[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

Latest strangeness from Twitter - people insisting you should bring a pen to vote, so that someone doesn't erase your pencil mark.

Now to be fair a lot of people explaining the process, including scrutineers.  It's really almost impossible to have large-scale fraud in Canada's paper ballots.  But still sad this kind of thing is infecting us in Canada.

Agreed. I would also argue its almost impossible to have small scale fraud without it being detected. 

[Barrister]

Latest strangeness from Twitter - people insisting you should bring a pen to vote, so that someone doesn't erase your pencil mark.

Now to be fair a lot of people explaining the process, including scrutineers.  It's really almost impossible to have large-scale fraud in Canada's paper ballots.  But still sad this kind of thing is infecting us in Canada.

Agreed. I would also argue its almost impossible to have small scale fraud without it being detected. 

Small scale fraud is possible.

I remember doing scrutineer training for the Manitoba PCs decades ago.  Basically we were told that if a family member wheels out great-grandma to vote who is nearly comatose - just let it go.  Not worth the hassle.  (Nurses doing it en masse would be different).

Similarly, someone can attest who is not on the voter list.  Can certainly be fraudulent.

Neither is remotely likely to determine the outcome of a vote.  Attestations are marked separately in any event.

[crazy canuck]

Latest strangeness from Twitter - people insisting you should bring a pen to vote, so that someone doesn't erase your pencil mark.

Now to be fair a lot of people explaining the process, including scrutineers.  It's really almost impossible to have large-scale fraud in Canada's paper ballots.  But still sad this kind of thing is infecting us in Canada.

Agreed. I would also argue its almost impossible to have small scale fraud without it being detected. 

Small scale fraud is possible.

I remember doing scrutineer training for the Manitoba PCs decades ago.  Basically we were told that if a family member wheels out great-grandma to vote who is nearly comatose - just let it go.  Not worth the hassle.  (Nurses doing it en masse would be different).

Similarly, someone can attest who is not on the voter list.  Can certainly be fraudulent.

Neither is remotely likely to determine the outcome of a vote.  Attestations are marked separately in any event.

The grandmother being brought to a polling station is not a case of fraud. I suspect you and the other scrutineers were told not to intervene because if you did, you would have been on very weak legal ground and likely committing an act contrary to the Canadian Human Rights Code.

The person attesting to someone who is not eligible to vote could be fraud, or it could just be a mistake.  In any event it would be detected since all such attestations are compared against the list.  It is one of the reasons the official result takes a bit of time to be released.

[crazy canuck]

Some comments from the Globe regarding the Conservative platform

$34-billion in new spending and $75-billion in tax cuts over the next four years.

They would help fund these expenditures with $56-billion in spending reductions over the same period, the Conservatives say. More than 40 per cent of these savings, the party says, would come from one measure: cutting the use of government consultants. They say that would save $23-billion over four years.

The party's 2025 election platform, released Tuesday, also shows the Conservatives are betting that economic growth from their policies will generate significant tax revenue for the government.

They estimate by 2028-29 this would be more than $21-billion annually. These predictions come despite the fact that Canada is in the midst of a damaging trade war with the United States.

Spending cuts include ending funding for English-language Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, while preserving funding for the French-language Radio-Canada. They would also cut foreign aid, starting at $1.3-billion in cuts in the 2025-26 fiscal year and rising to $2.8-billion in cuts by 2028-29.

All the parties have put out platforms that do not account for what the Trump administration is doing and how that will impact our economy.  Nobody can forecast that with any degree of accuracy, so I am not sure why the Globe reporter picked that nit.

Cutting the use of consultants is probably the correct way to go.  But the math doesn't work if the Conservatives are assuming all of the cost of those fees will go straight to the bottom line.  The government will have to invest in recruiting people into government (and paying them) to do the work the consultants were doing.  There will be cost savings, but not the magnitude being projected in the platform.

Also, there are specialty skills that it still makes sense to contract out.  Legal services are a good example of that.  There are a number of cases where the DOJ contracts with external counsel to argue the cases in court.  IT is another example that comes to mind - although the pay system is a cautionary tale of how not to do it.

So, bottom line, the idea of realizing all those saving is not realistic.

