03.05.2012 02:18 PM

Robocon Con question

Federal Liberals did well, in May 2011, in any locale where a post-secondary education institution is located.

Therefore, this logical question: how extensive were vote suppression efforts in those areas? Anyone know?

Trust me, the question isn’t academic.

36 Comments

  1. cheena graham says:

    Given that studies have shown that Conservatives/Republicans are not well educated and male, that in itself answers the question, doesn’t it?

  2. Iris Mclean says:

    Brockville has a community college, and so does Cornwall. In both these ridings, Leeds Grenville, and Stormont-Dundas-South Glengarry, the Con fence-posts were handily elected without the help of robo-calls.

    • Philippe says:

      The results the robocalls had doesn’t matter. We can speculate, but whether it affected the outcome of 0, 1 or 45 races is inconsequential. What matters is ensuring that the perpetrators of the criminal act are brought to justice.

      When a criminal holds up a bank, nobody asks if he was successful or not. The crime has been committed regardless of the outcome. Election fraud is no different.

      • Iris Mclean says:

        No argument from me. I’m just saying that there are some ridings where the Cons can successfully run a fence-post without resorting to vote suppression tactics.

  3. Philippe says:

    The Cons have learned to emulate the GOP, however repulsive their tactics.

    My question is, when will we Libs learn to emulate the Dems? They’re kicking the GOP’s ass at fundraising, organizing and messaging.

  4. Taylor Scollon says:

    Elections Ontario has the same inane rules that keep students from voting — if you aren’t already registered, then you need to produce photo ID and a government document with your address. Students often don’t get government mail delivered to their campus, they get it at home — but they vote in their campus’ riding. I know of more than a few people who have gone to the polls and been turned away because of this — and of course, most of them were progressives. In places like Guelph where elections are tight, this stuff makes a difference.

  5. Heric says:

    Thinking that voter suppression or other dirty tricks is the reason that Cons won totally misses the point.

    The overall voter turnout actually increased from last election and this seems to get buried in all of this discussion.
    http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/historical-turnout.html

    What we need to find out is why we didn’t have our voters as identified and how we can ensure that they vote.
    We are wasting money setting up databases for this when we should be finding and targeting our own voter blocks.

    Especially since voter apathy in our targeted segment, students, young urban professionals and single parent families has more than done enough to hurt our election chances.
    http://www.elections.ca/res/eim/article_search/article.asp?id=123&lang=e&frmPageSize=
    Specifically, young voters were significantly less likely to identify health care and the sponsorship scandal as their top priorities. They were more likely to want to hear about economic issues and education than were their older counterparts. Voters born after 1970 relied more on “the party as a whole” to guide their voting choice, while relying much less on local candidates. Moreover, while the campaign had little impact on the voting choice of a majority of Canadians, especially older generations, 37% of voters born after 1970 decided for whom they would vote in the final days of the campaign. They also evaluated party leaders differently.

    This is a lot of sour grapes to me and is hardly the worst voter scandal ever, its time to let elections canada deal with it.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud
    Disenfranchisement
    A particular example of this strategy is the Canadian federal election of 1917, where the Union government passed the Military Voters Act and the Wartime Elections Act. The Military Voters Act permitted any active military personnel to vote by party only and allow that party to decide in which electoral district to place that vote. It also enfranchised women who were directly related or married to an active soldier. These groups were widely assumed to be disproportionately in favour of the Union government, as that party was campaigning in favour of conscription. The Wartime Elections Act, conversely, disenfranchised particular ethnic groups assumed to be disproportionately in favour of the opposition Liberal Party.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#Canada
    The current federal electoral district boundaries in Saskatchewan have also been labelled as gerrymandered—the province’s two major cities, Saskatoon and Regina, are both “cracked” into four districts each when the populations of the cities proper would justify about three and two and a half all-urban (or mostly urban) districts respectively;[22] the map instead groups parts of the New Democratic Party-friendly cities with large Conservative-leaning rural areas.[23]

    • JH says:

      Heric says:
      March 5, 2012 at 4:52 pm
      “Thinking that voter suppression or other dirty tricks is the reason that Cons won totally misses the point etc.”
      The Nanos Poll out today would seem to strengthen the point you are making. The parliamentary circus is not resonating with the voters. The Oppositon obviously needs a new strategy if they are to make inroads. And with the NDP virtually leaderless – Mr. Rae does not appear to have done the job, when he had the opportunity to do so. He may have received the media’s approbation, but I wonder what the rank and file membership thinks?

      • Philip says:

        So where did your majority go? At the moment your Con Party seat count window is between 136 and 127, according to 308.com. Even Nanos has them losing 6.2% in Ontario from January. Do you honestly think it’s going to get better, particularly if charges are laid? Once that happens who know where the Con Party floor will be.

        But don’t mind me JH, keep on bragging about how your Con Party managed to slip election fraud past the Canadian public. And please keep that clever Mr. Del Mastro as lead on this file. He does so much with so very little.

    • Philip says:

      Heric
      Great point about the urban/rural combined Saskatchewan districts. I think the Con Party is weaker in more of the West than they would have us believe.

  6. Geoffrey Laxton says:

    I think that people should be able to vote when they can drink in their parent’s house, which is 14 years old in Canada as far as I know, or at least when they can drive which I believe is also 14 years old on a farm.

  7. George says:

    Liberals did real wellin Hamilton.I guess Mac doesn’t count.

  8. Pomojen says:

    What does this even mean? There are smart people there who don’t agree with you?

  9. Mike says:

    What degrees do you hold Gord? Just curious.
    I happen to have a double major in History and Ethics, part of a masters (I dropped out) and a graduate certificate in Education.
    You have?

  10. Michael S says:

    The wingnut flying monkeys better be damn happy that they’re basement dwellers and not accessories to a criminal act. Some legs this thing has.

  11. GPAlta says:

    I think you mean “intelligence”

  12. Terry says:

    WK:
    “…Federal Liberals did well, in May 2011, in any locale where a post-secondary education institution is located…”

    Really?

    Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Saskatoon, Regina, Winnipeg, Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge, most of the GTA, Montreal, Quebec City . . . .most of these communities have a Community College, or one ormore Universities – in some cases, such as Waterloo, ON, Perimeter Institute (PI), U of Waterloo, Wilfrid Laurier U., Conestoga College, london, Hamilton . . .
    That’s just of the cuff – no research/google required.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*