Categories: Capital Read, Inside the Queensway

Vancouver South recount: Don’t shoot the (electoral) messenger, y’all.

by kadyomalley on Monday, October 27, 2008 1:08pm - 170 Comments

Okay, first off, I don’t blame people for raising a ruckus over the revelation that the judge who performed the recount in Vancouver South last week didn’t bother to open all the ballot boxes, instead choosing to re-check a random sampling of the 42,076 votes that were cast on election day – particularly when the margin between Liberal incumbent Ujjal Dosanjh and Conservative challenger Wai Young dropped to just 22 votes. At the same time, however, it seems as though someone should probably point out that, contrary to the carefully coddled conspiracy theories so cherished by some denizens of the blogosphere, Elections Canada had nothing to do with the decision to conduct a partial recount, which was made by the presiding judge – in this case, British Columbia Supreme Court Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm – in accordance with the guidelines set out by the Canada Elections Act, and also detailed here. Not even the Chief Electoral Officer himself has the power to appeal or overturn the result, which is considered final.

If this is sufficiently disturbing as to threaten a mass loss of faith in our electoral system, the solution would be to amend the current Act to remove any allowance for judicial discretion in determining how to proceed after a recount is ordered. Of course, given the sheer volume of ballots that would have to be re-recorded, however, that might also mean raising the threshold for an automatic recount – which is currently triggered by any margin closer than 1/1000th of total votes cast – or, alternately, relax the requirement that the judge examine every ballot personally, and instead designate clerks or court officers – or other agreed-upon third parties – as proxies. There are, in other words, any number of ways to improve the existing recount process, now that we’ve become aware of a possible inconsistency – perceived or otherwise — not one of which requires the now familiar demonizing of Elections Canada as a catspaw for the Liberal Party.

Tags: blame the judge, elections canada, here we go again, kneejerk paranoia, Ujjal Dosanjh, wai young

More by kadyomalley

Dr Riff

all that trouble when all they had to do was flip a coin.
dan in van

DeSousa lost fair and square, apparently. I don’t know what Karol’s smoking but no doubt he/she failed math, along with a bunch of other topics. Disputed ballots that have an X on the name instead of in the box? Shudder! Let me guess, the name wasn’t DeSousa, right?
From the story in the Times=Colonist it doesn’t sound like any hanky-panky, but to repeat my theme, a loss in this case actually will be a ‘win’ for the CONs, who’ll get the likes of Karol ranting and donating her/his bottle return for the cause of protecting CON justice. Guess fair elections don’t count when it goes against the team, eh (see Canadian Wheat Board)? Or at least when ‘legitimate-wink, whink’ third parties can be created and late night phone calls can be concocted to confuse and obfuscate the electorate (see Lunn)…
Arnold in Langley

I wonder if anyone in the process (candidates, judges, Elections Canada) knows any mathematics or statistics. Clearly a recount involving a random sampling yielding such a small difference is invalid. Nothing short of a full count of every single ballot will resolve this matter. Random sampling has its place, but must be associated with the usual disclaimer, which in this case would have read something like the following: “Dosanjh won by 33 votes, which is considered accurate to within 250 votes 19 times out of 20.” It’s a pretty easy appeal if Wai Young would consult with a statistician to craft a clear explanation of this simple situation to the judge.
madeyoulook

The whole point of an automatic recount is because the margin was so close. If the law has been quoted accurately above, there is no allowance for a sampling. Anyone who can count can understand why the concept of sampling falls apart in an instant.

Maybe the margin narrows (as the bizarre “sampling” has shown), maybe it widens. But the recount is to allow the possibility of a reversal of the result. A partial recount that narrows the margin without reversing the result makes a mockery of the law and of democracy. In essence, the “partial” recount accomplished absolutely nothing. No satisfaction for number two, no legitimacy for number one.

Boneheaded judge. Period.
Karol Karolak

dan in van,
Despite the best efforts you cannot stop yourself from griping. Harper and Big Oil theme has been played already. Do you still remember Green Shaft (Carbon Tax) Liberal program??

White Knight Dion riding on a White Horse of environmental protection with the KYOTO dog on his lap squaring it off with Black Knight Harper riding on a Black Horse of Alberta Tar Sands and the Big Oil.

