Comment 50923

By MAB (registered) | Posted October 30, 2010 at 11:08:38

Why do the Offical results for this election report/counted 207 Polling Stations in 2010(227 in 2006)when council prior to this election, approved to increase advanced polling stations by approximately 21 for this election? Apparently, our Ward alone, were officially counted as having 15 Polling stations when in fact we had an increase of 5. Check the stats in your ward. Are we missing votes?

SOME POINTS TO PONDER;

All of the incumbents won hands down in the Advanced Polls.

Just prior the election, council agreed to increase the polls costing 20,000 each. I do not think this includes the cost of labour, just the cost of the electronic voting devices.

The City had to scramble to find people to women/man these polling stations and train? them on the procedures that had changed from manual voting.

Prior to this election, council also moved to changed the Election date from November to October 25th, two weeks earlier. While at the same time introducing more advanced polling stations, with dates of voting early as 18 days before the election.

This all under the guise of improving voter turnout! From what I can see the increase was miminal. These last minute changes too me were in fact too the benefit of the incumbents.

Much of the media coverage was done after the advance polls. Cable 14, did not air many of the candidates debate until after the advance polls.

Candidates who withdrew in a few wards , still pulled votes - in the advanced polls.

Why is election day October 25th when you can vote weeks in advance?

Do the new tabulators reflect the true votes? Has and will the city perform an evaluation or check, by counting the manual cards, which are kept at the time of the vote.. and weigh in against this electronic voting device.

Comment edited by MAB on 2010-10-30 10:23:08

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds