October 6, 2006


That one will surely take a while!

If the voter is confused by the ballot, dont penalize the party membership by making less people go to convention....this is bad democracy guys BAD!

22 Commentaires:

Blogger s.b. a dit...

Well I hope you are still a delegate, eventhough it's not your riding.

10/06/2006 7:34 a.m.  
Blogger anna yanuk a dit...

Weren't you running is Abitibi, despite the fact that you've never been there? How is that democratic young man? You need to wisen up a little before criticizing democratic shortcomings when you commit questionable democratic anomalies...

10/06/2006 8:34 a.m.  
Blogger question a dit...

quebec was fixed, the local RO's in many riding sent in results that were a fraud. The recount is finding many instances of this.

10/06/2006 10:37 a.m.  
Blogger anna yanuk a dit...

calm down there alex, no need to pull a kiddie tantrum, i was merely stating the facts on the ground... you're outburst suggests i'm right and you know it, but don't like it.

but that's just my opinion... and many others as well.

10/06/2006 10:42 a.m.  
Blogger anna yanuk a dit...

and what happens in the liberal party is everyone's business... even antonio running in abitibi when he is a montreal resident

10/06/2006 10:44 a.m.  
Blogger Sinestra a dit...

Antonio, I find this appalling on your part. It was YOUR team who made the initial complaint, then when you guys realised how much it would hurt you, scrambled around and pulled the complaint. Too late. First, Team Iggy is screaming that the rules be followed, then when it becomes clear that the rules will hurt Iggy's numbers, they want to stick with the staus quo - DESPITE the fact that the rules were applied properly elsewhere. I know you weren't involved, Anotonio, but it was pretty rich to hear Team Iggy saying the campaigns who stuck to their guns about the DEMOCRATIC RULES are enemies of renewal and we're 'hurting' the party by not sending as many QC delegates as we can. Rules are rules, but it only seems they should be enforced when it benefits Iggy. You gus started it; we finished it.

10/06/2006 10:49 a.m.  
Blogger Sinestra a dit...

PS I know you were elected in A-T and that you can legitimately run there. Our delegate from A-T lives near Val d'Or. I guess you'll meet him at convention.

10/06/2006 10:51 a.m.  
Blogger cat mutant a dit...

Well, at least this is more controversial than when people thought Antonio was an illegal Portuguese immigrant being deported by the Conservatives.

10/06/2006 11:05 a.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...


you know that this reflects badly on all campaigns, where Ken and gerard earnd a couple of spots based on only 1 or 2 votes which they will lose now...

who loses? everyone. If my team said otherwise at first, I would disagree with them. At the end of the day, we need more Quebecers there.

I ran in Abitibi because I was practically guaranteed a spot at Concordia, and didnt wanna take one away form someone in Montreal. I won in Abitibi too, with more votes than Michael received. We laughed at that a little

10/06/2006 12:14 p.m.  
Blogger Sinestra a dit...

Actually, Antonio, it appears some campaigns GAINED some spots. I have no issue with where you ran - it's perfectly legal, though I have to question the ethics of running Montrealers all over the place. And I do think we need to revisit that rule.

This has NOTHING to do with sending more Quebecers to convention. It has to do with sending more Ignatieff delegates to convention. I'm not sure what you're getting at with Bad Democracy - please explain. And really: if only 10% of LPCQ members turned out to vote, how can you argue that we need more Quebecers at convention? You can try to spin it away, but why bother?

10/06/2006 12:24 p.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...


voting is about intent. These people did not intend to vote for nobody, as there was a specific box for undeclared.

A person who chooses nobody on a ballot in a general election is not a vote for the independent candidate. It is a simple legal argument. These people should still get to go to convention.

My guess is that it affects easily over 60 delegates. Denying them, no matter who they support, is wrong.

10/06/2006 12:39 p.m.  
Blogger Sinestra a dit...

Article 10.1, Antonio. Take it up with LPC's lawyers. It wasn't our job yesterday to question whether the reg is good or bad, just to apply it. Clearly the good people in Argentueil-Papineau-Mirabel didn't think the whole thing was so daft when they filed the initial complaint: they were mad that the rule you think is so dumb WASN'T applied. There seems to be a disconnect somewhere in the Ignatieff campaign. I'm seeing any logic here whatsoever.

10/06/2006 1:35 p.m.  
Blogger Sinestra a dit...

NOT seeing (obviously)

10/06/2006 1:36 p.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...


the rule you state is correct, which is why I am unhappy with the rule. They will count as undeclared and less people will go to convention.

However, I do hope they modify the rule in the future. Everyone on our campaign does not think alike you know. I thought they should not count as undeclared from the beginning.

10/06/2006 2:11 p.m.  
Blogger big gay al's big gay liberal sanctuary a dit...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10/06/2006 3:28 p.m.  
Blogger s.b. a dit...

Antonio, I got almost twice as many votes as Ken. Beat that, and having more undecideds would only make sense if people were standing as delegates for those candidates on the ballots as well. So a Fry vote would only be counted as an undeclared ballot, if there were Fry delegates or people who wanted to be Fry delegates listed under undeclared. Without the other corresponding ballot the first undelared will do nothing other than lessen the number of delegates from Quebec at convention as candidates cannot backfill these spots. Fry Bevilaqua and Bennett can't back fill undeclareds to the best of my knowledge. So Antonio is right the second time, these votes shouldn't count at all.

10/06/2006 4:29 p.m.  
Blogger Sinestra a dit...

See, Antonio, I'm a bit self-interested and I'm just downright JOYFUL that a whole bunch of Dryden 'undeclareds' got in. This process was most helpful to the campaign. Other than that, I agree: those votes shouldn't have counted. And what the hell is going on in Bourassa?

10/06/2006 6:06 p.m.  
Blogger big gay al's big gay liberal sanctuary a dit...

Hello! I offer sactuary to all those Liberals who have strayed from the true Grit path!

10/06/2006 6:23 p.m.  
Blogger Manitoba Liberal a dit...

So only around 10% of Quebec Liberals voted...making the total number of votes cast around 3500 in 75 ridings and numerous clubs....hmmmmm....sounds like no candidate was able to capture the imigination of Quebec Liberals in any meaningful way.

10/07/2006 1:03 a.m.  
Blogger cat mutant a dit...

Come on there Manitoba Liberal, you'll get all camps saying how their respective candidates fared so well in Quebec.

The reality on the ground is that a majority of Quebecers don't reall care.

And I have a feeling that includes a majority of Canadians as well.

But I have a feeling I'll get shot down for saying this, but c'est la verité when you have regurgitated policy ideas thrown at you that will most likely never get implemented.

10/07/2006 1:14 a.m.  
Blogger grit heart a dit...

The Party seems alive and vibrant to me in Quebec.

Leadership camps were all active.

The Party is poised to pick up Quebec seats in a spring election.

Things are good.

10/07/2006 10:27 a.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...

I agree with the grit heart from Mount Royal.

We thought it would be much worse than what it turned out to be.

10/07/2006 11:10 a.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home