This is a classic way to get a proponent of X into trouble: get them to say under what circumstances X would be breaking the law, and assert they were a proponent of breaking the law. Another is ordering someone not to do something legal, then charge them with disobedience. A third is to ask them if they had (ever) broken the law, then charge them with lying if they had but the statute of limitations had run out.
All are hard to defend against, as they're constructed half-truths. None addresses the propriety, truth or desirability of the original action, only the consequent, so a court can sometimes be tricked into ruling narrowly on the second part alone.
The Minister agrees, too:(:-))
The former head of the OPP at the time of the G8 in Toronto is Julian Fantino. He is now Minister of Veterans Affairs in the government that so objects to personal privacy, so I'm not surprised at the OPP position.
The presumption is that the results are always right, and if they don't match the pre-election polling, its the polling that must be wrong, as opposed to the election results.
Brad Friedman proceeds to document the well known voter suppression techniques of photo voter ID requirements and threatening robo calls. He also documents cases where new voter registrations were never entered into the system, shortages of paper ballots in places that use paper ballots, and of course, the well known problems with touch screen voting machines.
Our ballot was an 8 1/2 by 11" sheet, mostly covered with cantidates for mayor. The number of candidates and seats are limited only by the paper and font size (;-)) It's not perfect, but it does scale.
Personally I'd like to draw lots for who gets stuck with dog catcher.
Without life, Biology itself would be impossible.