AOO vote results spawn confusion
March 17, 2016
Where else does a vote or referendum allow for two classes of voters to exist, thus spawning general confusion about whose voices are valid when the results emerge?
This question has emerged today as Algonquins of Ontario (AOO) released official vote results (PDF will load) on the ratification process related to its Agreement in Principle (AIP).
Highlights of the results released today are:
- Only 47% of eligible voters participated in the ratification process.
- More than 90% of those who voted were in favour of the AIP.
However, a huge anomaly exists that casts doubt on the validity of those overall results.
Chief and Council of the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan First Nation (Pikwakanagan) held a separate, parallel referendum on the proposed AIP “to ensure that the opportunity to vote was provided to a significant percentage of the adult membership” of the band. The AOO press release provides this breakdown of that vote:
- 243 Pikwakanagan members voted against the AIP and 87 people voted for it.
- Among Pikwakanagan members who voted in the more general ratification vote, 159 were in favour and 84 were against.
- In all, 327 Pikwakanagan members voted against the AIP and 246 people voted for it.
Many of us have heard the term “kangaroo court” to describe judicial proceedings that are flawed. Is there a similar term that applies to votes and referenda?