CWB, Election Results

[les]

IAmCanola.......When I asked should we shut up and do as we are told I meant do as we are told by the CWB. I was not taking a stab at you.So what didnt you like about my comment?

[TOM4CWB]

Charlie;

You asked,

"3) For both sides of this issue, where is the 60 what ever percent not voters thinking at. Do they not care? Are they happy with the status quo? Are they so fed up and disenfranchised with the current system they think the election is a waste of time? If they are forced to come off the fence, which side will they go to?"

My answer:

Deceit, Intimidation, Corruption, Greed, and Fear are the trademarks of the "Single Desk".

Therefore many Farmers believe the "Single Desk" is from the pit of hell, and refuse to get involved in the election process.

THE latest Dec. 30, 2004 Speaking notes "2004 Director Election Results" the CWB's management, with obviuos approval of Directors Measner and Ritter, put out, prove this point beyond the shadow of a doubt to be.

Therefore clearly many Farmers have known for some time that the "Single Desk" is from the pit of hell, and refuse to get involved in the election process.

Total votes cast are half in our districts of what they were in 2000.

Clearly RICK Strankman and I knew it was near impossible for us to win, simply because the majority of our supporters either refuse to vote, or could not vote, in this corrupt election. Chairman Ritter made sure he got virtually 100% of those who would support the single desk, including saying he would represent those who need "Marketing Choice" if they would support him.

Chairman RItter and his team of heavy handed campaigners even phoned a number of my nominators... and scolded them for voting.

Yet the best Chairman Ritter could get was 25% of District 4's support. meanwhile Chairman Ritter/Measner spin this into virtual total support for the "Single Desk".

THis while CWB Management fails to admit 100% support, in District 2, of all District 2 voters, for a Choice outside the "single desk" by acclaiming Mr. Chatenay.

Obviously by far the majority of producers supported a choice Candidate in this election.

Hope this clears some things up for you Charlie.

[Vader]

I gather from the Statistics Canada Website that there are approximately 42,900 grain farmers in Saskatchewan, 24,900 in Alberta and 11,900 in Manitoba. That totals 89,700. If these grain farmers are divided evenly between the 10 CWB Districts that would mean less than 9,000 grain farmers per district.

The CWB sent out over 12,000 ballots in Districts 4, 6, and 8. So right off the bat that says that you would only expect 75% of the ballots to be reaching interested parties. Then you take off the absentee landlords, semi-retired farmers, and those who specialize in non-board crops and the ballots are again reaching a large group of individuals who are unlikely to participate in the elections process. Then simply consider those who were busy with harvest and neglected to mail their ballot by the deadline and there you have what I would submit is the explanation for the 30% voter turnout. I would submit that a 30% voter turnout is ample representation of those farmers who have a legitimate interest in farming and the future of the CWB.

Those farmers by the way favored you Tom with only 10.3% of their ballots in your district. Tom, do you believe in Democracy? You obviously represent a contingent of individuals who voted for you, but you lost, big time.

In District 8 where there was a five way race and plenty of vote splitting the most radical candidate, Art Mainil, who tried to overturn the entire CWB election garnered almost 15% of the first round votes, nearly one and a half times what you got. The contingent of people who subscribe to your idealogy is indeed very, very small.

I have challenged you over and over again to be constructive but for the most part you resort to name calling and derogatory comments. Who here is the fear monger?

[TOM4CWB]

Vader;

I do not consider voting to decide the method and amount of who my neighbour will sell their grain to, or for how much... an issue of democracy.

This is an issue of private property rights... an issue of respect for my neighbour and his right to the sell, and choose the service provider involved in, the grain he produced on his farm.

THis is an issue of coveting my neighbour's property to get some of it for my self.

Greed.

No different than Federated Co-op members voting to stop me from buying fuel, groceries, and farm supplies... from a supplier other than the Co-op.

Logic...

Because All Co-op members (then including me) could buy cheaper supplies and services in larger volumes...

if everthing was purchased through the Co-op...

Therefore CWB "Single Desk logic" is we must all get our supplies and services through the Co-op "Single Desk".

Simply, I do not have the democratic right to make this decision.

Common law maximums directly applicable:

1. That for every wrong there is a remedy;

I do not have the right to exercise control over property I have no rightful ownership in.

2. The end does not justify the means;

Saying will get more for my grain, with less work, is obviously wrong; because I morally do not have the right to confiscate my neighbour's grain and hard work, give him less, so I can get more. Simply put; THe CWB Buy-back.

