Recount confirms Liberal win in Hochelaga
The only local recount in the federal election confirms the Liberals won Hochelaga as the Bloc conceded defeat part way through the count. Hints of “irregularities” by Yves-François Blanchet have not been substantiated.
Having worked elections myself, I can tell you it’s virtually impossible to introduce “irregularities” into an election. Before the poll opens, two people have to count out how many ballots the station has, and write that down. Voters mark their ballot in private, but it goes into the box in front of the poll workers, and you could not get away with cramming two or three extras in there, presuming you somehow got hold of convincing fakes in the first place, which is vanishingly unlikely, and would be noticed during the count anyway.
At the end, the count is carried on in front of several witnesses (parties can send observers if they like, and they do) and the damaged ballots (if any), the used and the unused ballots have to add up to the same number you had at the beginning. (They’re not kidding. I once made an error over 1 ballot in an election and was called in more than a week later to go through the whole box and account for it. And it was not a close race.) And then you have the counterfoils as a backup if the count somehow looks wrong. All this stuff is kept and sealed down and initialed in the box after the poll closes. Nothing in the process is done by one person alone.
And this isn’t even to mention how we now have to identify ourselves at the polling station, a thing we didn’t used to have to do (and which is still being resisted in other democracies, I’ve noticed).
People like Blanchet, but casting unspecified doubts over the basic democratic mechanism of voting isn’t smart.
Tim S. 22:36 on 2019-11-04 Permalink
Having been one of those party observers, it’s also true that there are many possibilities for mistakes by tired, undertrained workers supervised by Deputy Returning Officers who don’t really know what they are doing. The count in particular can be very haphazard, and workers are not instructed in how to count systematically (or, if they are, there’s usually no follow-up on the night itself, as the DRO is busy with their own paperwork). Keep in mind that by the time of the count itself, the poll workers, many of them first-timers, will have been on the job for about 13 straight hours. Yes, there are various checks and failsafes, and we should be proud that we have a system where citizens of goodwill usually ensure that things come out as they should. But it’s also important to keep an eye on the process and not be too complacent.
All that to say, in this case it’s possible that the BQ’s observers did spot something. Or think they did, at least.
Kate 22:42 on 2019-11-04 Permalink
Well, that’s what recounts are for.
jeather 10:22 on 2019-11-05 Permalink
I think “mistakes” have a very different feel than “irregularities”. Can there be a mistake in counting votes? Sure. There are only two people there counting, and despite the best of intentions people make mistakes, and by 9:30 you are ready to LEAVE. Irregularities suggest something a bit more deliberate.
Bill Binns 12:49 on 2019-11-05 Permalink
This is why I like paper ballots and believe they should be the only method of voting forever. Counting pieces of paper is a non-mysterious process that anyone can understand or independently verify. The only things to worry about are verifying that people are who they claim to be and that everyone can only vote once.
Tee Owe 13:12 on 2019-11-05 Permalink
With Bill Binns on this one 100%