Liberal rot stinks up controversial leadership vote
The Liberals say they had nearly 400,000 people 'registered' but only a fraction of that—just over 150,000—were verified and had their vote counted.
BECOME A MEMBER
Tonight, on The Ezra Levant Show, Ezra reacts to the sketchy Liberal leadership vote with Mark Carney selected as our next Prime Minister.
Following Sunday's vote, one thing's become abundantly clear: don't believe the "official" results.
Take this one: in Chrystia Freeland’s own Toronto riding of University-Rosedale, she got just 11.8% of the vote, and Mark Carney got 83%.
In terms of raw numbers, in her own district—where she and her family live, where she’s best-known—she got a grand total of just 188 people to vote for her. In a district with more than 100,000 people.
It’s the same thing for Karina Gould, another cabinet minister. She’s from Burlington, Ontario. Her whole life and family are there. But according to the Liberals, only 190 people supported her. Mark Carney crushed her.
The Liberals say they had nearly 400,000 people "registered" but only a fraction of that—just over 150,000—were verified and had their vote counted.
Why were most voters disqualified? Was it fraud? Were they impersonating someone? Were they fake accounts? Were they trying to vote from a foreign country?
Who certified the vote? Were there any scrutineers? Whatever the case may be, we don’t trust the final tally.
It stinks of rot, and we need an audit to ascertain the truth!
GUEST: Stephen LeDrew, broadcaster and former Liberal Party president, discusses the leadership vote.
COMMENTS
-
Ed Dever commented 2025-03-10 21:44:54 -0400liberal vote pre fabricated. there is absolutely any way Carney could get 87% +_ 5 in every riding in Canada -
Paul Scofield commented 2025-03-10 21:28:37 -0400First time hearing from Stephen LeDrew. He was great!
Regarding auditng computer voting: one way to do it is machine-by-machine, comparing the source physical ballot votes against what the machine said that it read. If there is cheating, it is usually taking the number of ballots, then assigning different weights to each, depending on the candidate and the desired outcome. Without comparing the actual vote detail cast on each physical ballot, a summary from the machine might say: 1000 ballots read in, 1000 votes cast. aT the face of it, that looks accurate. However, one candidate’s vote could be weighted at .95 percent and the other at 1.05 percent. In that case, assuming each candidate received 500 votes, the .95 person would get 475 votes and the 1.05 person would get 525 votes, hence the cheat. -
Ruth Bard commented 2025-03-10 21:25:19 -0400The whole Liberal leadership “contest” was a piece of theatre, IMO. Carney was chosen ahead of time as the source of all Trudeau’s destructive policies, and the rest was just a matter of putting on the show. So now we’ve just cut out the middle man. Carney is more evil, and less empty-headed, than his predecessor.
-
Bruce Atchison commented 2025-03-10 21:21:56 -0400Today’s Liberal Party would chastise the Liberal Party of even 20 years ago as being far right. That’s how far they plummeted since being taken over by the hard left. I never voted Liberal, mainly because of Trudeau’s dad, but they used to be a centerist party. Now look at them. I hope they get as good a beat down as Mulroney got in 1993.
-
Hugh Jacobs commented 2025-03-10 21:03:34 -0400Spreadsheets. They put in the percentage first and then worked out the number of people voting afterwards. Reverse accounting!
