Comment 62299

By bob lee (anonymous) | Posted April 14, 2011 at 19:25:40

This story smells awful to me. By my count there were at least three infractions, forms 3, 4, and 5 all had errors. You can call this nitpicking, but come on. It's Elections Canada. I would expect nitpicking.

Then they blame Winn for what are clearly their own errors, characterizing this as a personal decision, and then making a totally unsubstantiated claim about no checks and balances. And yet the entire basis of their claim seems to be that he should have accepted their forms because they abide by CA best practices, and that he was in some way responsible for rejecting the endorsement letter, and that the alternate auditor form should have been accepted because it had the date of the election, not the date required by the Elections Act.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds