Imagine that 1.5 million fraudulent votes had been stuffed in Canada's ballot boxes

18 posts / 0 new

Tue, 2009-10-20 22:49

Wilf Day

Quote:
Imagine this election scenario. A party wins 155 seats in a 301-seat Parliament and forms a majority government. But after the election, officials discover that 1.5 million fraudulent votes had been stuffed in the ballot boxes, giving the winning party 38 seats it didn't deserve and majority power that it didn't earn.

That would be electoral fraud on a breath-taking scale. Fortunately the scenario is imaginary, but the following one is real.

In 1997 federal election, the Liberals won just 38 per cent of the votes, but the voting system -- not the voters -- gave them 51 per cent of the seats, or 38 more seats than warranted by the popular vote. If Canada had a fair voting system that treated all votes equally, the Liberals would have needed another 1.5 million votes to capture a majority of seats.

The imaginary scenario would be criminal because individuals manipulated results to give an undeserved 1.5 million vote advantage to one party. The real-life election in 1997 also produced an undeserved advantage equal to 1.5 million votes. The only difference is the fantasy fraud was perpetrated by individuals, whereas the culprit in real life is a voting system that distorts what we say with our ballots.

In the same vein, let's look at The Bloc Bonus, and other chronic bonuses.

Quote:
. . . Wow!

No wonder some Toronto Liberals and some Alberta Conservatives are willing to put up with the Bloc Bonus.

Who cares if the equivalent of 2.8 million fraudulent votes had been stuffed in Quebec ballot boxes, when you're benefiting from the equivalent of 4.6 million fraudulent votes stuffed in Toronto ballot boxes, or from the equivalent of 11.3 million fraudulent votes stuffed in Alberta ballot boxes.

Tue, 2009-10-20 23:00

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Geez, I thought this thread was going to be about Afghanistan...

Never mind. Carry on.

Tue, 2009-10-20 23:18

Wilf Day

M. Spector wrote:
Geez, I thought this thread was going to be about Afghanistan...

Good catch.

In public relations circles it's called a "hook." Hope it works.

Tue, 2009-10-20 23:55

Krago

So if you vote for a popular party your vote is fraudulent, and if you vote for an unpopular party your vote is wasted? What a useless argument.

Wed, 2009-10-21 00:00

Fidel

It's systematic electoral fraud! Thanks Wilf. A real topic of discussion for a change.

Wed, 2009-10-21 00:01

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

They're all frauds with FPTP.

Wed, 2009-10-21 00:19

Fidel

RevolutionPlease wrote:

They're all frauds with FPTP.

Except that the phony-majority machine made federal Liberals the most fraudulent of all in 1997.

Wed, 2009-10-21 03:19

Fidel

M. Spector wrote:

Geez, I thought this thread was going to be about Afghanistan...

Never mind. Carry on.

Afghans are not enjoying Single NON-Transferable Voting at the insistance of their US masters, which is also a very undemocratic electoral system. Afghan warlords in opposition have tried to lobby the USA's former mujahideen proxies in Karzai's gov't for a proportional voting system. But the US and stooges have worked to crush democracy in Afghan parliament.

Wed, 2009-10-21 11:49

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Fidel wrote:

M. Spector wrote:

Geez, I thought this thread was going to be about Afghanistan...

Never mind. Carry on.

Afghans are not enjoying Single NON-Transferable Voting at the insistance of their US masters, which is also a very undemocratic electoral system.

At least they have a runoff system for President, so they're not stuck with a phony-majority prez.

We should be so lucky.

Wed, 2009-10-21 21:28

#10

Fidel

Okay, I didn't know that, Wilf. I agree that anything would be an improvement over the vote distorting FPTP. I was basing my own opinion on what [url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13611]John Warnock[/url] wrote about the '04-'05 presidential and parliamentary elections in Afghanistan.

Quote:
As Andrew Reynolds points out, the winning candidates received just 2 million votes or 32% of the total. The losing candidates received 4.5 million votes or around two-thirds of the total.

Thu, 2009-10-22 00:05

#11

Wilf Day

Fidel wrote:
what [url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13611]John Warnock[/url] wrote about the '04-'05 presidential and parliamentary elections in Afghanistan.

The more complete quote is:

Quote:
The main opposition was expected to come from the United National Front, which has dominated the Afghan parliament. Their candidate, Abdullah Abdullah, the former Foreign Minister and prominent mujahideen leader, registered on May 6.

The elections for President in October 2004 and for the Afghan parliament in September 2005 were deeply flawed. . . There were 2,800 candidates. Voter turnout for these elections was much lower, in Kabul only 30%. Voters were confronted by many candidates with no political identification. The SNTV electoral system proved to be profoundly anti-democratic. As Andrew Reynolds points out, the winning candidates received just 2 million votes or 32% of the total. The losing candidates received 4.5 million votes or around two-thirds of the total.

Of course, with 2,800 individual candidates for 249 positions, losing candidates would receive the majority of the votes.

The SNTV system is anti-party, and as such fails to assist in the creation of parties. Despite this, as Warnock notes, the United National Front has dominated the Afghan parliament.

SNTV is a bad system, but still not as bad as ours.

Thu, 2009-10-22 00:09

#12

Wilf Day

The message of this thread is: a fantasy fraud perpetrated by individuals produces the same result as the culprit in real life: a voting system that distorts what we say with our ballots.

