NDP Leadership #142

131 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Sat, 2012-03-24 17:51

1springgarden

Brachina wrote:
Nailed by cyberterrorism, I hope thier is a police investigation and charges laid, we need to crack down on these assholes. I hate these worthless fucking goofs who have nothing better to do with hurting other people with thier hacking, spyware, and adware, viruses. Fucking scum.

Cyberterrorism, LOL! If the system can be disrupted that easily by outsiders then bet it will. Look at it as comedy in the modern world. You looking to throw the perpetrators in Guatanamo? Have CSIS interview them in Sudan?

Sat, 2012-03-24 17:55

#103

Life, the unive...

For Unionist

C://dos

C://dos.run

run.dos.run

an oldie but a goodie

Sat, 2012-03-24 17:56

#104

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

LTU, LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I bought a hard drive when I was using CPM. It was 40 MBs and cost me 800 dollars!

Sat, 2012-03-24 17:56

#105

Unionist

Why is Ottawa Citizen reporting this at 5:49?

Quote:

“I think it’s just simply an overloading-the-server problem,” spokeswoman Sally Housser said after voting was extended for a third time.

Asked whether it might be the result of a denial of service attack, Housser said she “has no reason to believe that at the moment.”

Not very confidence-inspiring. Unless it's an old report?

Sat, 2012-03-24 17:58

#106

Gary Shaul Gary Shaul's picture

Quote:
Are you telling me they cannot handle 5000 online voters??

One would imagine that the system is state of art and has the "pipes' to handle large volumes. It's not rocket surgery any more. There was a denial of service attack in the 2003 leadership race. That's suspected this time (sorry I haven't read many comments above).

One interesting thing is the "low" online voter turnout.

I've gone from Nash to Cullen on ballot 3. Ballot 4? Not sure. I can't see that more of Nash's supporters would go to Nathan over either Mulcair or Topp. Although McDonough going to Topp was interesting. So you never know with all those advanced ballots how people ranked people below Nash.

Spend an inordinate amount of time trying to vote in rounds 2 and 3 but persevered. I was tempted to drive down to the Convention Centre to vote. But I heard there were also some delays there (not sure if that was the case).

Rebecca Blakeney just reported that everyone was able to vote. They blocked 2 IP addresses were somehow involved in clogging the system. She wasn't sure if they would "attack" from a different IP addresss for ballot 4.

Hint: I was able to get through on Ballot 3 with the French link.

Sat, 2012-03-24 17:58

#107

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Because the Citizen LOVES the Tories and the Libs, and wants things not to change.

Sat, 2012-03-24 17:58

#108

Policywonk

Gary Shaul wrote:

Quote:
Are you telling me they cannot handle 5000 online voters??

One would imagine that the system is state of art and has the "pipes' to handle large volumes. It's not rocket surgery any more. There was a denial of service attack in the 2003 leadership race. That's suspected this time (sorry I haven't read many comments above).

One interesting thing is the "low" online voter turnout.

I've gone from Nash to Cullen on ballot 3. Ballot 4? Not sure. I can't see that more of Nash's supporters would go to Nathan over either Mulcair or Topp. Although McDonough going to Topp was interesting. So you never know with all those advanced ballots how people ranked people below Nash.

Spend an inordinate amount of time trying to vote in rounds 2 and 3 but persevered. I was tempted to drive down to the Convention Centre to vote. But I heard there were also some delays there (not sure if that was the case).

Rebecca Blakeney just reported that everyone was able to vote. They blocked 2 IP addresses were somehow involved in clogging the system. She wasn't sure if they would "attack" from a different IP addresss for ballot 4.

Hint: I was able to get through on Ballot 3 with the French link.

McDonough went for Cullen, not Topp.

Sat, 2012-03-24 17:59

#109

socialdemocrati...

I'm not saying it's a Conservative attacking the voting site. But if it's a Conservative, they did something that is going to backfire on them tremendously.

Sat, 2012-03-24 18:01

#110

dacckon

If the cons did it the sad thing is that no1 would care, this is just their typical way of doing things and Canadians don't seem outraged by these things as much as I expected us to be. Meh.

Sat, 2012-03-24 18:01

#111

West Coast Greeny

Some math for you all:

The results of the 2nd ballot:
Mulcair - 38.3%
Topp - 25%
Cullen - 19.8%
Nash - 16.8%

Assuming steady voter turnout (giant assuption at this point) and no non-eliminated candidates drift camps.

Nash voters second preferences for Cullen must exceed those for tops by 31 percentage points. I.E. Nash's 2nd preferences must breakdown something like this

Cullen 55
Topp 25
Mulcair 20

For cullen to get on the 4th ballot

Mulcair needs the support of another 11.7%(+1) of members to win the nomination. If Mulcair and Topp are on the ballot, that means he needs 32% of Cullen and Nash's current vote share to win the nomination. If Mulcair and Cullen are on the 4th ballot, he needs just 28% of Topp and Nash's support to win.

