News   Nov 22, 2024
 568     1 
News   Nov 22, 2024
 1K     5 
News   Nov 22, 2024
 2.7K     8 

2018 Ontario Provincial Election Discussion

If 29 (or any number) of candidates paid money for this information, it needs more than an internal investigation. Are any of these 29 amongst those appointed by Doug? Will they all be replaced (can that be done this close to the election?) along with the one who accessed the data? So many questions, so many implications, so many rabbit trails.
 
If this investigation proceeds at a normal pace, findings will only come out when Doug Ford is already Premier. And right on cue, we’ll get another major political Ford scandal with Doug refusing to step down and Queens Park being swamped with reporters for years all while we’re set back 4 years with nothing getting done.
 
If 29 (or any number) of candidates paid money for this information, it needs more than an internal investigation. Are any of these 29 amongst those appointed by Doug? Will they all be replaced (can that be done this close to the election?) along with the one who accessed the data? So many questions, so many implications, so many rabbit trails.

They need to ascertain whether this case of identity theft is further tied up with rumours of involvement with the leadership campaign - who did these individuals voted for?

AoD
 
You can't safeguard what others do. Like with Cambridge Analytica, for example, when your friends may have shared access to your information on Facebook. Or when a friend mentions you.
Did Cambridge Analytica break any laws? Has anyone there been charged with data theft? Looks to me like they simply sent out an app where the users accepted to share their and their friends' data, and then collected the data that they've been given permission to access.

And I can safeguard against what others do, by again limiting what I do and post on social media. My "friends" can't inadvertently share private or semi-private data about me if they don't have it.
 
It ceased* to exist for very no good reasons I suppose.

* sort of, kind of - given how slippery the company - and its' operators - are now being show to be. Perhaps we can ask Emerdata instead? Or how about Nix exactly what he meant in his hidden video?

Beyond that - and given permission to access to do what with, and used for what? Counting on legality in a field where the law is consistently falling behind technology is no excuse for unethical conduct.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Did Cambridge Analytica break any laws? Has anyone there been charged with data theft? Looks to me like they simply sent out an app where the users accepted to share their and their friends' data, and then collected the data that they've been given permission to access.

And I can safeguard against what others do, by again limiting what I do and post on social media. My "friends" can't inadvertently share private or semi-private data about me if they don't have it.
I didn’t say they broke laws

My point is that if I am your social media friend I could easily post something about you. You have no control over that.
 
They need to ascertain whether this case of identity theft is further tied up with rumours of involvement with the leadership campaign - who did these individuals voted for?
Indeed...someone somewhere will start talking once the threat of criminal prosecution arises. And since we're projecting on that one...the Governor General, (Edit: whoops, I'll clarify this more later with reference as to when the G-G becomes involved if the Lieutenant is superseded) IIRC, has the power to dissolve the Legislature if criminal wrongdoing is established in attaining the electoral win. (Edit: Further clarification on this: L-G is a *federal appointment* , Crown to be technical, but always on the advisement of the sitting Federal Gov't)(edit: Later, by the Prime Minister directly)

Did Cambridge Analytica break any laws?
Have they been convicted yet? No. Are they accused? You betcha!
Start here:
https://www.justsecurity.org/54272/...onal-staff-violated-u-s-campaign-finance-law/

The question isn't 'if'. It's in how many nations.

And be aware of the Northern Smoking Gun:
[...]
The New York Times reported, based on documents reviewed and former employees interviewed, that Cambridge Analytica “was effectively a shell” and any contracts for U.S. election work won by Cambridge Analytica were serviced by a London-based firm called SCL Group. These documents and former employees made clear that such work was “overseen” by Alexander Nix, a British citizen who was the chief executive of Cambridge Analytica (suspended last week) and also a director of SCL Group. Most of SCL Group’s employees and contractors were Canadian, like now-famous whistleblower Christopher Wylie, or European.
[...]
 
Last edited:
Diverting us back to anecdotes worthy of not much, LOL

I was out driving in Scarborough today (for what I was being punished, I'm unsure) ......made some observations on the sign wars.

Scarborough South-West, if one were to judge by Pharmacy Avenue, one would think the sign was ratio 5:3:3 for the PCs, Libs and NDP respective.

However, if one were to judge by Victoria Park, it would be 1:2:5 w/the parties in the same order as above.

Overall, NDP barely above the Cons, close to a statistical tie, based on a 2-street sample. w/Libs just behind.

Over on Bellamy, north of Lawrence, Mitzi Hunters area, Libs appeared well ahead in the sign count both PC and NDP trailing well behind.

Which all means not much, LOL, but thought I'd share.
 
In my area, there is a fairly even mix of Liberal and PC signs, but no NDP signs at all. In DMW's riding, which is on the way home, the PC signs have a slight edge over the Liberals. I even saw a Communist Party sign!

I didn't see many signs in Etobicoke last weekend when I was at my in-laws place.
 
Last edited:
The University-Rosedale riding appears to be predominantly Tim Grant signs! Did extensive walking through it yesterday, purposely taking as many of the side streets as possible, and many of those don't just have his regular sign up, they have the large one, bigger than Tim could deliver on his bike, which I saw him riding around on with the smaller lawn signs to plant.

