Could someone from the US please post Canadian Election results here?

tdavie

Unconscious Objector
Federal law in Canada makes it illegal for a Canadian to broadcast election results to another timezone where the polls have not closed.

Anyone from the US is not bound by this fucking stupid law and is freel to post Canadian Election results.

Thanks guys if anyone gets this info and wouldn't mind posting it.

Please NO Canadians post results.

Tom

[edit; forgot to vote, picked up some GranDaddy Purple from dealer Stephen, and rushed home to try it. My conservative MP gave me a very condescending response to my(through a repsentative) request for clarification on medical MJ. Lied to me when he said it was entirely a provincial matter (it isn't). This prick is going to win in my riding (Stephen Fletcher)]
 
tdavie,
  • Like
Reactions: killick

LivingInSpin

Active Member
Ok, I would like to help, but where would one get the Canadian results in the US? If on the internet, are you blocked from it?

I have no understanding of Canadian law or how this works.
 
LivingInSpin,

Purpl3_Haz3

On a Permanent Vakation
Fight back on May 2, 2011! Post your election results as they are released!
Description
In what can only be described as a totally ridiculous attack on our freedom of speech, the government made it illegal to broadcast the results of a federal election from one district to someone in another district. This law was put into place back in 1938 and has never been shown to prevent any tainting of the results one way or another.

Back in 2000, Paul Bryan posted results on his blog. He was charged with his crime and took the case all the way to the supreme court of Canada. He lost his case and had to pay a fine of $1000. It was a terrible loss for our freedom of speech that day.


Here is the wording of the section as it appears in the Canada Elections Act;

"329. No person shall transmit the result or purported result of the vote in an electoral district to the public in another electoral district before the close of all of the polling stations in that other electoral district."


Show the government that they have no business trying to stop our freedom of speech and post the results of your riding as soon as they come in.


**WARNING**

**If you choose to participate, you may want to do this under a dummy account and behind a proxy to avoid law enforcement. This is against Canadian law after all!** (read less)

That was from a facebook page created to do what your trying to do....

LivingInSpin said:
Ok, I would like to help, but where would one get the Canadian results in the US? If on the internet, are you blocked from it?

I have no understanding of Canadian law or how this works.


On the Internet, yes, but it can be dangerous for them to try to access this info? This is all new to me, and seems odd.
 
Purpl3_Haz3,

tdavie

Unconscious Objector
LivingInSpin said:
Ok, I would like to help, but where would one get the Canadian results in the US? If on the internet, are you blocked from it?

I have no understanding of Canadian law or how this works.


Apparently the google search from within Canada has had certain results blocked. I've searched for certain election terms when using a US proxy and the results that show up are different than when using Canadian google.

I think C-Span 2 might be broadcasting real time results, but I can't say for sure. We are getting a CRTC approved feed?

The way it works is that if I live in an Eastern time zone, I am legally prohibited from tranmitting election results (federal) to people who are living in a more western time zone. Fines are indeterminate and can vary wildly depending on the severity of the transgression.

So basically if I were to say that as of 9:40 pm CST time that the Conservatives were likely to win 160 seats, and if I were to say that the Liberals were to win 31 seats, and if I were to say that the NDP were to win 107 seats, and if I were to say that the Bloq were to win 4 seats, well, I would be in contempt of federal law and could be immediately imprisoned. And face a large fine.

If I were to say that, and if it were to be true.

Eh, you get the picture (I get to eat prison food)
 
tdavie,

tdavie

Unconscious Objector
@ Purpl3_Haz3

I'm aware of that page, but no I was just trying independently.

Tom

[Mods, I am aware of the multiple posting rule, but I feel this election is so important that I think it more relevant to make separate posts. I'll probably make more such violations in this thread to update non Canadians. If you want to delete this thread or any of my posts I would not be offended.]
 
tdavie,

tdavie

Unconscious Objector
The Conservatives are projected to win a majority government (jumped up jesus in hell I fear for Canada's future).

Ignoring all of the other stuff (such as stacking the senate that can rubber stamp parliament....think the 1930's), getting us involved in world affairs where we are clearly not qualified to do so (Canada....is....bombing....Libya), allowing the provinces to create vastly different legal systems; the kicker is this..............

