Judicial recounts

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...

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
[b]..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? [/b]

---

Yes.

quote:

---

[b]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? [/b]

---

Perhaps, but the military vote there is solid Con and cannot be discounted. However, the developer momentum is waning so...

What should happen, IMV, is that Horgan and Burgis change positions. Horgan runs for MP, and Burgis runs for MLA. But that won't happen next election at any rate and Burgis will pick up more votes then, to perhaps contend against Martin, as DeSouza most likely will move on, if the recount fails and he fails to get the seat.

Because of all the development in that riding, its demographics have changed, so it is a different riding than it ever was.

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
[b]..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? [/b]

---

Yes.

quote:

---

[b]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? [/b]

---

Perhaps, but the military vote there is solid Con and cannot be discounted. However, the developer momentum is waning so...

What should happen, IMV, is that Horgan and Burgis change positions. Horgan runs for MP, and Burgis runs for MLA. But that won't happen next election at any rate and Burgis will pick up more votes then, to perhaps contend against Martin, as DeSouza most likely will move on, if the recount fails and he fails to get the seat.

Because of all the development in that riding, its demographics have changed, so it is a different riding than it ever was.

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

Only one? (after all, it's a longstanding and respected tradition on the Island ...)

Only one? (after all, it's a longstanding and respected tradition on the Island ...)

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
[b] Because of all the development in that riding, its demographics have changed.
[/b]

---

I'm assuming that you are referring to the massive sprawl on Bear Mountain in Langford???

quote:

---

As the largest development in western Canada, the resort expects to total $1.8 billion in real estate sales over the next 10 years.

---

[url=http://www.bearmountain.ca/]http://www.bearmountain.ca/[/url]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
[b] Because of all the development in that riding, its demographics have changed.
[/b]

---

I'm assuming that you are referring to the massive sprawl on Bear Mountain in Langford???

quote:

---

As the largest development in western Canada, the resort expects to total $1.8 billion in real estate sales over the next 10 years.

---

[url=http://www.bearmountain.ca/]http://www.bearmountain.ca/[/url]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Centrist:
[b]I'm assuming that you are referring to the massive sprawl on Bear Mountain in Langford???
[/b]

---

Well, there is that too, but the whole area has been developed just as much as Bear Mountain has.

Colewood, Metchosin, and Sooke have all been developed further and have grown rapidly over the last 4 years. Sooke and its outlaying areas have added about 2000 new homes in the last couple of years.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Centrist:
[b]I'm assuming that you are referring to the massive sprawl on Bear Mountain in Langford???
[/b]

---

Well, there is that too, but the whole area has been developed just as much as Bear Mountain has.

Colewood, Metchosin, and Sooke have all been developed further and have grown rapidly over the last 4 years. Sooke and its outlaying areas have added about 2000 new homes in the last couple of years.

At this point, what'd be the chance that a barely-reelected Keith Martin might jump *back* into the CCRAP fold? (I mean, if there's speculation on future David Emerson/Wajid Khan cases...)

At this point, what'd be the chance that a barely-reelected Keith Martin might jump *back* into the CCRAP fold? (I mean, if there's speculation on future David Emerson/Wajid Khan cases...)

quote:

---

Originally posted by adma:
[b]At this point, what'd be the chance that a barely-reelected Keith Martin might jump *back* into the CCRAP fold? (I mean, if there's speculation on future David Emerson/Wajid Khan cases...)[/b]

---

Winston Churchill, who defected twice between the same two parties himself, had this to say on what the British call "ratting":

"Anyone can rat, but it takes a certain ingenuity to re-rat."

quote:

---

Originally posted by adma:
[b]At this point, what'd be the chance that a barely-reelected Keith Martin might jump *back* into the CCRAP fold? (I mean, if there's speculation on future David Emerson/Wajid Khan cases...)[/b]

---

Winston Churchill, who defected twice between the same two parties himself, had this to say on what the British call "ratting":

"Anyone can rat, but it takes a certain ingenuity to re-rat."

While military members are more likely to support the Conservatives, there is no evidence to suggest that CF members are "solidly" Conservative.

Anyway, recounts rarely overturn te result. But very close results can result in a controverted election, where the number of irregularities siginificantly exceed the margin. (It needs to be a significant exceedance - usually at least twice the margin - because it is not reasonable to assume that all irregularities benefitted the same party.)

