cybercoma Posted April 4, 2012 Author Report Posted April 4, 2012 Are you suggesting that it may have affected the outcome? Of course it 'may' have. What makes you think it may not have? The number of complaints they're investigating says nothing about the number of people affected. Quote
stopstaaron Posted April 4, 2012 Report Posted April 4, 2012 Are you suggesting that it may have affected the outcome? if it affected at least one vote then it affected the outcome Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
capricorn Posted April 4, 2012 Report Posted April 4, 2012 if it affected at least one vote then it affected the outcome Of course. Say a candidate won by 300 votes. One voter who was misdirected by a robocall was unable to vote. Had the voter cast a vote for a candidate other than the winner, the winning candidate would have in fact won by 299 votes. But if the misdirected voter had intended to vote for the winning candidate, that candidate would have won by 301 votes. In the larger scheme, if only one voter was unable to cast a vote due to misdirection, a majority government would still have resulted and the popular vote obtained by the winning party would go down by one vote. So yes, there could have been a different outcome, by one vote. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Shakeyhands Posted April 4, 2012 Report Posted April 4, 2012 Are you suggesting that it may have affected the outcome? I'm not suggesting anything. I was trying to ascertain the veracity of your claim, or rather EC's claim, that even if there was fraud that it wouldn't have affected the outcome of the election. I see now that you made that up. Simple. Now, if you are asking me RIGHT now if electoral fraud may have affected the outcome, of course it may have. Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
cybercoma Posted April 4, 2012 Author Report Posted April 4, 2012 Of course. Say a candidate won by 300 votes. One voter who was misdirected by a robocall was unable to vote. Had the voter cast a vote for a candidate other than the winner, the winning candidate would have in fact won by 299 votes. But if the misdirected voter had intended to vote for the winning candidate, that candidate would have won by 301 votes. In the larger scheme, if only one voter was unable to cast a vote due to misdirection, a majority government would still have resulted and the popular vote obtained by the winning party would go down by one vote. So yes, there could have been a different outcome, by one vote. If I walk into a bank and stick a gun in the teller's face, but change my mind and walk out does that make it ok? Quote
stopstaaron Posted April 4, 2012 Report Posted April 4, 2012 (edited) If I walk into a bank and stick a gun in the teller's face, but change my mind and walk out does that make it ok? There is a bank teller I would love to do that to right now.. just to watch him soil his pants unfortunately just doing it then walking out would put me into the big house for 10-20 years Edited April 4, 2012 by stopstaaron Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
Spiderfish Posted April 4, 2012 Report Posted April 4, 2012 (edited) I'm not suggesting anything. I was trying to ascertain the veracity of your claim, or rather EC's claim, that even if there was fraud that it wouldn't have affected the outcome of the election. I see now that you made that up. Simple. Fair enough, this entire thread is based on hypotheticals at this point, so my contribution should fit nicely. Now, if you are asking me RIGHT now if electoral fraud may have affected the outcome, of course it may have. I wasn't asking if electoral fraud may have effected the outcome. What I actually asked is if you thought 800 voter complaints involving 200 ridings could change the overall outcome of the last election. Edited April 4, 2012 by Spiderfish Quote
capricorn Posted April 4, 2012 Report Posted April 4, 2012 If I walk into a bank and stick a gun in the teller's face, but change my mind and walk out does that make it ok? Sorry CC. I tried but could not relate what I posted to the analogy you present. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
TwoDucks Posted April 4, 2012 Report Posted April 4, 2012 Fair enough, this entire thread is based on hypotheticals at this point, so my contribution should fit nicely. I wasn't asking if electoral fraud may have effected the outcome. What I actually asked is if you thought 800 voter complaints involving 200 ridings could change the overall outcome of the last election. Given we don't know how those complaints were distributed throughout those ridings, of course it may have changed the results. From what I read of the hearing, they're still working through the ~40000 contacts, meaning 800 isn't necessarily the final number of complaints. Quote
waldo Posted April 4, 2012 Report Posted April 4, 2012 Of course. Say a candidate won by 300 votes. One voter who was misdirected by a robocall was unable to vote. Had the voter cast a vote for a candidate other than the winner, the winning candidate would have in fact won by 299 votes. But if the misdirected voter had intended to vote for the winning candidate, that candidate would have won by 301 votes.In the larger scheme, if only one voter was unable to cast a vote due to misdirection, a majority government would still have resulted and the popular vote obtained by the winning party would go down by one vote. So yes, there could have been a different outcome, by one vote. whoa! Slow down... capricorn math is a real puzzler! Your nonsense plays as well as me suggesting each complaint represents, oh... say... 1000 persons who were subjected to vote-suppression tactics but their concern/aggravation didn't rise to the level of an actual complaint, particularly 10 months after the fact. Quote
capricorn Posted April 4, 2012 Report Posted April 4, 2012 capricorn math is a real puzzler! I refer you to the post I was responding to, where the poster presented the "one vote" scenario which would result in a different election result. Thanks anyway for playing. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Spiderfish Posted April 4, 2012 Report Posted April 4, 2012 From what I read of the hearing, they're still working through the ~40000 contacts, meaning 800 isn't necessarily the final number of complaints. From the earlier posted Hill Times link: Mr. Mayrand delivered several revelations in his testimony. Of the 40,000 public contacts that Elections Canada has received since the robocalls story broke in February, Elections Canada has determined that roughly 800 warrant investigation, while the rest were acknowledged as statements of concern by Canadians. Quote
