Newfoundlander Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 Gosh, I bet you would like to see Frank Vallerioti run in a by election too.. While Elections Canada has the right to call a "By-Election" I believe that we are well beyond the "By-Election" and heading towards something serious. I expect to see some fines... some jail time and even now.. We know that it was a Conservative in Guelph involved in the dirty tricks.. We just don't know how many layers are on the onion. I do think he should step down if he believes democracy in his riding was jeopardized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 In this case, the RCMP will do what EC tells them to do. If Elections Canada thinks there's something to get to the bottom to, they will. Hope you are correct, it sure doesn't look like Harper et al are in any hurry to call an inquiry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 I do think he should step down if he believes democracy in his riding was jeopardized. Question is would there be a domino effect with other ridings with suspicious activity? Doubt it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 Question is would there be a domino effect with other ridings with suspicious activity? Doubt it. I doubt any MP would voluntarily step down, but does that mean they shouldn't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 I am not aware of any Conservatives who "Should" step down at this time. My problem with the Conservatives is that they are resisting getting to the truth every step of the way. I don't know why they must be dragged kicking and screaming, when common sense dictates what they should be doing and when they do it..the noise goes down a notch. It will be a matter of time before a public inquiry or Royal Commission begin. The cons don't trust EC and I don't blame them. Just like when they raided the con campaign offices and the CBC reporters and camera man were they before anybody else.And how did they find out, EC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 The cons don't trust EC and I don't blame them. Just like when they raided the con campaign offices and the CBC reporters and camera man were they before anybody else.And how did they find out, EC. If the Cons don't trust EC , then a Public inquiry or Royal Commission would be better. Regardless of "Trust" of EC... The Cons were found guilty and accepted their guilt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 If the Cons don't trust EC , then a Public inquiry or Royal Commission would be better. Regardless of "Trust" of EC... The Cons were found guilty and accepted their guilt. It was a case of EC sticking to the letter of law but changes when the left is invovled. Just like the loans to the libs contenders, that I don't even know if they were paid yet, if the cons were late................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 Sorry, you are not very good for a discussion. lets recap: - even before ‘seeing’ the study, you authoritatively declare, “Show me the study and I will show you some flaws in it rendering it garbage”. - you subsequently come upon the study and proceed to question the author’s objectivity, while implying she is, as you stated, “interfering into legal aspect”. - you presume to call the author’s objectivity into question; that she, as you stated, “clearly states the suppression did happen”. You took my challenge to you on this, literally. Any reference to “suppression/suppress” by the author was relative reference to media/public/political perception on the event… within the study proper, the author continually speaks to degrees of “voter turnout”… or, for example, ‘allegations of misconduct’. She is most particular in not drawing implication on overt suppression tactics/intent. Any inference on suppression tactics/intent within the related robocall pattern… is yours. - you ramped that inference of yours up even further by, you stating, “(the author) proves that the 27 ridings were selected strategically. Implication is - by the Conservative Party”… no – again, that is your inference. - you proceeded to label the author’s paper, “pseudo-scientific crap”, and extended upon that to attempt to personally denigrate the author by presuming to equate her/her work to that of a, “professor of sociology”. - you, with excited exclamation, pronounced the author’s results as “stunning”, based upon, wait for it - you providing a total count on the paper’s voter reduction estimate across the study’s initially targeted 27 ridings… your implication? It’s a “huge number”… a “stunning number”!!! Oh, wait… it’s only 3% of all eligible voters within those 27 ridings. Not so “huge”, hey? But wait, it’s huge enough to possibly suggest upon the closeness of certain ridings, or, at least, bring additional attention to the need for a more rigorous full inquiry. apparently, the full extent of your rigorous review of the author’s paper is to… question the lack of purty scatter plots. Oh wait; you’re also decrying the absence of expressed r/r2. It truly begs the question on whether you actually did read the study, after all… the essence of the study being its comparative measure of the respective coefficients and fit. More pointedly it’s qualification on the overlying regression coefficient; most particularly, on the ‘within district’ interaction of robocalls and non-Conservative voters. You seem too preoccupied to actually challenge the study in terms of the author’s regression model, district level attention/scrutiny, results/conclusion, robust checks, etc.. The authors complete complement of Elections Canada sourced data and her code is available for you, should you be so inclined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 Sona and Christian Conservative... were in church all day... It might be called confession lol... ok, I wasn't tapped in to this... did not realize Guelph's Andrew Prescott is this "Christian Conservative" guy. Can I get a 'Robo for the Lord'! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UofGPolitico Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 ok, I wasn't tapped in to this... did not realize Guelph's Andrew Prescott is this "Christian Conservative" guy. Can I get a 'Robo for the Lord'! Profession is IT, hmmmm. Sona claimed he has limited computer and math skills. Perhaps Sona gave birth to the idea and Prescott applied it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 NDP Pat Martin issues another apology. Manitoba NDP MP Pat Martin has issued a written apology to a Conservative voter-outreach company.The apology appeared on Martin's website Tuesday, about six days after he made comments on national TV about Responsive Marketing Group in connection with the robocalls issue. "I did not intend to impugn any notion of illegal behaviour to RMG. In that sense, my statement was ill-advised," Martin wrote. RMG is a Thunder Bay, Ont.-based firm that made calls for the Conservative Party of Canada during the federal election last spring. http://www.canada.com/news/Martin+apologizes+robocalls+remarks/6301223/story.html Martin could reduce his workload if Leadnow.ca developed a robo-apology form letter for him. At the click of the mouse he could save himself a number of lawsuits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UofGPolitico Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 Anyone noticed too Martin has been muzzled in QP? Charlie Angus has stepped up as the supplementary questioner after Turmel. How does humble pie taste, Mr. Martin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 Tory operatives, to the brainstormery! Subverting voters won’t be so easy in 2015. Maybe that’s why the PM has been practising hypnosis. What matters for the future is that subverting the democratic will of Canadians isn’t going to be so easy next time. Voters will be wary, so Conservative operatives will need to find more advanced ways to keep their opponents from the polls. To the brainstormery! 1. Robo-collars. Disguised as elegant chokers, these collars deliver a painful electric shock to any member of the electorate who so much as daydreams about voting for an opposition party. They can also be configured between elections to function as an appetite suppressant or a way of making a conversation with Vic Toews seem pleasant by comparison. 2. Mass hypnosis. Many of us have attended performances where full-grown adults have fallen under the control of a cruel master bent on making them look foolish. Some of us have seen much the same thing at Conservative caucus meetings. There’s evidence that Harper has already been practising hypnosis in preparation for the 2015 campaign. Why do you think Rob Anders keeps falling asleep? Keep your eyes on the pocket watch, Canada. You are getting very, very Conservative . . . Etc ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 That column is good fun jacee. Nice to see a journo with a sense of humour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YEGmann Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 apparently, the full extent of your rigorous review of the author’s paper is to… question the lack of purty scatter plots. This one is just the most obvious. If you establish a correlation between two (or more) variables you must show how good the correlation is. The professor did not do that. You always can calculate regression coefficients, but this doesn't mean you've got a meaningful relation. Her result is counterintuitive and self-contradictory. The most important, it is not supported by observed facts by this moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 This one is just the most obvious. If you establish a correlation between two (or more) variables you must show how good the correlation is. The professor did not do that. You always can calculate regression coefficients, but this doesn't mean you've got a meaningful relation. I didn't read the paper, but your argument is incomplete. You don't mention the statistical significance of her research. Of course you can calculate regressions for anything. They become meaningful, in the social sciences anyway, when p < 0.05, which in oversimplified terms means it's highly unlikely that the numbers occurred by chance. Scatterplots are unnecessary and with complex systems with a large number of responses they're nearly impossible to analyze just by looking at them. Moreover, research that uses confidential information cannot actually publish scatterplots because it breaks confidentiality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 NDP Pat Martin issues another apology. http://www.canada.com/news/Martin+apologizes+robocalls+remarks/6301223/story.html Martin could reduce his workload if Leadnow.ca developed a robo-apology form letter for him. At the click of the mouse he could save himself a number of lawsuits. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 It was a case of EC sticking to the letter of law Excellent. The Conservatives were guilty and quite frankly, I think EC gave them a slap on the wrist.. regardless.. Lets see Elections Canada get tough with the Elections Canada Imposters.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YEGmann Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) I didn't read the paper, It's not a very promissing beginning... but your argument is incomplete. Sure, it's not a scientific conference here. You don't mention the statistical significance of her research. Of course you can calculate regressions for anything. They become meaningful, in the social sciences anyway, when p < 0.05, which in oversimplified terms means it's highly unlikely that the numbers occurred by chance. Your addition of the word "highly" does not change the fact that the correlation can be poor. Scatterplots are unnecessary This is something new for me in regression analysis... Let me guess, a correlation coefficient is unnecessary also? and with complex systems with a large number of responses It's absolutely not the case in the paper. they're nearly impossible to analyze just by looking at them. I am afraid many people would not agree with you. Your eyes may be not so good to tell a difference of 0.5% in the correlation coefficient, but they are the best tool to do a sanity check. Moreover, research that uses confidential information cannot actually publish scatterplots because it breaks confidentiality. You cannot be for real. What confidentiality are you talking about for results of voting and voter turnout in 27 ridings? The main point is, despite all professor's fancy methods and numbers, her result is either self-contradictory or non-conclusive. The result is not supported by evidence. According to the professor, we must have at least 30,000 voters who did not vote because of robocalls in these 27 ridings only. And the number can be as large as 100,000 voters. Please show me one person. Edited March 16, 2012 by YEGmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 So now Mark Holland says Ajax-Pickering was targeted, I have been waiting for the riding to be mentioned since the beginning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 It's not a very promissing beginning... Sure, it's not a scientific conference here. Your addition of the word "highly" does not change the fact that the correlation can be pure. This is something new for me in regression analysis... Let me guess, a correlation coefficient is unnecessary also? It's absolutely not the case in the paper. I am afraid many people would not agree with you. Your eyes may be not so good to tell a difference of 0.5% in the correlation coefficient, but they are the best tool to do a sanity check. You cannot be for real. What confidentiality are you talking about for results of voting and voter turnout in 27 ridings? The main point is, despite all professor's fancy methods and numbers, her result is either self-contradictory or non-conclusive. The result is not supported by evidence. According to the professor, we must have at least 30,000 voters who did not vote because of robocalls in these 27 ridings only. And the number can be as large as 100,000 voters. Please show me one person. Blah blah blah What was the statistical significance of her findings. Tell me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YEGmann Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 Blah blah blah Very explanatory. [quote name='cybercoma' What was the statistical significance of her findings. Tell me. 5%. So what? It could be any. In her paper it would only affect extreme numbers of the "suppresed" voters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 So now Mark Holland says Ajax-Pickering was targeted, I have been waiting for the riding to be mentioned since the beginning. Congratulations then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 Congratulations then? What? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 Now we're getting somewhere on the magnitude of the alleged fraudulent phone calls in the last election. Elections Canada probe focuses on 700 similar robo-call complaintsChief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand warned Canadians against drawing premature conclusions on what his agency has already found, saying investigators are keeping as quiet as possible until they are done. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/elections-canada-probe-focuses-on-700-similar-robo-call-complaints/article2370681/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.