The mud really flies when the stakes are high.

While the United States might be home to some of the most innovative, dirtiest tricks ever seen in a developed-world democracy (remember that one time the Bush campaign was accused of using subliminal ads? Or Watergate?), Canadians, too, have committed their share of dirty deeds.

Elections Canada warned its staff this year to watch out for voter suppression techniques, and as this close-fought election gets down to the wire, things could still get much nastier.

Here’s a look at some of the worst tricks we’ve seen in Canada (click a photo for the gallery view).

Robert Borden changing who can vote

The 1917 election saw one of the least subtle tactics: changing who gets to vote.

Sir Robert Borden, leading the Unionist Party, fought the 1917 election on conscripting Canadians for service in the First World War.

Maybe you have a beef with the Fair Elections Act – but this one take the cake. With the Wartime Elections Act, Borden gave the vote to women – but only if they were related in some way to servicemen overseas (living or dead) – and took it away from “enemy-alien” citizens (at the time that meant German Canadians), unless they had relatives serving in the armed forces.

Bad enough? The Military Voters Act allowed soldiers to vote in any riding they’d lived in, or could be assigned by their party of choice to a riding where it mattered most.

Swiftboating

“Swiftboating,” an American term for a smear campaign that comes from a 2004 group that attacked presidential candidate John Kerry’s military service record, is a time honoured practice in Canadian campaigns.

One of the oddest examples of swiftboating in Canada was the Jack Layton massage parlour leak in 2011, when it surfaced that Ontario provincial police had raided a suspected bawdy house in 1996 when Layton was present. Layton wasn’t charged and said he wasn’t aware it wasn’t a normal massage parlour. Serving officers are sworn not to leak information to the public but a retired officer showed a reporter his notebooks from the investigation days before voting day.

Rough Attack Ads

Some see them as the lowest of low blows. Others see them as an accepted part of modern politics.

Canadians have seen plenty of negative ads and attack websites. Among the worst: the attack page against former Liberal leader Stephane Dion showing an animated puffin pooping on his shoulder; the infamous PC attack ad against Chretien widely seen as making fun of his face; and the 2006 Liberal attack ads that tried to depict Harper as an extreme right-wing politician — including one (which never aired) accusing him of planning to put soldiers in the streets.

One of Canada’s first broadcast attack ads on radio, the “Mr. Sage” ad, included claims the Mackenzie King Liberals were engaged in threats, blackmail, slush funds and lies.

Vandalism

It happens every election, and you better believe it’s happening now.

This election, campaign signs have been brutalized, set on fire, slashed, stolen and covered with graffiti; sometimes the alterations have been rather creative. Campaign offices have been vandalized as well. In 2011, a number of tires were slashed at houses with party lawn signs.

This kind of vandalism casts a negative light on politics and elections. And this year saw some of the worst graffiti: a number of campaign signs were painted over to make it look like the candidates were wearing niqabs.

Let just say that there is low and then there is low. pic.twitter.com/M4X18738xo #cdnpoli — Mat Vaillancourt (@MVLibertas) September 22, 2015

The boring but effective

According to University of Waterloo political science professor Anna Esselment, last election’s robocalls scandal has the parties and voters on high alert for similar tactics on Oct. 19 — so party activists might limit themselves to more “run of the mill” tricks this time.

One perennially popular method has been for party scrutineers to challenge voters on their identification at polls where the party may not have a lot of support.

“This can result in large lineups and lead to voters giving up and heading home without voting because they don’t have a lot of time to wait,” Esselment said.

“Not the sexiest way to gain an advantage, but tried and true.”

Push Polls

There were allegations on both sides that the Wild Rose Party and Allison Redford’s Tories were using push polling in Alberta – polls disguised as opinion research but done with the intent of changing respondent’s vote choice by presenting information in certain ways.

The federal Conservatives did polling in 2013 on Saskatchewan’s boundary changes which was called out as a push poll because it warned voters the boundary changes would undermine “Saskatchewan values” — and the calls didn’t identify themselves as coming from a particular party.

The 2011 campaign saw contrast calls, where robocalls compare candidate values, depicting opponents negatively.

Robogate 2011

Our pick for top trick: voter suppression techniques that emerged in the 2011 robocalls scandal.

The 2011 campaign saw misleading phone calls in at least 14 ridings advising voters to go to the wrong polling stations.

Some were made by the mysterious Pierre Poutine “burner” phone, and the scandal resulted in Conservative campaign staffer Michael Sona being found guilty of violating the Canada Elections Act.

Some 40,000 people contacted Elections Canada to report a misleading call or signed an online petition protesting misleading robocalls. Elections Canada also probed complaints in 200 ridings.

Beyond that, there were also reports of harassment calls targeting Liberal voters in a number of ridings.

‘Phonebombs‘ — bombarding the opposition’s lines with phone calls so they can’t use them to contact supporters on election day, were part of 2011 campaign mischief.

Honourable mentions:

This wasn’t campaign-related, but Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis was once accused of smearing chewing gum in pay phone coin slots to stop Paul Martin organizers from calling supporters about the timing of a delegate meeting during the 1990 Liberal leadership race.

And this one’s perhaps not as dirty as it is just tricky: Sir John A. Macdonald lost his Kingston seat in 1878, but then was still able to get a seat in Manitoba because the election timing was staggered across provinces. He later decided to sit for Victoria, B.C.

Thanks to Kirsten Smith, BJ Siekierski, Ian Shelton and political science professors Anna Esselment and Rand Dyck for contributions and suggestions.

If you have a suggestion or think we missed something big, send your idea to [email protected]