Do I have to remind you of the outcome of that drama??
Dave Topping

As to being more comfortable with the Esquimalt Juan de Fuca recount because a reporter from the Victoria Times Colonist will be monitoring the the process: everytime I have been personally involved in an event that was subsequently covered by the Media (Press or TV) the story always included many errors in the quotes or the facts of the story. There is more balance in having representatives from both parties (LPC & CPC) who are knowledgeable in Election Law monitor and report on the way the Judge conducted the recount.
keith by the Bruce

“Do I have to remind you of the outcome of that drama??”

2.23 in 10 eligible Canadians voted for a con (job) ?

No faith in Canada ? Start a whisper campaign ?

” “By abandoning his proposed Public Appointments Commission, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is providing fodder for those who argue his accountability agenda is little more than a public relations ploy. ” “Harper’s choice for heading the commission, former EnCana chief executive officer Gwyn Morgan, was rejected by a Parliamentary committee. In an ensuing temper tantrum, the Prime Minister swiftly announced the commission would be shelved. ” “It’s my-way-or-the-highway with PM Stephen Harper, but the Conservatives detested this approach under Liberal rule” nibble II “While the creation of the Commission was authorized by the Federal Accountability Act brought in by the current government, the previous Parliament blocked the appointment of several distinguished Canadians from sitting on the Commission. A re-elected Conservative Government will ensure that the Public Appointments Commission gets up and running.Reforming Public Appointments We will establish a task force to report within one year on unnecessary federally appointed positions that can be eliminated, with a target of reducing federal appointments by 10 per cent overall. We will work to ensure that appointees to federal agencies, boards, commissions and Crown corporations reflect the diversity of Canada in language, gender, region, age and ethnicity. We will appoint members to the Public Appointments Commission. TheCommission will oversee the selection process for appointments to federal agencies, boards, commissions and Crown corporations, as well as develop guidelines, review and approve the selection processes for appointments and report publicly on the Government’s compliance with ” ( will post screen 148 just done for langrage , gender , region , age , ethnicity like a true north strong and free should ? )
http://economics.about.com Mike Moffatt

“Clearly a recount involving a random sampling yielding such a small difference is invalid.”

Agreed… BUT: Who said anything about the sampling in this case being random? (It may have been – we don’t know).

I’m rather alarmed by how quickly we all are to throw this judge under the bus without getting all the details. Can we all just wait a couple days and get the details before we pass judgement on the judge?
http://drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com Dr.Dawg

Mike:

In the actual Election Manual, the word “all” is used twice (Section 2.7.2.]. On the face of it, then, Elections Canada interprets the law the same way that I and others have done.

I can’t account for Dohm’s handling of this matter, but I don’t, in any case, think that dark suspicions about his motives add much to the discussion.

http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=loi&document=jud_p2&dir=jud&lang=e&anchor=p2.7.2&textonly=false#p2.7.2
http://www.bluelikeyou.com/ Joanne (T.B.)

Arnold at 11:28 pm – I think I may have found a statistician for us.
john g

comment by Dr.Dawg on Monday, October 27, 2008 at 4:51 pm:

“The only “pressure mounting” on Justice Dohm seems to be coming from the Conservative blogosphere.”

Hey! I resent that! : )

Oops, sorry Dr Dawg. Full props to you (and to Mike Moffat and pretty much everyone here actually) for dropping the usual partisanship and agreeing that democracy has not been well served here.

(Though part of me does suspect that as an NDP supporter you’d take a bit of schadenfreude if former Dipper Dosanjh went down)
http://economics.about.com Mike Moffatt

“In the actual Election Manual, the word “all” is used twice (Section 2.7.2.]. On the face of it, then, Elections Canada interprets the law the same way that I and others have done.”

Interesting.. because this would seem to contradict the backgrounder that Kady posted.

I wonder if we’ll see Elections Canada issue some kind of clarification.

Again, I think we’re all being way too quick to throw the judge under the bus here.
Karol Karolak

keith by the Bruce,

It seems that you might need an elective surgery of your throat as it is quite evident from your post that you have serious difficulty with swallowing simple facts of life. Liberals lost election not once (fluke theory) but twice in a row with increased margin of victory in second election.

Your beef that CPC won strong minority with support of 22% of eligible vote seem to me very selective as Ontario Liberals won large majority in last provincial election in 2007 also with support of 22% of eligible vote and you seem to have no problem with that despite of the fact that their electoral “victory” should be of much greater concern to you considering how they went about winning.
==============

Political donations in kind.

One just wonders how it all works; twenty days of teacher’s work on Liberal candidate’s election campaign, how much is it worth??? Same teachers’ apply to OECTA Provincial Office for release-time funds to cover teachers’ salaries.

