Numbered Ballots Undemocratic?

[Fransisco]

Parsley brings up a good point. If the BOD is so certain that the vote and the process is corrupt is it not their duty to do something other than complain about it?

[Fransisco]

The answer to Charlies question on how CWB director elections work.

<blockquote>"The ballots themselves have absolutely no markings that would identify a specific voter. <b>The return envelopes however, have a special ballot authentication barcode printed on them for security reasons.</b> Upon receipt of the envelope containing the completed ballot, the election co-ordinator will use this code to ensure that no voter can request a second ballot and vote twice.

Similarly, if a voter requests a second ballot before mailing in the first one (ie - mail loss) the second ballot will be provided, but the authentication code for the first will be disabled, thereby causing the first ballot to be rejected if ultimately mailed in."</blockquote>

[URL="http://www.cwbelection.com/electionprocess.asp#voting "]Source is here.[/URL]

[Fransisco]

There is Vader's nuance, numbered envelopes vs. numbered ballots.

This is what the supposed outrage is about?

[Fransisco]

[Vader]

I am not suggesting anything sinister about KPMG.

I am just stating the fact that the design of their voting process was to be able to link the ballot with the voter.

I know the stated reason was to enable them to identify inelligible voters and to subsequently remove their ballot.

I know that despite their good intentions this is not a recognized procedure in the running of democratic elections.

Having said that I will reiterate what the Minister said over and over again. This was simply "advice" to the Minister. He also said over and over again that it was not binding on the government. Further it was no different than the polling done by the CWB and returned the same result. If you ask people if they want their cake and eat it too the majority will respond "yes". That does not make it a viable option. The reason the CWB asks the question is to gage the effectiveness of our communications. The reason the Minister asked the question is to stir the pot.

[Vader]

Charlie,

The process for director elections is not the same. Once you get a ballot it is deemed to be valid. The ballot is not identified in any way, only the envelope containing the ballot. The ballot and the envelopes are separated in front of the scrutineers so the identity of the voter is protected.

The process of developing the voters list is the root of the problem. We all know that there are problems with the development of the voters list for Director Elections and there has been a review panel to invetigate the problem and recommendations have gone to the government. Knowing full well the problems with the development of valid and legitimate voters lists the government chose to let KPMG participate in a flawed voters list development process which KPMG thought they could deal with by numbering the ballots. Perhaps that was not KPMG's fault at all. The government has decades of experience in democratic elections and should not have allowed this debacle to unfold. Or perhaps in the interest of garnering the governments "preferred" option from the process, the event took place exactly as planned. After all it was only "advice" to the Minister. What does the process matter in providing "advice" to the Minister when he knows exactly what he plans to do for the get go.

[gregpet]

Vader, I am fairly new to this blog so am not up to speed on everyone’s background and their positions, but judging from your response are you a CWB director or employee? I quote:

“Having said that I will reiterate what the Minister said over and over again. This was simply "advice" to the Minister. He also said over and over again that it was not binding on the government. Further it was no different than the polling done by the CWB and returned the same result. If you ask people if they want their cake and eat it too the majority will respond "yes". That does not make it a viable option. The reason the CWB asks the question is to gage the effectiveness of our communications. The reason the Minister asked the question is to stir the pot.”

The emphasis is mine. My question is, if the CWB knew the majority of producers want a voluntary CWB, and it is an organization supposedly run by producers, why not follow through with the wishes of the majority and offer marketing choice/freedom?

[Fransisco]

gregpet you are correct in your assumption.

Vader is a CWB director, and there are some rumours as to which one he might be.

Can anyone confirm or deny this?

[Vader]

No secret who I am greg.

Rod Flaman
CWB Director - District 8
rodflaman@imagewireless.ca
306-771-2823

The dual market option is not workable. We have said that over and over. If you want the CWB out of wheat or barley there is a process for that.

[Fransisco]

So there we have it, CWB director Flaman is in favour of democracy at times when it suits him such as when it gets him into power, and is against it at times in which it doesnt suit him, such as his personal monopoly agenda.

There are many unflattering names for this but lets just leave it as a "double-standard" for now.

Speaking of which isn't it about time Rod that you reversed yourself and started playing the minority rights card? I mean after all you lost the vote and double standards hasn't really been a big problem for you in the past.

[Fransisco]

As to the process it has been done, farmers voted for choice, they don't believe you that it can't be done. And August 1st we will have choice.

It's now just a question of whether the CWB wants to be a part of it.

[TOM4CWB]

Vader; "The dual market option is not workable. We have said that over and over."

"is not workable"

ONLY BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO MAKE IT WORKABLE... How many times must we say this to you? 1, 10, 1000, 100,000, 1,000,000... into infinity ROD... There I trump you.

Now the majority of your slaves have ... told you to reform... choose this day whom you serve...

Western Canadian "designated area" barley growers...

or;

The Dino... "single desk" Directors who would abuse your freinds and neighbours.

You went into this battle with the best of intentions ROD...

Don't forget those servants who put you in your place of authority in the first place.

I can explain adnosium why KPMG and Minister Strahl did a much better administrative job than did MNP/CWB on the 2006 CWB Directors Election...

What would it matter?

THe results are what they are.

IMHO there is nothing the Courts would do to change the results of these votes.

If you choose the COurts... please use your own money... then I will know you aren't just a slave driver lashing our backs.



The Privacy Act looks after the conspiracy theories... and if anyone has proof of breach of confidentiality or legal abuse of either MNP/CWB or KPMG/AAFC ballots...

Either PUT UP or SHUT UP.

If you don't have evidence of a breach of trust ROD... the expedient action would be the latter.