dre Posted April 4, 2012 Report Posted April 4, 2012 Of course. Say a candidate won by 300 votes. One voter who was misdirected by a robocall was unable to vote. Had the voter cast a vote for a candidate other than the winner, the winning candidate would have in fact won by 299 votes. But if the misdirected voter had intended to vote for the winning candidate, that candidate would have won by 301 votes. In the larger scheme, if only one voter was unable to cast a vote due to misdirection, a majority government would still have resulted and the popular vote obtained by the winning party would go down by one vote. So yes, there could have been a different outcome, by one vote. Whats a stake is way more than that. This scandal is not going to bring down the Conservative majority... at least not based on the numbers Im seeing. But its the integrity of the process thats at stake. Do we have honest and open elections in Canada where all the votes are counted, or not. Elections in ridings with significant irregularities should be held again. And theres more at stake than one vote because otheres might change their vote the second time around! You could potentially wind up with a totally different result... although its not super likely. When we start rerunning these elections the results will be based on peoples perspectives TODAY, and those are different than they were during the election. In addition to the "one person" you mentioned having his voted counted, we might get a lot of people that voted conservative back then voting liberal now. Or vice versa. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
capricorn Posted April 4, 2012 Report Posted April 4, 2012 Whats a stake is way more than that. I know. I was just having a little fun with StopSt. When we start rerunning these elections We don't know yet whether these elections will be done over again. the results will be based on peoples perspectives TODAY, and those are different than they were during the election. In addition to the "one person" you mentioned having his voted counted, we might get a lot of people that voted conservative back then voting liberal now. Or vice versa. That is, of course, if there are any by-elections called as a result of the investigations. And today, the NDP is doing well in the polls and might do better in any future election. There are many scenarios that as of now are all based on speculation. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
dre Posted April 4, 2012 Report Posted April 4, 2012 I know. I was just having a little fun with StopSt. We don't know yet whether these elections will be done over again. That is, of course, if there are any by-elections called as a result of the investigations. And today, the NDP is doing well in the polls and might do better in any future election. There are many scenarios that as of now are all based on speculation. We don't know yet whether these elections will be done over again. Well we know that if there was significant fruadulent activity (whether it was enough to actually change the result), and these elections are NOT re-ran, that we are basically sending a message that fraud is ok, and the results will stand. We need people to understand that if they screw with elections, the results wont stand! Anything else says "Commit election fraud! It works!". If we have to repeat these elections 20 times before we get it right then SO BE IT. Why the hell would anyone even bother voting in a country that allows election results to stand even in the face of widespread fraud? What value does such a system have? Unless we are talking about a small handfull of isolated incidents... we need to rerun these elections and count all the votes. I seriously doubt it will change the result much, but if you dont do that then its not democracy. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
cybercoma Posted April 5, 2012 Author Report Posted April 5, 2012 If there is fraud and the results are not voided, WE MARCH! Quote
madmax Posted April 8, 2012 Report Posted April 8, 2012 If there is fraud and the results are not voided, WE MARCH! Its probably going to come out soon... Pierre Poutine is Andrew Prescott. AKA Christian Conservative. Quote
waldo Posted April 8, 2012 Report Posted April 8, 2012 Its probably going to come out soon...Pierre Poutine is Andrew Prescott. AKA Christian Conservative. say it ain't so! Quote
Shady Posted April 8, 2012 Report Posted April 8, 2012 say it ain't so! I thought your link might be to actual facts and proof of your many alegations. Oh well. Quote
waldo Posted April 8, 2012 Report Posted April 8, 2012 (edited) I thought your link might be to actual facts and proof of your many alegations. Oh well. name em... name the allegations Edited April 8, 2012 by waldo Quote
Jack Weber Posted April 8, 2012 Report Posted April 8, 2012 say it ain't so! 3D Deano... Out of talking points...Out of time... Oh well...There's always selling cars in Peterborough... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
madmax Posted April 9, 2012 Report Posted April 9, 2012 Its just a matter of time... Now the ball is going back into RMGs court. Why the Tory Campaign manager would wait till now is rather odd. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tory-supporters-misled-by-live-calls-in-2011-election-complaint-says/article2395565/ Quote
Shakeyhands Posted April 9, 2012 Report Posted April 9, 2012 Its just a matter of time... Now the ball is going back into RMGs court. Why the Tory Campaign manager would wait till now is rather odd. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tory-supporters-misled-by-live-calls-in-2011-election-complaint-says/article2395565/ Ya think? This has been the CPC standard since this began... But, but, but!!! Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
stopstaaron Posted April 9, 2012 Report Posted April 9, 2012 Moron, get the F%ck out of here with your spam, or at least learn to speak french or english before posting ignorant gibberish in this forum. spam bots aren't real people lol... Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
cybercoma Posted April 18, 2012 Author Report Posted April 18, 2012 (edited) New information in the Robocalls case: [Elections Canada investigators] are now certain the list of numbers in Guelph that received the robocalls came directly from CIMS, according to the source.The CIMS data were compared to listings of the outgoing robocalls provided under court order by RackNine and matched perfectly, the source said. Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Robocalls+probe+extends+Tory+headquarters/6470348/story.html#ixzz1sMb8uzjW Not looking good for the CPC. Edited April 18, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.