If this is not electoral fraud than I do not know what a fraud is.

Teachers are paid from provincial treasury. In order to be able to work teachers have to belong to teachers’ union. Union gets money from teachers’ pay so they are basically paid from provincial treasury. During election teachers’ union sends their members to work on election campaign of political party in power that allocated funds to be paid to teachers and their union during their term in office. Union pays salary to teachers working on re-election campaign of party in power using some of the funds they have collected from provincial treasury.

Nobody is going to tell me that this is not a another Liberano Gang’s scheme and an election campaign slush fund of some sort.

Just read it for yourself:

http://www.oecta.on.ca/pdfs/election07agenda.pdf

Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association

==Election volunteers may qualify for release-time funds==

Case: A member who plans to volunteer during the coming provincial election for the Liberal candidate in her riding, calls to inquire about funding from OECTA, but is not sure how to apply.

Advice: Teachers who plan to volunteer in the coming elections should speak to their unit president about the candidate they want to work for, what they are planning to do for the campaign, and how much time they plan to devote to the election. If the candidate is running in a riding that has been targeted by OECTA provincially, the unit president contacts the candidate or the campaign manager regarding the teacher’s request. The unit president submits the request to the the school board and if an absence is approved, applies to OECTA Provincial Office for release-time funds to cover the teacher’s salary.

Discussion: One of the best ways for teachers to improve learning conditions for students and working conditions for teachers is through direct political action. To support members who volunteer to work during the election campaign, OECTA reimburses school boards for teacher release-time, provided they work full-time for a candidate that has been targeted by OECTA. Release-time commitments vary, depending upon the needs of the campaign office. Some teachers will be able to commit for up to 20 days during the election period and others work for a week or few days. Activities may include everything from full-time jobs doing research or coordinating volunteers to providing a few days of support for computer programming assistance, or organizing fundraising events. Other election activities do not require release-time funds, such as canvassing on behalf of a candidate, stuffing envelopes, or helping new voters get their names on the voters’ list on weekends or in the evening. Many candidates are searching for volunteers to help win this election. Speak to your unit president about what you can do to help elect a government that supports a strong publicly-funded school system. Volunteers will be critical to the success of candidates that OECTA has endorsed and targeted because it will not be possible to get released in every board.

October 10, 2007 4:22 PM
Agent001

The outrage is against the so-called Chief “Justice”. Is it lazy or partisan? I’m not sure. But with a downward trend of 11 votes, his decision to stop the recount when only 28 out 184 ballots were counted is very questionable and an insult to the taxpayers who pay his big, fat salary.
Karol Karolak

One thing that I still do not get about Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca recount last night is this:
At the end of the count Martin was leading by 70 votes over DeSouza, there were 67 disputed ballots for judge’s consideration but according to Election Canada there were also 129 rejected ballots.
http://enr.elections.ca/ElectoralDistricts_e.aspx?ed=1298
Nobody mentions what happened to them. Were they also examined and counted??
The reason I ask is because ballots are rejected when they are questioned by scrutineers on Election Day in a process that was basically repeated at the court yesterday.

Common sense tells me that all disputed ballots (rejected during election and questioned during re-count) should be examined by the judge. Rejected ballots as far as I know could not be just put back into ballot box for re-count (re-examination) so their number would not decrease at the end of the re-count, so we can be assured that this 67 disputed ballots were in addition to 129 rejected ballots for the total 196 ballots. 196 “undetermined” ballots is much greater number than 70 votes that Martin was leading over DeSouza. It seems to me that we will never know for sure who actually won in Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca riding in 2008.
http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

Agent001 – It was (allegedly) 28 boxes, not ballots – each box contains several hundred ballots. Although we don’t know how many ballots were recounted – other than the 41 ballots that were initially rejected, but found to be valid – it’s a good bet that there were several thousand, of which there were only four vote changes.
http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

Karol – Not sure if the same process was used in Esquimalt Juan de Fuca, but in Vancouver South, the rejected ballots were reexamined.
Karol Karolak

Kady,
That is the point I am trying to make that at the end of this whole process after all that effort we still do not know. That is what is so fishy about it.
Once the recount is started no candidate should have right to stop it.
http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

Karol – Definitely worth looking at as a possible amendment to the Elections Act, I think, although I can think of fairly reasonable arguments to back the current rule, which allows the second candidate to concede.
Pingback: Right Crazy (.com) » Who should we blame for the Three Stooges’ Rebellion????