For growing 5 (five) marijuana plants, I can spend up to 2 years in federal prison (alongside violent criminals), if I am not authorized for medical access. We may also get a constitutional challenge to the paraphenalia laws (currently head shops are allowed to operate with impunity under 'freedom of expression').

Good lord, I cannot communicate to Americans and the rest of the world just how bad this is for Canada.

Total data retention by the government has been brought up in session.

Tom
 
tdavie,

aesthyrian

Blaaaaah
Sounds like Canada is becoming very much like the United States. God damn that is sad. :(
 
aesthyrian,

LivingInSpin

Active Member
OK, got CSPAN-2 up and running. Anything you need to know, or is it over?

I got some gray haired Canadian speakin' jive on the screen. Talking like he won something.
 
LivingInSpin,

tdavie

Unconscious Objector
LivingInSpin said:
OK, got CSPAN-2 up and running. Anything you need to know, or is it over?

I got some gray haired Canadian speakin' jive on the screen. Talking like he won something.


Sigh, it's over. All over.

The gray haired idiot is our one and only esteemed Prime Minister.

Can I claim refugee status in the States?

Tom
 
tdavie,

crawdad

floatin
sure but we got our own problems here, i think we need to colonize another planet....perhaps some pale green dot.
 
crawdad,

Lo

Combustion free since '09
:( Bummer! Yeah, you could claim refuge here but.... we suck too!
 
Lo,

Egzoset

Banned
I thinks it's time for Canadian vaporizer owners to buy spare parts, while we still can...

:uhoh:
 
Egzoset,

VWFringe

Naruto Fan
I just read that the prime minister is favored because Canada did better than the US during the economic storm and in their recovery, so they've voted his party into power, the first time the conservatives have had total control for a while, and...

Now, with majority rule and 40 percent of the vote, the Conservatives can pass many of their measures more easily

but still...is it a good sign the "leftist" New Democrats are the official opposition (second runners up)?
 
VWFringe,

aesthyrian

Blaaaaah
tdavie said:
Can I claim refugee status in the States?

Tom

Yeah just don't go to Arizona, they will ask for a birth certificate. oh wait... they only care about the Mexican immigrants... never mind! :lol: As long as you're white you're welcome here in the US!

But like others have said we have our problems, and I still believe you are better off as a Canadian. I am still envious, if not a bit saddened.
 
aesthyrian,

tdavie

Unconscious Objector
Egzoset said:
I thinks it's time for Canadian vaporizer owners to buy spare parts, while we still can...

:uhoh:

I'm going to have to buy a couple vaporizers, spare parts, a few bongs plus assorted glass, couple boxes of rolling papers (case?) and a crapload of other stuff that I really think could be illegal within a month of when Harper and the conservatives get sworn in.

Yeah Egzoset, you're right.

Tom
 
tdavie,

tdavie

Unconscious Objector
Wow, thanks for the interest from the US and other places. I'll try very briefly why I think this election was very bad for Canada. You might want to google a couple of the terms or new items that are so stupidly Canadian :)

1) Back when Reagan was president, one of his best buddies was Prime Minister Brian Mulroney (google this asshole).

2) In 1987, the Reform Party of Canada officially came into existence. Roots go back, but can be traced to western disgust at Pierre Trudeau, western separatism, a fair bit of very conservative social policy, extreme fiscal conservatism and yeah, some religious wackery (no disrespect to anyone here, or to any religion, but this was wackery....including elected members of parliament who were confused about dinosaurs and man co-existing). In short, a confused movement, but trending far to the right (in my opinion, but I think it's fact :)). Google everything here if you want, there are some good Wikipedia articles.

3) The Reform Party did so well that they became the official opposition party in Government (which the not so leftist leaning New Democratic Party now are). The governing party in the not so distant past was the Liberals (pretty centrist, but as corrupt as any of our other parties). At this time, the Conservative party had essentially been erased from federal politics. Key events include Quebec separatism on a provincial and federal level (provincially it's Parti Quebecois, federally it's the Bloc Quebecois).

