Friday morning Robocon blogging

| 8 Comments

I had fully intended to do a recap of the week's news regarding the investigation into the possibility of vote suppression in last year's federal election and yesterday afternoon I began to draft something. Yesterday evening I saw the news and gutted the first few paragraphs of the draft. Since Alison has hit all the high points at Creekside, I would encourage you to go read her post.

Alison leads with last night's CBC report, as she should. This is an independent investigation by a different news organization than the one that first broke the story. This independent investigation not only finds fraudulent phone calls in 31 ridings across the country but identifies a pattern that strongly suggests the goal of these calls was to misdirect voters who opposed the Conservatives.

Are we allowed to have conspiracy theories now? I had already intended to draw attention to this post from Stephen Lautens and the CBC story only strengthens his conclusion: that there was "a carefully coordinated plan" at work here.

Meanwhile...

The Sixth Estate list of ridings where hoax calls have been reported continues to grow, if more slowly than before. The count is now up to 82, which is more than a quarter of the country. I haven't noticed any news that Elections Canada has formally added any more ridings to its list than last reported but that may change now. I was originally going to report the latest from the Globe and Mail but that seems irrelevant. Is it me or does Canada's "paper of record" seem content to eat everyone else's dust on this story?

The identity of Pierre Poutine, the alias used by the person thought to have arranged the fraudulent calls to voters in Guelph, remains a mystery despite the suggestion that it would be revealed earlier in the week. I'm tempted to recycle one of my lectures about anonymous sources and the reason they sometimes ask to stay off the record. I think we got played on this one. All the reporting I've read suggests that the alias doesn't belong to Michael Sona, though there might be people who wish we believed it does.

Julian Fantino's riding remained in the news but Alison covered that nicely. There have also been stories involving voter registration in Scarborough-Rouge River and reports of a huge number of harassing phone calls, along with other irregularities, in Ajax-Pickering. It would be a mistake to assume that every report like this is part of a single massive conspiracy. There may well have been real problems in some ridings that have nothing to do with each other. On the other hand, Ajax-Pickering is a riding that the Conservatives badly wanted. It makes you go hmmmmm, doesn't it?

The opposition parties have called for a public inquiry into all of this and for a while I was inclined to agree. But I've changed my mind for the moment. I'm inclined to agree with this:

...commissions of inquiry are less about finding personal guilt or responsibility and more about identifying institutional weak points and failures. As notes above, there is nothing inherent in the electoral system which gives rise to this behaviour - unless one counts the nature of the Conservative party - and, as such, there would be few recommendations to be made in order to prevent this from happening again. It is likely that a commission would identify wrongdoing, indicate that the system responded appropriately and that no statutory changes are required.

There have been statutory changes suggested, such as removing the exemption from the do-not-call registry that the political parties currently enjoy. But we don't need a public inquiry to highlight things like that. We have laws on the books to deal with the kind of fraud that's suspected here — the issue right now is proving that it happened and identifying the perpetrators. I suspect that much of the push for a public inquiry is really an expression of impatience to get that done. If so, it would be better to keep the pressure on the government to follow through on the commitment to strengthen EC's powers and to provide the necessary resources.

As for the attempts by some to suggest that the whole thing has been overblown and there's really no scandal here, I beg to differ and the CBC just made that easier to do. Given the erosion of public confidence in so many of our institutions — I'm looking at the RCMP, CSIS and local law enforcement as just one example — I think it's vital that we do everything necessary to shore up confidence in our electoral system.

There's more than enough here to suggest that Elections Canada should continue and even expand their investigation. I'll leave you with the words of the Ottawa Citizen's editorial board.

Are any political operatives, of any party, guilty of unethical or illegal behaviour? If so, that's a serious breach that demands investigation and redress, irrespective of whether those calls ever managed to change a single voter's behaviour. Fraud is fraud, whether or not it has the intended result.

We don't need to ever know whether turnout was affected by fraudulent calls in 2011 to know that fraudulent calls are wrong.