3. Fundamental principals cannot be set aside to meet the demands of convenience or to prevent apparent hardship in a particular case;

I cannot obviously argue that my neighbour deserves less... because he has better land, is more gifted in selling his grain, or because he can work harder than I can.

4. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law;

Just because the CWB believes they are right in confiscating my grain, and many of my neighbour's grain... does not mean what the CWB is doing is legal and ethically correct.

5. Two wrongs do not make a right;
Obviously the CWB is breaking it's own bylaws, thus the CWB Statute... by chosing the "single desk" as the only way farmers may sell their grain and buy the services respecting this transaction.

For the CWB to use fear, intimidation,covetiousness, jelousy, and greed to acheive the "Single Desk" certainly qualifies the "single desk" itself... as being from the Pit of Hell.

And Vader every CWB Director who supports the "single desk" today is breaching the majority of the Code of Conduct and COnflict of Interest Guidelines bylaws you swore to fulfill.

One can enlarge the rights of the people, however they cannot be taken away without their informed consent.

Isn't it about time the CWB admitted the truth of what the "single desk" really is? THEFT.

[les]

Right on Tom..

[JACKFLASH]

Vader:

I would have gladly voted in District 8 elections. But I took my book out in a elevator in another district. My vote would not have been for single desk.

But get this my father also took his book out at the same elevator and he gets a vote. He votes single desk. Makes for interesting conversation around the supper table.

I wonder how many of these situations occur. I did not pursue this with the CWB,as to what result would I have gotten. Just more fustration!!!

Young farmers like myself are apathetic to the process. The CWB can continue down the path they chose. We only use the board if we have to. I chose a different path. The high one.

[charliep]

Kinda like chasing a horse after it has left the barn but a lot of interesting information about the election process at the CWB election website.

Voter eligibility - http://www.cwbelection.com/process.asp#voter

Regulations - http://www.cwbelection.com/regulations.asp

Forums - http://www.cwbelection.com/forms.asp

Frequently asked questions - http://www.cwbelection.com/faq.asp

I found the FAQ the most interesting. After reading all this (not that much), I am still not sure what criteria were used in determining where farmers vote (other than permit book information). I note that on this point, the election voters list only includes permit book holders in the past crop year plus the current one (I assume 2003 and 2004 crop years).

I also note a corporation that has multiple owners gets one vote - the same as a crop share landlord. With multiple types of ownership and CWB permit books on many farms, I don't know how the CWB or MNP keeps things sorted out using permit books.

Elections Canada maintains a voters list using I think income filing data. Corporations and cooperatives are based on ownership. Farm organizations are based on membership. In hindsite (2004 is now water under the bridge with results final), what should be done for the future?

[charliep]

Last paragraph - should be income tax filing information. Am using my foggy memory, but it seems we all have to indicate on our personal tax forms where can be used in elections Canada voting list. Not sure how lists are maintained by countie/municipalities or the provinces.

[wd9]

Did anyone in the regions with the elections not receive a ballot, and should have?

[TOM4CWB]

WD9;

I understand that only 151 of the late thousand or so ballots that were tracked by the election coordinator for the Federal Court of Canada were returned and counted.

Further;

In his T-2191-04 Affidavit and included in point [58] of the Federal Court judgement by Madame Justice MacTavish was this statement: "the affidavit of Peter Eckersley, filed on behalf of MNP, discloses that at least some of the ballots likely did not reach voters prior to the close of the election period.
[59]. This is arguably more than a ‘technical breach’, and in my view, constitutes a serious issue."

WD9, I have talked to personally many producers who did not get a ballot at all, or who got a ballot too late to vote, and submitted some of this evidence to the T2191-04 Hearing on the 20th of December.

[agstar77]

All this philosophical disussion is all well and good but the bottom line is that grain prices are too low to match cost of production. It really matters little who markets our grain . It would be a losing proposition no matter what. The only ones still receiving their costs are the integrated multinationals that don't really care about our costs or the price of the commodity. In other words we are losing site of the real problem, nobody cares whether farmers survive or not as long as the food keeps flowing to the grocery store and they can get it cheap. Nobody cares that if there was a large disaster such as a volcanic eruption or a nuclear accident, that would destroy production capacity in Europe or Asia. Evidence is available in the current problems in asia.