4) The reform party is fairly mainstream, but every now and then you get an elected official sputtering something absolutely assinine (as in fucking retarded). Some comments have included ethnic cleansing, gay baiting and defnitely msyoginistic. Once the nutjobs were removed from the party, on the whole, it was a pretty respectable political organization. Preston Manning, head of the Reform Party was a pretty stand up politician and very respectable, albeit conservative, on a personal level. Another good Canadian politician of the era/time was Lucien Bouchard. After Meech Lake failed, the Bloc Quebcois was formed. Bouch was leader and he became official opposition (in the Canadian government, the official opposition leader was a separatist)). He also was Premier of Quebec after Parizeau resigned following a failed separation referndum. Google everything here.

5) Well, eventually, the Reform Party and the remains of the Conservative Party merged. They were officially known as the Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance. Add a P to that, and the name was changed very quickly to Canadian Reform Consevertaive Alliance. Google this crap too.

6) Eventually all mention of Reform was dropped, and they are now the Conservative Party.

7) Well, because of a very strong Bloc Party in Quebec, the Conservatives were not able to manage a majority (read dictatorial control of parliament and the Senate).

8) Fast forward to the present day and you find diminished Quebec nationalism on the federal level. Couple that with a rise in the NDP federally, a federal collapse of the Liberal Party, and you get Stephen Harper winning a majority government, which means, well, draw your own conclusions. The unpleasant religious undertones of the Reform Party are still kinda lurking under the surface. No, ni hidden agenda, but far to the right of George Bush (2000-08), and with all of the electoral and legislative power to do what he wants.

My own opinions of the major national parties?

a) The NDP (New Democratic Party) are pretty much like the American Democrats.

b) The Liberals are as centrist as they come. They'll borrow from the left and the right.

c) Bloc (dedicated ultimately towards separation of Quebec into a sovereign country).

d) The Green Party....can't really describe them.

e) The Conservatives are political Machiavellians, but not very sophisticated. Rather blunt and laughable attack ads. I personally find Stephen Harper an obsequious twat (the English sense of the word).

My own personal politics (hey, if you've read this far, at least you deserve to know what sort of person the author of this rant is). Not something that puts foods on the table, I got a degree in political philosophy in 1995.

Politically I am not affiliated with any party. They pretty much all disgust me, witgh the xeception of the Green and Marijuana parties. When I was 22 (1982) I was a card carrying member of the Conservative Party for 2 weeks until I quit. I believe in allowing other people to do what they want to the extent that it does not interfere with anyone else. Because I live in a civil society I recognize and accept common laws, priveleges, etc. I guess you could call me a soft Libertarian.

Tom
 
tdavie,

CombustionJunction

What's Your Function?
Thanks for that explanation, Tom. All of that actually makes more sense than American politics. It makes sense that the liberals are the centrists. In this country, we have a war to see who can lean the farthest left or right. Nobody in the middle. You're lucky to have so many options. We don't even allow other parties to participate in debates. If you're not a Republican or a Democrat, you don't have a chance in hell of winning an election. That's how you end up with people like Ron Paul (a libertarian) hiding behind the Republican Party. It's pretty sad.
 
CombustionJunction,

Vaporisateur

Senior Marijuanist
The most interesting fact about Canadian elections, is that you can have a Prime Minister with a majority in the chamber, when only 40% of the population voted for him. The other 60% has voted for one of the other 3 partys... That's sad.
 
Vaporisateur,

WatTyler

Revolting Peasant
Vaporisateur said:
The most interesting fact about Canadian elections, is that you can have a Prime Minister with a majority in the chamber, when only 40% of the population voted for him. The other 60% has voted for one of the other 3 partys... That's sad.
we've got a national referendum in the UK on Friday as to whether we change our sytstem of voting to a so called 'Alternative Voting' system, instead of the current more common 'First Past the Post' system. It works by each voter ranking the candidates, and when your top candidate is out, your second preference is counted instead. In theory, it should mitigate the kind of scenario you describe. It means that whatever candidates has to work to please the broadest range of voters, even if he/she isn't the voters first choice, rather than relying on a small consistent majority facilitating the 'safe' seat concept.

But it will lead to more hung parliaments with no majority, and coalition governments.