And then there is the old Conservative chestnut of ending the CBC.  I really wish they would give that up and realize it is not a hill to die on.

The Conservatives are also promising to "never hike taxes" while in power unless a referendum allows.

The ghost of Preston Manning haunts the Conservatives still.  I wish they would just do their job and make the public policy decisions they were elected to make.

On defence spending, Mr. Poilievre is promising to hike military expenditures to the equivalent of 2 per cent of GDP by 2030. It's the same timeline being pledged by Liberal Leader Mark Carney. Also, like the Liberals, the Conservatives are promising a new system for more efficient military procurement.

Hope this actually happens.

Here is the rest of the article that does more comparison with the Liberal platform, and reaction from the Liberals.  Gifted link for Languish.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/gift/519974dc5e28f762a87fb14c1570523f4fb873adfcfcb945043907ccc3c41650/VQ2VT42MDZDGPGSQCQGNVYUI5E/

[Barrister]

The grandmother being brought to a polling station is not a case of fraud. I suspect you and the other scrutineers were told not to intervene because if you did, you would have been on very weak legal ground and likely committing an act contrary to the Canadian Human Rights Code.

The person attesting to someone who is not eligible to vote could be fraud, or it could just be a mistake.  In any event it would be detected since all such attestations are compared against the list.  It is one of the reasons the official result takes a bit of time to be released.

You just can't help yourself - even when I'm basically agreeing with you, you have to try and point out why you think I'm wrong.

The ancient grandma - it could or could not be fraud.  It depends if grandma is able to make the choice for herself who to vote for or not.  But as I was told - it's just not worth challenging.  It can be a tough call, grandma may well have been a life-long PC/NDP voter and the grandkid is just following her wishes, and even if it's fraud it's of such a small scale it's not worth pursuing.

As for attestations - you can still vote even if you're not on the list.  You can vote even without ID.  So "comparisons to the list" is not really helpful.  What you need is someone with ID who attests as to your identity.  Theoretically that person without ID could also be a non-voter - proof of ID is needed, not proof of citizenship.

But there's just no evidence, ever, that such low-level fraud has ever meaningfully influenced an election.

I suppose if an election was ever that close in one riding, and the entire election depended on that one riding - Elections Canada might start chasing down people who attested and asking for proof of citizenship.

And there's absolutely no evidence people are erasing pencil marks on ballots.  In particular since ballots are placed into sealed boxes and only opened in the presence of scrutineers.

[crazy canuck]

You just can't help yourself - even when I'm basically agreeing with you, you have to try and point out why you think I'm wrong.

Well yes. When you say things that are wrong, I do think it is important to point it out and particularly in this political climate.  It is  inaccurate to suggest that only major fraud will be detected.  That feeds into the current right wing narrative that there is other undetected fraud which does occur.  And that is simply false.

[crazy canuck]

Looks like the debates nudged things in the direction of the Liberals.  They are back up to a 92% chance of forming government and back up to a 70% chance of forming a majority.

There is one poll from a group called Mainstreet that brings down the averages for the Liberals.  They keep having results that say the Libs and Cons are tied in the popular vote.  They had the Cons up 4 points on the 18th.  I looked into them a bit, and it looks like they were heavily criticized in the past for their small sample sizes.  They are definitely an outlier amongst all the other polling firms that make up the moving average at the Canada 388 site.

[viper37]

Cutting the use of consultants is probably the correct way to go.  But the math doesn't work if the Conservatives are assuming all of the cost of those fees will go straight to the bottom line.  The government will have to invest in recruiting people into government (and paying them) to do the work the consultants were doing.  There will be cost savings, but not the magnitude being projected in the platform.

Also, there are specialty skills that it still makes sense to contract out.  Legal services are a good example of that.  There are a number of cases where the DOJ contracts with external counsel to argue the cases in court.  IT is another example that comes to mind - although the pay system is a cautionary tale of how not to do it.

You covered the legal part.

Accounting.  A lot of agencies require external audit.  The Auditor general doesn't covert everything.

Engineering.  Outside engineering firms are required for many infrastructure projects.  Government engineers set standards, outside firms develop plans & provide surveillance.

IT, Federal just like provincial governments have lost or rather, never really developed an expertise.  We would need a "IT Canada" to supervise all the projects we need.  Transfer from "consulting" to workforce.  Cons ain't gonna like it.

