Numbered Ballots Undemocratic?

[Fransisco]

[Fransisco]

So a process that is good enough to elect our MP's and the Prime Minister of our country is not good enough, is not democratic enough, for farmers to decide on marketing choice.

What a bunch of hypocrites all you so-called democracy advocates are. You don't give a lick about democracy, it was a farce all along.

[Vader]

Francisco,

I'll give you an "A" for effort for having found this. It must have taken you quite some time. Alas your ability to draw a rational conclusion receives a failing grade of "F".

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". This in no way identifies a voter or would allow the government to determine how a person had voted.

In the case of the barley plebiscite the numbering system was to identify the voter and how he voted.

This "nuance" may have escaped you. It is your lack of ability to reason correctly leads me to generally ignore anything that you post but I thought that other readers might be mislead.

But please do try again. Sometimes you are amusing.

[Jay-mo]

Who is Dion trying to impress? A LARGE majority of farmers want the ability to market their grain to whomever they choose. Is this not the kind of thing that politicians do the classic flip-flop on?
What is Dions TRUE motivation behind his pathetic arguments?
Are there dirty liberal secrets to be found once the cwb books are opened for all to see?
It just seems like the level of desperation and the complete lameness of the arguments put forth by people like Dion, Ritter, etc makes me wonder if these guys really even believe some of their own aguments or are just hoping that everyone else is somehow stupid enough to believe some of it.

[Vader]

Sorry, thought I should correct a typo before one of the nitpickers got to it.

Should have read:

This "nuance" may have escaped you. It is your lack of ability to reason correctly that leads me to generally ignore anything you post but I thought that other readers might be mislead.

[charliep]

Just curious how the CWB director elections are handled. I assume a very similar process.

[Jay-mo]

So has anyone, thanks to a traceable ballot, received any threatening phone calls from kpmd? Or the Rcmp? Or from Chuck himself? What are people worried about, the rcmp dragging them off to jail for voting for choice?
Hmm, doesnt that sound familiar?

[Fransisco]

<blockquote>Vader-"This "nuance" may have escaped you. It is your lack of ability to reason correctly that leads me to generally ignore anything you post but I thought that other readers might be mislead."</blockquote>

The word 'Nuance' since the rise and fall of John Kerry(and maybe before) is now left-wing code for 'contradiction'. The tactic is all too familiar,and quite frankly worn out by now. Anytime you want to try and get someone to believe the opposite of what is being said you say they don't understand the nuance's.

Sorry Vader it doesn't fly, the statement is what it is in the same way that A is A. We know what you and your cronies are doing, trying to turn A into B, you try to do it all the time.

And if my reasoning is so faulty it should be obvious to anyone and everyone. No response would have been necessary. The problem for you Vader is that the reasoning is sound, the example is solid and because of that people draw the proper conclusion.

Which of course is the last thing a monopolist wants.

[Fransisco]

<blockquote>Vader-"This in no way identifies a voter or would allow the government to determine how a person had voted."</blockquote>

Now I know why Chaff likes to call you E-Vader. What you are evading here is that it was KPMG an independent company that ran the plebiscite at arms length from the feds, not the government itself and that there were independent scrutineers on top of this. They were the ones in charge of the process, the nuts and bolts of the whole thing if you will.

It is not in their interest to run a sloppy election or risk their integrity in any way. That would mean no work in the future. They were hired to do the process, all the government wants is the result, they do not need to know who voted for what just the final result.

It is not the government that you are accusing of wrong doing, it is KPMG.

[Fransisco]

Here is how it all worked

"A list of 86,000 names was generated by merging various lists of western farmers maintained by the government, including those used for previous government program payments and the participant list under the CAIS program. Purging duplicates cut the list to 56,000 names, about 30,000 fewer than the total used in Wheat Board director elections. Recipients who returned ballots were required to submit an affidavit testifying that only one vote was being cast per farm unit.

A total of 29,067 usable ballots were manually counted twice by different employees of KPMG, the firm engaged to conduct the vote, in the presence of scrutineers, during the week of March 26."

[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.

&lt;blockquote&gt;&quot;The ballots themselves have absolutely no markings that would identify a specific voter. &lt;b&gt;The return envelopes however, have a special ballot authentication barcode printed on them for security reasons.&lt;/b&gt; 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.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

[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?