As far as I understand this proposal is a good thing, and I will be voting for this change, although there is obviously some opposition and maybe issues with coalition governance too. So we will see. But it seems to me that this is the only way in which you can deliver a parliament (House of Commons) that is actually best representative of the people it claims to be. Here more people will have given assent to be represented by those holding seats, even it not by their first choice, than under the current system. (Our other house in Parliament, that of the Lords, will never be, and is not designed to be, representative of the people- just the wealth and power and conservatism :2c:).

Interestingly I don't believe many other countries in the western world use this proposed new system, except maybe Australia?

It sounds alright to me and I'm waiting to see if it catches on here. If it works well, I'll let you Canadians know :cool: :lol:
 
WatTyler,

wilf789

Non-combustion-convert
I'm voting yes for AV too - it's far from perfect but it's definitely a step in the right direction towards a more proportional system.

Blair's last election saw him keep power with just 34% of the vote. Take into account voter apathy and that figure drops into the mid twenties. To have the leader of a country like ours with that kind of minority as his mandate is simply disgraceful.

Not many other countries use AV nationally, but it is used locally more. For example see Boris Johnson (Mayor of London and Conservative MP) complaining along with the rest of his party that AV is 'too complicated' for people to understand, despite the fact that he was elected Mayor under an AV system!

Edit: The national referendum is tomorrow and to be honest I'd be very surprised if it got accepted. It might be close but there's been so much negative campaigning by the 'No' side that I fear most people will steer clear.
 
wilf789,

WatTyler

Revolting Peasant
wilf789 said:
Edit: The national referendum is tomorrow ....
Haha, yep, dunno why I wrote Friday. It's also our Scottish government elections, which should mean more voters on Scotland take pert in the voting referendum than in England where the referendum is the only reason to go to the polling station.

And so in Scotland we could likely have another Scottish National Party government, and they've promised (again, but this time for real) to deliver a Scottish referendum on Scotland leaving the United Kingdom.

I'm in a dilemma. As a British citizen I want to retain a United Kingdom, but the SNP have been good for Scotland and have protected a lot of services from London cuts of services I value, such as free university education. For Scotlands needs I feel somewhat compelled to support the SNP, but I'll have to abandon them if they try to leave the UK.

Although an independent Scotland would certainly make things interesting. Who gets the North Sea oil? :/
 
WatTyler,

VWFringe

Naruto Fan
WatTyler said:
Vaporisateur said:
The most interesting fact about Canadian elections, is that you can have a Prime Minister with a majority in the chamber, when only 40% of the population voted for him. The other 60% has voted for one of the other 3 partys... That's sad.
we've got a national referendum in the UK on Friday as to whether we change our sytstem of voting to a so called 'Alternative Voting' system, instead of the current more common 'First Past the Post' system. It works by each voter ranking the candidates, and when your top candidate is out, your second preference is counted instead. In theory, it should mitigate the kind of scenario you describe. It means that whatever candidates has to work to please the broadest range of voters, even if he/she isn't the voters first choice, rather than relying on a small consistent majority facilitating the 'safe' seat concept.

But it will lead to more hung parliaments with no majority, and coalition governments.

As far as I understand this proposal is a good thing, and I will be voting for this change, although there is obviously some opposition and maybe issues with coalition governance too. So we will see. But it seems to me that this is the only way in which you can deliver a parliament (House of Commons) that is actually best representative of the people it claims to be. Here more people will have given assent to be represented by those holding seats, even it not by their first choice, than under the current system. (Our other house in Parliament, that of the Lords, will never be, and is not designed to be, representative of the people- just the wealth and power and conservatism :2c:).

Interestingly I don't believe many other countries in the western world use this proposed new system, except maybe Australia?

It sounds alright to me and I'm waiting to see if it catches on here. If it works well, I'll let you Canadians know :cool: :lol:

i saw a video about Alternative voting on youtube, seemed like a way of getting people elected who normally wouldn't be... without runoffs at least. what do your critics say about it?

i see AV was voted down, but no real analysis, just finger pointing,

my wife watches the BBC America, i was watching for a minute, pointed out their map of Israel was wrong, and so was their reporting - it sounded almost like here in the States, a global mis-information campaign.

Tom, thank you for taking the time to sum up for us, much better than what we could find on wikipedia because the other parties have probably sanitized them.
 
VWFringe,
Top Bottom