Algebra. You really do use it in real life.

Sat, 2012-03-24 18:01

#112

Michelle

It's so hilarious that most of the Mulcair supporters calling in to CPAC's open line show don't even know his name. It's Mul-CAIR, people, not Mul-CLAIR.

"I'm voting for the guy whose name I don't even know! Go MulCLAIR!" Heh.

Sat, 2012-03-24 18:01

#113

Brachina

This is why I voted in advance. I always vote in,advance.

I wonder how many really tried to vote, said screw it when they couldn't. only Half the party voted, spin it anyway you like, this is a total disaster. Many will feel disenfrancised, others are talking,about returning to deligated conventions which would screw the rest of us, who ever wins will have this hanging over them, and we've been,publicly humiliated.

The only upside is the new leader can't be blamed for the mistake.

Sat, 2012-03-24 18:02

#114

KenS

Maybe some of the techies could weigh in if adequate tracks will have been left by the hackers.

But some of the biggest hacking events, I dont remember the perps being definitievely traced.

Sat, 2012-03-24 18:04

#115

KenS

How many people does it take to do a hack attack like this?

1? 2?

Low numbers will make it virtually impossible to pin on the CPC. And maybe hard to guess more than a location.

Sat, 2012-03-24 18:04

#116

Policywonk

Michelle wrote:

It's so hilarious that most of the Mulcair supporters calling in to CPAC's open line show don't even know his name. It's Mul-CAIR, people, not Mul-CLAIR.

"I'm voting for the guy whose name I don't even know! Go MulCLAIR!" Heh.

No quite as funny as McDonut.

Sat, 2012-03-24 18:06

#117

dacckon

Im so glad I didn't watch the whole thing.... soccer chants would drive me nutters after 5 hours.

Sat, 2012-03-24 18:06

#118

Michelle

Arthur Cramer wrote:

I am down for maintenace. I need another beer!

I hear Catchfire's buying!

Sat, 2012-03-24 18:06

#119

KenS

Does anyone remember a figure expected or guessed for voter/member turnout?

I dont know if 50% is that low. What was it in 2003?

Sat, 2012-03-24 18:06

#120

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Ken, it depends on how the attacks were launched, what kind of DOS they used, whether they used zombie pcs (a pc that is accessed and used to attack another), among other things. It depnds truly on how sophisticated an attack or attacks was launched. It is very likely they won't be able to nail it down at all.

Sat, 2012-03-24 18:07

#121

Michelle

Here we go - results!

Nathan Cullen - 15,426

Brian Topp - 19,822

Thomas Mulcair - 27,488

Sat, 2012-03-24 18:08

#122

NorthReport

Percentage

Candidate / 1st ballot / 2nd ballot / 3rd ballot

Mulcair - 30.3% / 38% / 43.8%

Topp - 21.4% / 25.% / 31.6%

Cullen - 16.4% / 19.9% / 24.6%

Votes

Candidate / 1st ballot / 2nd ballot / 3rd ballot

Mulcair / 19,728 / 23,902 / 27,488

Topp / 13,915 / 15,624 / 19,822

Cullen / 10,671 / 12,449 / 15,426

Sat, 2012-03-24 18:08

#123

dacckon

Mulcair has won.

But I expect him to take Topp's tax policy after his victory, much like Hollande took some of his colleagues ideas.

So, a fairer tax system wins the race anyways.

Sat, 2012-03-24 18:08

#124

Michelle

Cullen's not telling his supporters to support anyone and he's not telling who he's supporting.

Sat, 2012-03-24 18:09

#125

Life, the unive...

KenS Doubt it. Doesn't have to be a conspiracy. Most likely just some 30ish basement dweller, or two, screwing around with things between re-heated cans of Star Wars shaped Alphagetti

Sat, 2012-03-24 18:09

#126

BelatedBallots

Cullen is amazing. He wasn't my #1 but I'm very proud he's a New Democrat.

Sat, 2012-03-24 18:11

#127

Lou Arab

Topp has to get something like 4 out of every five of Cullen's votes to capture Mulcair.

Sat, 2012-03-24 18:11

#128

West Coast Greeny

Mulcair needs just 25% of Cullen supporters to win the nomination. This is done. Topp might even drop out...

Oh shit. Topp is attacking Mulcair. For a brilliant political strategist, that's pretty stupid. It's over. IT'S OVER. 80% of the votes are already in the box. All this does is divide the party in two.

Sat, 2012-03-24 18:11

#129

Michelle

Topp says in a scrum that Mulcair wants to move to the centre, and if there are two Liberal Parties, people will vote for the real one.

Mulcair isn't making himself available for comment at all.

Sat, 2012-03-24 18:11

#130

NorthReport

Topp is staying in so we will have a 4th ballot. That is unfortunate but it is his rite to do so.

Sat, 2012-03-24 18:11

#131

Catchfire