But the Afghan digression is quite instructive:

Fidel wrote:
Afghans are not enjoying Single NON-Transferable Voting (SNTV) at the insistance of their US masters, which is also a very undemocratic electoral system.

Sadly, I have to advise that Afghanistan has a more democratic system than Canada. Which tells you where Canada is.

SNTV is a primitive semi-proportional system, used only in Jordan and Afghanistan, but it's primitive only by comparison to Irish STV.

SNTV works like this: they have multi-member ridings. Kandahar, for example, has 11 MPs. Voters have one vote for one person. The 11 candidates who receive the most votes in Kandahar win seats. Since there are no parties, there is no need for Irish-style transfers. In effect, the 11 largest tribes in Kandahar each get to elect one MP. Not fully proportional, but not winner-take-all either.

Furthermore, at least 3 of the 11 must be women. Again, better than Canada.

The way it's more "primitive" than Ireland is that, in Ireland those who voted for losing candidates would see their votes transferred to their second choice, and onward. And when the 8 men elected got an average of 9,124 votes each, the 14,145 voters for Abdul Qayyum Karzai wasted quite a few votes. In Ireland their votes would have transferred at a weight of 35% to their second choice. Nevertheless, it's better than our system. Look at the results in Kandahar:

Abdul Qayyum Karzai 14,145 8.2%

Noorulhaq Olumi 12,952 7.6%

Mohammad Arif Noorzai 11,014 6.4%

Khalid Pashtoon 10,448 6.1%

Haji Ameer Lali 8,655 5.0%

Haji Habibullah Jan 5,922 3.5%

Haji Ahmad Shah Khan Asakzai 5,147 3.0%

Obaidullah 4,709 2.7%

Fariba Ahmadi Kakar (female) 2,930 1.7%

Shakiba (female) 1,673 1.0%

Malali Ishaqzai (female) 1,468 0.9%

The United Nations-Afghan Joint Electoral Management Body announced the final results on 14 November 2005 without specifying the political affiliation of the candidates elected since most of them had run as independent candidates.

Quote:
Several sources reported President Karzai's allies won between 65 and 118 seats, while the opposition force, the National Understanding Front, obtained between 60 and 80. Some 100 other candidates, - including 20 former Communists, tribal and religious leaders, businessmen and many women - won seats.

Thu, 2009-10-22 00:25

#13

Fidel

I agree. For a country with a population comparable to our's, Afghans had to choose from more than 40% more candidates for a fewer number of ridings than here. And no parties. And look at the percentage of women in Afghan parliament even without Malalai Joya. I think their electoral system problems alone could be solved a lot more easily than here without a major overhaul.

Thu, 2009-10-22 11:29

#14

Frmrsldr

Krago wrote:

So if you vote for a popular party your vote is fraudulent, and if you vote for an unpopular party your vote is wasted? What a useless argument.

What a useless excuse for a political system.

Thu, 2009-10-22 11:32

#15

Frmrsldr

M. Spector wrote:

Fidel wrote:

M. Spector wrote:

Geez, I thought this thread was going to be about Afghanistan...

Never mind. Carry on.

Afghans are not enjoying Single NON-Transferable Voting at the insistance of their US masters, which is also a very undemocratic electoral system.

At least they have a runoff system for President, so they're not stuck with a phony-majority prez.

We should be so lucky.

It's a good theory, but in practice Afghans will still end up with a phony majority prez.

Fri, 2009-10-23 00:40

#16

Wilf Day

Frmrsldr wrote:
What a useless excuse for a political system.

Indeed.

The point I was making was: Many Toronto Liberals and Alberta Conservatives don't care if the equivalent of 2.8 million fraudulent Bloc votes had been stuffed in Quebec ballot boxes, when they're benefiting from the equivalent of 4.6 million fraudulent Liberal votes stuffed in Toronto ballot boxes, or from the equivalent of 11.3 million fraudulent Conservative votes stuffed in Alberta ballot boxes.

Fri, 2009-10-23 01:38

#17

Fidel

Wilf Day wrote:
The point I was making was: Many Toronto Liberals and Alberta Conservatives don't care if the equivalent of 2.8 million fraudulent Bloc votes had been stuffed in Quebec ballot boxes, when they're benefiting from the equivalent of 4.6 million fraudulent Liberal votes stuffed in Toronto ballot boxes, or from the equivalent of 11.3 million fraudulent Conservative votes stuffed in Alberta ballot boxes.

In the Alberta case, that must be the absolutely fictitious scenario that the Conservative Party wins all first choices on the ballot in every riding, and every second choice, and every third choice, and just about every other candidate selection on the ballot after that. Talk about a rigged setup!

Fri, 2009-10-23 04:14

#18

Frmrsldr

I'm sorry. I have to reprint this here. It is just too funny:

James Bovard wrote:

So what am I missing in Afghanistan?

Isn't this like a really dumb bank robber being caught in the act (stealing almost a million votes) - and then - instead of booking him on charges, being given another chance to rob the same bank?

The U.S. government and NATO are going to let Karzai take another swing at the ballot boxes. Why? To see if he became a smarter vote thief since August?

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2009/10/22/karzai-gets-2nd-chance-to-steal-e....