A corner is turning for the Greens. I'm now able to believe that they will get two or more seats this time round. And here's what the larger signs indicate (I didn't see any of the largest for the other three): Pride in staking out a new belief. I don't share all their beliefs, but I'm incredibly moved by their faith in a new way of doing things.

Bring it on...
 
On 'illegalities in an election' as touched upon prior, this, from the Parliament of Canada Library on the matter. The Hounds out there will find the entire page fascinating. "Fraud" appears nine times by a page search.

The most pertinent to what might happen in Ontario (and what happens in an Ontario election comes under Federal Law, not provincial, albeit further penalties and actions will be applicable under the Ontario Act) follows:
From the Provincial Act:
Definitions
1 In this Act,
[...]
“corrupt practice” means any act or omission, in connection with an election, in respect of which an offence is provided under the Criminal Code (Canada) or which is a corrupt practice under this Act; (“manoeuvre frauduleuse”)[...]
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90e06

From the Parliament of Canada:
The Canadian Electoral System *
Dara Lithwick
Sebastian Spano
, Legal and Social Affairs Division
15 September 2008
Revised 22 October 2015
[...]
15.3 Challenges To Election Results
The Act allows challenges to elections in certain circumstances.86 In extreme cases, the results of an election can be nullified, but this is quite rare, as was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in a recent application contesting an election in the federal riding of Etobicoke Centre.87 An eligible voter in a riding may apply to a court to nullify an election in that riding on the grounds that there were irregularities or unlawful acts (fraud or illegal or corrupt practices) that affected the results. In the Etobicoke Centre case, the unsuccessful candidate in the 41st general election alleged that votes had been cast improperly as a result of polling day irregularities, including improper voter identification and polling day registration, and improper vouching for voters who lacked the required identification. The margin of victory in that riding was 26 votes, while 180 votes were alleged to have been improperly cast. The Supreme Court, by a slim majority (5–4), overturned the lower court's decision to nullify the election result, holding that courts should not interfere with the results of an election unless there is evidence that ineligible voters cast ballots or fraudulent practices occurred and that these activities likely affected the results of an election.

Other examples of contested elections include a challenge by seven voters in the Federal Court of Canada alleging unlawful acts (the use of automated or live telephone calls misdirecting voters on where to vote), rather than irregularities, that affected the outcome in seven ridings. The Federal Court in those cases found that, although there was evidence of massive fraud in the use of automated calls to misdirect voters on where to vote, there was insufficient evidence that the unlawful acts affected the results of the election.88

Contested elections are distinguished from judicial recounts, which are required by law and initiated by a returning officer where the margin of victory in a riding is less than one one-thousandth of all votes cast in an electoral district, or which may be requested by a voter within four days of the certified result of an election.

Finally, as noted earlier, a finding of guilt in respect of an illegal or corrupt act, as defined in the Canada Elections Act, will also result in an elected Member of Parliament losing his or her right to sit in the House of Commons, creating a vacancy and requiring a by-election.
[...]
https://lop.parl.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2013-81-e.html?cat=government

Addendum: Reading through the Provincial Act, there's some very pertinent sections, but this one especially is interesting:

[...]
Inquiry as to extensive corrupt practices
111 The Lieutenant Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the Assembly, may establish a commission to inquire into whether corrupt practices extensively prevailed at the election and section 33 of the Public Inquiries Act, 2009 applies to that inquiry. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 6, s. 54 (2).
[...]
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90e06

Which at first, appears problematic, since the present session has ended. So one has to ask: Can a private member in the new session petition for such? The Libs, NDP and Others will certainly overwhelm any blocking from the PCs on such a motion, no matter who forms the government.

section 33 of the Public Inquiries Act, 2009 can be found here:
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/09p33#BK48

It's all totally conjecture at this point as to illegalities, but they're compounding in the number of probable plus proven instances:
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2018/05/18/neck-deep-in-swamp-and-gravy.html
 
Last edited:
The University-Rosedale riding appears to be predominantly Tim Grant signs! Did extensive walking through it yesterday, purposely taking as many of the side streets as possible, and many of those don't just have his regular sign up, they have the large one, bigger than Tim could deliver on his bike, which I saw him riding around on with the smaller lawn signs to plant.

A corner is turning for the Greens. I'm now able to believe that they will get two or more seats this time round. And here's what the larger signs indicate (I didn't see any of the largest for the other three): Pride in staking out a new belief. I don't share all their beliefs, but I'm incredibly moved by their faith in a new way of doing things.

Bring it on...

Tim Grant's *always* been an overperformer, signwise--even with the big signs. You're right: he's probably the most "viable" Green candidate in Toronto. As he's been over the past two elections.

But as long as Schreiner's not part of the debates, Grant's still not going to win University-Rosedale. And as long as Horwath doesn't falter a la 2014 and neither of the three main-party candidates are felled by mid-campaign scandal, Grant's going to struggle to reach a double digit share, signage and idealism notwithstanding.

The Greens are as likely to win in University-Rosedale as the Daniels Faculty of Architecture is to subscribe wholeheartedly to Congress for the New Urbanism precepts.
 
Oh, and poll-time again.

For those hoping for a minority/coalition situation:
Innovative: 35 PC, 31 NDP, 27 Lib, 6 Green.

For the PC-landslide status quo:
Mainstreet (who else?): 42 PC, 29 NDP, 22 Lib, 5 Green.
 

Back
Top