The validated winner of the election takes their seat, but cease to be members upon a judicial ruling to controvert the election. This leads to a byelection. The parties are not obliged to nominate the same candidates.

Last controverted election I recall in Canada was Wood River in the 1999 Saskatchewan general elecetion.

While military members are more likely to support the Conservatives, there is no evidence to suggest that CF members are "solidly" Conservative.

Anyway, recounts rarely overturn te result. But very close results can result in a controverted election, where the number of irregularities siginificantly exceed the margin. (It needs to be a significant exceedance - usually at least twice the margin - because it is not reasonable to assume that all irregularities benefitted the same party.)

The validated winner of the election takes their seat, but cease to be members upon a judicial ruling to controvert the election. This leads to a byelection. The parties are not obliged to nominate the same candidates.

Last controverted election I recall in Canada was Wood River in the 1999 Saskatchewan general elecetion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm:
[b]While military members are more likely to support the Conservatives...[/b]

---

Why is that, exactly?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm:
[b]While military members are more likely to support the Conservatives...[/b]

---

Why is that, exactly?

quote:

---

Originally posted by adma:
[b]At this point, what'd be the chance that a barely-reelected Keith Martin might jump *back* into the CCRAP fold? (I mean, if there's speculation on future David Emerson/Wajid Khan cases...)[/b]

---

I'd say pretty slim. When he left the Conservatives he wouldn't sit as a Liberal until he had been elected as one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by adma:
[b]At this point, what'd be the chance that a barely-reelected Keith Martin might jump *back* into the CCRAP fold? (I mean, if there's speculation on future David Emerson/Wajid Khan cases...)[/b]

---

I'd say pretty slim. When he left the Conservatives he wouldn't sit as a Liberal until he had been elected as one.

quote:

---

I'd say pretty slim. When he left the Conservatives he wouldn't sit as a Liberal until he had been elected as one.

---

Slim to none. Martin despises Harper and by all accounts, the feeling is mutual [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:

---

I'd say pretty slim. When he left the Conservatives he wouldn't sit as a Liberal until he had been elected as one.

---

Slim to none. Martin despises Harper and by all accounts, the feeling is mutual [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm:
[b]While military members are more likely to support the Conservatives, there is no evidence to suggest that CF members are "solidly" Conservative.

Anyway, recounts rarely overturn te result. But very close results can result in a controverted election, where the number of irregularities siginificantly exceed the margin. (It needs to be a significant exceedance - usually at least twice the margin - because it is not reasonable to assume that all irregularities benefitted the same party.)

The validated winner of the election takes their seat, but cease to be members upon a judicial ruling to controvert the election. This leads to a byelection. The parties are not obliged to nominate the same candidates.

Last controverted election I recall in Canada was Wood River in the 1999 Saskatchewan general elecetion.[/b]

---

Federally, I suppose the last such case was with York North in 1988--the ensuing byelection which confirmed Maurizio Bevilacqua's grip on the seat. (And it was two years later--by which time the NDP was in its post-Rae honeymoon and finished a solid second, while the Mulroney PCs were in such a tailspin that the re-running Tory candidate didn't get much above 10%.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm:
[b]While military members are more likely to support the Conservatives, there is no evidence to suggest that CF members are "solidly" Conservative.

Anyway, recounts rarely overturn te result. But very close results can result in a controverted election, where the number of irregularities siginificantly exceed the margin. (It needs to be a significant exceedance - usually at least twice the margin - because it is not reasonable to assume that all irregularities benefitted the same party.)

The validated winner of the election takes their seat, but cease to be members upon a judicial ruling to controvert the election. This leads to a byelection. The parties are not obliged to nominate the same candidates.

Last controverted election I recall in Canada was Wood River in the 1999 Saskatchewan general elecetion.[/b]

---

Federally, I suppose the last such case was with York North in 1988--the ensuing byelection which confirmed Maurizio Bevilacqua's grip on the seat. (And it was two years later--by which time the NDP was in its post-Rae honeymoon and finished a solid second, while the Mulroney PCs were in such a tailspin that the re-running Tory candidate didn't get much above 10%.)