Numbered Ballots Undemocratic?

[FarmRanger]

“You see the difference is that purpose of numbering the ballots under the Canada Elections Act is to identify each ballot as a unique ballot, to give it authenticity, or in other words a "serial number". “

Wouldn’t that also be the purpose of numbering the barley plebiscite ballots? Keeping people from photocopying ballots is a good thing, no? Implying something sinister about numbering the ballots is also implying that KPMG is complicit in an voting information gathering scheme of dubious value to anyone.

Looks like a supermarket tabloid style conspiracy theory? A repeat of the “hidden agenda” smear campaign, perhaps? It looks a little desperate; will it change the mind of anyone who isn't already convinced?

[parsley]

This is a prime-time opportunity for the single-desk directors to launch a lawsuit against KPMG, using the same lawyer that they used against the Government for dismissing Mr.Measner.

I wonder if the insurance rates for personal liability for the CWB's B of D's is being reviewed?

[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?