BC May 9, 2017 Election Results and Comments

jas wrote:

The BC Liberals have stacked every other government branch and agency with their own, I'm not sure how Elections BC could be immune. Even if no one is appointed, it's very easy to influence hiring.

I wouldn't be worried about ground level staffers, but decisions higher up could certainly influence things. We know it happens elsewhere. Why would anyone assume it couldn't happen here?

Does Elections BC not follow the same hiring rules as Elections Canada, namely that employees must not be members of any political party, and must not publicly express any preference for any political party while employed there?

NorthReport wrote:

Being a scrutineer is the worst possible job for most people as they want to see the election results as soon as possible

Both the Liberal and I were able to check the results on our smart phones. This is less of an excuse than it used to be. It did suck arriving at the campaign office to find most of the best food eaten. Campaigns should squirrel away some snacks for those who arrive after counting the ballots. Trust me, you are hungry after being in a polling place for a few hours, and they want you back at the office right away with the results forms.

BTW the polls clerks weren't biased as far as I could tell, and I've been around politics for a long time. About half were first-timers. Lots of turnover because it isn't great pay for such a long day. All the Elections BC staff I met were polite and professional.

Pogo wrote:

I totally believe that Christy is corrupt and is capable of corrupting people around her.  The voting system however has evolved with layers of scrutiny because Christy is far from the first corrupt politician.  

I agree whole heartedly. But then I know what a Lover of the Universe is capable of. 

Quote:

What can you say at a time like that except "Sorry for this tiny error that has pre-marked the ballots for the Liberal candidate."

As I understand it, the issue isn't that these ballots would somehow be counted as Liberal votes, but that by virtue of being a tiny little mark beside one candidate, they would force a spoiled ballot when combined with a much larger and clearer and more obvious "X" beside another, because a voter cannot mark their endorsement of two candidates.   But it also seems that Elections BC handled this (specifically by recalling the ballots that were known to be misprinted, and by informing poll staff that if they encounter a ballot with (say) a big, bold "X" beside the Green candidate, and a wee little mark beside the Liberal candidate, they should not regard that as a spoiled ballot.)

Quote:

and if they don't check the ballots properly, what else are they doing wrong?

We're all waiting to hear... from YOU.

I trust you understand that if you want to make the claim that there are other irregularities that resulted in a Liberal win (for now) then it's your job to tell us about them, not our job to assure you there cannot have been any.

To put it another way, you can't just say "well, I'm suspicious of some wrongdoing, and that's all the proof we should need that there was wrongdoing".

http://democracywatch.ca/20170511-b-c-party-leaders-and-lieutenant-gover...

The article from Democracy Watch lists 8 suggested rules:

8 Key Rules for Minority Government

1. Until the Lieutenant Governor has communicated directly with all the party leaders, the Lieutenant Governor will not make a decision about which party or parties (through either a formal coalition or legislative agreement) will be given the opportunity to govern first (i.e. to appoint a Cabinet and introduce a Speech from the Throne in the legislature);
2. The party that wins the most seats in the election will be given the first opportunity to govern, including in partnership or coalition with another party, unless the leaders of other parties representing a majority of members of the legislature indicate clearly to the Lieutenant Governor that they will not support that party and that they have agreed to form a coalition government or have agreed on a common legislative agenda;
3. Within 30 days after the Lieutenant Governor decides which party or parties will be given the first opportunity to govern, the Lieutenant Governor and the governing party/parties will open the legislature with a Speech from the Throne;
4. Even if the leaders of parties that represent a majority of members of the legislature do not indicate lack of support for the party that wins the most seats before that party’s Speech from the Throne, if they subsequently indicate lack of support for the Speech, the Lieutenant Governor will not allow the Premier-designate to prorogue the legislature before the Speech from the Throne is voted on by members of the legislature;
5. If a majority of members in the legislature vote against the Speech from the Throne, the Lieutenant Governor will give the opposition parties an opportunity to govern (through either a formal coalition or legislative agreement) before calling an election;
6. After the vote on the Speech from the Throne, the only vote in the legislature that shall be a vote of non-confidence is a vote on a motion that states: “The legislature does not have confidence in the government.”
7. If opposition parties introduce a motion of non-confidence in the governing party at any time after election day, the Lieutenant Governor will not allow the Premier to prorogue the legislature before the motion is voted on by the legislature, and;
8. If a majority in the legislature votes to approve a motion of non-confidence in the governing party before the next fixed-election date, the Lieutenant Governor will give the opposition parties an opportunity to govern (through either a formal coalition or legislative agenda agreement) before agreeing to any request by the Premier that the Lieutenant Governor call an election.

Quote:

How do we even know if this is true? Or did Chrity Clark's office omit to mention that she can govern until all the votes are counted which is a given, and we don't need the LG to tell us that.

Ummm.. what's your question, exactly?

You seem to acknowledge that she can remain in power until the recent vote is completely counted.

What would be the other option?  Kick the current government to the curb BEFORE the votes have been counted??

NorthReport wrote:

I hope the NDP has filed for judicial recounts in the ridings where the vote spread was within 500 votes. I think they have one day more to do so.

It is not within 500 votes it is within 100 votes to get a non-judicial recount and within 1/500 of the ballots cast for a judicial recount. They have already applied for all the judicial recounts they were looking at. The only riding in the province subject to the automatic judicial recount rule is Courtenay Comox.

To get a judicial recount you have to show potential discrepancies or errors sufficient to change the result.  

Here NR I am sure I posted it above but maybe you should look at the rules before stating what they are with no knowledge base.

Guide to Recounts  http://142.34.128.33/docs/guidebooks/879.pdf

Does anyone know what justifies the False Creek recount where the Liberals have what seems to be an insurmountable lead?

Anybody remember Landslide Al?

Left Turn wrote:

The one mistake that I do believe the NDP made in the closing days of the campaign, after the AdvantageBC scandal broke, was to not shift their campaign to exclusively hammering the Liberals on this. The AdvantageBC scandal clearly showed that the main policy initiative of the Liberals at present is corporate welfare. Not to mention that one of the companies that got corporate tax breaks from the AdvantageBC program is considered an international criminal organization by the U.S. government.

That the NDP did not hammer the Liberals relentlessly on this during the closing days of the campaign allowed the corporate media to downplay the scandal, so that it did not become a major factor in most people's votes. ...

Where I do believe the AdvantsgeBC scandal played a role was in motivating more NDP supporters to volunteer for the NDP's GOTV effort. Given the low voter turnout overall, this boost to the NDP's GOTV effort was I believe a key factor in allowing the NDP to pick up ridings in Metro Vancouver.

I agree totally. Instead of focusing on the BC Advantage scandal, the NDP also spent time on the BC Liberals hiding alcohol price increases by shifting from an alcohol price that included taxes to one that added the taxes to the previous price - something that was true but was unlikely to win additional votes. 

Another NDP problem is its use of social media. IMO, NDP websites were poorly designed, often seemed focused more on gaining donations than explaining why one should vote NDP or what the platform was. Many also had a connection for making a donation but no phone number or address for those wanting to volunteer. The party also seemed to learn nothing from Trump's success in using social media to get free advertising to counter an opponent that was vastly outspending him.

Furthermore, with more people getting their news from Facebook, Google, Twitter etc. than from the MSM, this would have provided an opportunity to get out the NDP message unfiltered by and independent of corporate media, as well as providing a means to establish two-way communication with voters.