Marketing.  Sometimes, you will need an outside marketing firm for a government plan of action.  Even Harper did it, IIRC.

Crisis management.  One is happening now.  Others may happen.  Do we need them as extensively as the Libs used them? No.  Can we reduce them to zero? Unlikely.  It is possible to envision a situation when the Federal workforce will be overwhelmed and need outside support.

Rebuilding critical missions.  This is temporary, but our defense was critically neglected, unfortunately, beginning with Harper's last mandate when severe cuts were made.  We have to rebuild some of our government functions and infrastructure.  Defense spending have increased under the Libs, but the money is going nowhere because the procurement system is broken.  We may need outside help to fix this.  Again, not an absolute.  But temporary help may be needed.


The Libs pushed too far on the consulting process, either to get the same information they were getting (or could get) from their bureaucrats, or to tweak the reports to tell them what they wanted to hear.  In Quebec, la CAQ is doing the same.

Bottom line is, there is not 10 billion$/year to save here.  If they save 500 millions$ annually, it'll be great.  McKinsey was 100 millions$ over the course of 8-9 years.  And you can't get rid of all this type of consulting as you'll have crisis and marketing you'll need to solve that can't always be done internally.

[crazy canuck]

Thanks Viper, good analysis

[Bauer]

I voted yesterday.  Took about 45 mins and was in a tiny room.  Usually they are in school gyms at least.

We also had electronic machines in the last provincial election but back to cardboard drop boxes in this one.

[Josephus]

Latest strangeness from Twitter - people insisting you should bring a pen to vote, so that someone doesn't erase your pencil mark.

Now to be fair a lot of people explaining the process, including scrutineers.  It's really almost impossible to have large-scale fraud in Canada's paper ballots.  But still sad this kind of thing is infecting us in Canada.

Some Elections worker got fired for telling someone to vote Conservative at an early voting poll.

Incidently I voted at an Elections Canada office and I had to sign an envelope in which they placed my ballot affirming I won't be voting somewhere else... which means not exactly a secret vote.

[crazy canuck]

Latest strangeness from Twitter - people insisting you should bring a pen to vote, so that someone doesn't erase your pencil mark.

Now to be fair a lot of people explaining the process, including scrutineers.  It's really almost impossible to have large-scale fraud in Canada's paper ballots.  But still sad this kind of thing is infecting us in Canada.

Some Elections worker got fired for telling someone to vote Conservative at an early voting poll.

Incidently I voted at an Elections Canada office and I had to sign an envelope in which they placed my ballot affirming I won't be voting somewhere else... which means not exactly a secret vote.

The reason your vote is placed within the envelope is the vote is removed and then counted and so remains secret.  Your affirmation is kept separately so if it turns out your violated your affirmation you could be charged for violating the election act.

[crazy canuck]

More on the Conservative budget math not adding up

Both the Conservatives and the Liberals promise their policies will lead to economic growth. But it's the Conservatives, in a break from usual practice, who are already counting the cash.

And they are counting big: By the fourth year, according to the Conservatives, their hypothetical Canadian economic boom would bring in $24.7-billion more in annual revenues than current projections.

"They are basically forecasting that their economic policies will nearly double economic growth," said economist Mike Moffatt of the Smart Prosperity Institute. "That's exceptionally optimistic."

[crazy canuck]

Looks like the debates nudged things in the direction of the Liberals.  They are back up to a 92% chance of forming government and back up to a 70% chance of forming a majority.

There is one poll from a group called Mainstreet that brings down the averages for the Liberals.  They keep having results that say the Libs and Cons are tied in the popular vote.  They had the Cons up 4 points on the 18th.  I looked into them a bit, and it looks like they were heavily criticized in the past for their small sample sizes.  They are definitely an outlier amongst all the other polling firms that make up the moving average at the Canada 388 site.

Overnight polling is in and chance of liberal majority edged up to 72%

Those mainstreet guys are still calling it a draw.  So either they are way off, or everyone else is wrong and there will be a big surprise on election night.

[Josephus]

@Josephus You watching the debut of the NSL? I like having a new soccer league to watch.

Sorry for delay.....Yes, I saw the game toronto lost to your guys.