Bookmark and Share                                

8 Comments

Good post and good links to pertinent stuff. Here's another one we're going to be hearing a lot more about:

http://unfuckwithable.ca/

I suppose the site title & URL will scare off a portion of the MSM but the research looks to be thorough, independent and top notch.

Good point. I saw that but left it for the moment because Alison links and quotes. But it would probably be a good idea to keep an eye on him.

I'm inclined to disagree with that Canadian Dissensus that opposes a public inquiry (or any other extraordinary measure, near as I can tell). One reason is that the Gomery inquiry seems to have made a fair amount of findings of personal guilt and responsibility, some of which led to legal proceedings. I don't see that public inquiries are limited in the way that blogger says at all.

Another reason is a comment made on it, which presumably comes from someone associated with the blog because when I tried to answer I found (annoyingly, only after writing the whole flipping thing) that "comments on this blog are restricted to team members".
Basically, Saskboy had raised concerns about timeliness, that the party responsible for the fraud was being allowed to enjoy the fruits of its crime by governing. The presumably-team-member poster countered that the timeliness problem was caused by Elections Canada lacking the resources to investigate such a large mass of complaints. But perhaps the major point made in the main post was that Elections Canada's investigation is perfectly adequate and so we should just let it work. Well, which is it? If it isn't able to investigate most of the complaints, then it isn't adequate after all, is it?

There have also been questions raised as to whether Elections Canada is doing an adequate job of the investigation, since so far it seems intent on limiting the number of ridings it considers to have had irregularities worth investigating to a very small number. I'm also wondering about its sudden dismissal of most of the complaints--is that because those complaints are genuinely not legitimate, or because it doesn't have the resources to investigate them, or because Stephen Harper has been leaning on his appointee who's the boss of Elections Canada?

Getting a public inquiry, particularly one that wasn't carefully set up to be a whitewash, is likely to be very difficult, although that's no reason not to call for one. But we shouldn't depend on it. Parties should be pushing in the courts, to overturn riding results, try for criminal charges, and simply to sue the Conservatives for damages. If the parties don't, how about a class action suit by electors who were discouraged from voting by fraud?

I don't think a commission of inquiry would be any improvement at all where timeliness is concerned. They don't move quickly, even when a prime minister wants one to happen and this one doesn't. Even if EC got off to a slow start I think they're gearing up now. At least Mayrand is now publicly acknowledging a growing body of evidence and asking for the opportunity to explain what he's doing about it.

It's not that long ago that he was being yelled at by all the parties and patiently explaining to them that he was implementing the legislation they had all voted for exactly the way they wrote it. I have as much confidence in his willingness to run a nonpartisan investigation as I would anyone that Harper appointed now.

Parties should be pushing in the courts, to overturn riding results, try for criminal charges, and simply to sue the Conservatives for damages. If the parties don't, how about a class action suit by electors who were discouraged from voting by fraud?

Would the presence or absence of a commission of inquiry change the ability of parties or electors to pursue legal remedies?

Depends. Will Elections Canada make any evidence they gather public? Would a "Public" inquiry do so?

Will Elections Canada make any evidence they gather public?

As far as I can tell, no. At least not officially though some of it is already leaking and that may continue. But it would appear that officially, EC would gather evidence and if it found that it had a case to be prosecuted, would turn the evidence over to the federal director of public prosecutions.

No, that doesn't help with the legal remedies that others might be prepared to pursue. But I still fear that a public inquiry called right now would be constrained by whatever means Harper can think of to make it ineffective.

If the press keeps digging, EC keeps leaking, and "even Conservatives" like Ian Brodie keep stating publicly that this looks serious, maybe more pressure can ultimately be brought to bear on Harper to do a better inquiry.

More immediately, we need to know why Conservatives have phone records that ought to be in the possession of Elections Canada.

That's what I get for being a yahoo! Its just me - macadavy.

Contributors

Tip Jar


Total donations to date: $115.00

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by pogge published on March 16, 2012 10:02 AM.

In which Senator Duffy answers my question was the previous entry in this blog.

Friday night is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Blogging Change

Progressive Bloggers

      Canadian Blogosphere  

      Blogging Canadians  

NO Deep integration!

Creative Commons License
This blog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by Movable Type 4.37