd be more interested in the results of this recount.
[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]
Tue, 2008-10-21 11:41
#49
I don't really care one way or the other about Vancouver South. But in Esquimalt Juan De Fuca, the NDP came within a little over 2000 votes of defeating Keith Martin in 2006, before falling back to third place in the last election. I am wondering if there was some "strategic voting" at issue here this time, to stop the Conservatives? I am also wondering whether, if the Cons manage to knock Martin out of the picture, the NDP could mount a resurgence in the riding next time around? This is Dave Barrett's former riding, after all. If so, I'd be more interested in the results of this recount.
[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]
Tue, 2008-10-21 12:17
#50
Here's some info on the PEI recount - sounds like a dead man voted.
[url=http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/081021/canada/pei_pe_milligan_allegations...
Tue, 2008-10-21 12:17
#51
Here's some info on the PEI recount - sounds like a dead man voted.
[url=http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/081021/canada/pei_pe_milligan_allegations...