Molly

I disagree with voting for pie-in-the-sky, and thus allowing the worst-case scenario to occur. What I want simply will not happen. My choice, therefore is between what I can and cannot accept.

Ach! What a disgrace to us all that there was any thread at all about it.

Mmmm. I sure wish that 36,37,38 was more like 26,27,28. I'll be satisfied and relieved when this one is over if the result is anything at all except a CPC majority.

"I wouldn't give a crap about this issue if it wasn't for women like that brain-dead imbecile in Saskatchewan who shot herself up the vagina with a pellet gun and lodged a pellet in the head of her 8.5 month along fetus. That kid has no legal basis to sue her for assault causing bodily harm now that he's born and brain-damaged because he wasn't a person when he was assaulted. There is no crime against him. That's morally repugnant." Those are your words. That brain-dead imbecile fairly screams a fundamental disrespect for the circumstance she was in. To be able to say such a thing, you are clearly not seeing it at all through her eyes... not trying to, or even not capable. Some sympathy, though, might be in order. I know that I have told the story before, of a girl I met on a maternity ward. She was maybe 15. When she was found to be pregnant, her parents sent her off to stay with her granny who devoted that time to terrorize her with horror stories, telling her that childbirth was a punishment from God, and since she was such a foul creature as to have had sex so young, God was really going to make her pay. It was toward the end of her pregnancy that doctors finally took note of her life-threatening heart condition. When I saw her last, they were still trying to decide whether anaesthesia or labour would be less likely to kill her. Dunno. What might you do if you were increasingly seeing yourself as a character from the movie 'Alien'?

I've been hoping to get back to this for days! My challenge is based on the practical effect of whatever restriction you want in place. I can understand the wish to punish this woman.. but I seriously doubt you could write such a law in any way that would result in her being found criminally responsible. Seriously, think about it. What emotional state/what intellectual state would enable anyone to do such a thing? And civil responsibility? Does this sound like someone who would ever amass enough assets to keep herself, much less satisfy a civil judgement? So... you are talking about writing law 1) based on truly extraordinary circumstances ; that 2) would be trumped out of existence for any cases where you might sensibly want it to apply; but which 3) would would still apply to more common situations, and be used instead in an harrassment campaign against people who already have more grief than anyone should have to bear. So, I'd oppose any such law. Edit-- cont.

No, employment equity issues are not really what I was referring to, but.... http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/society/gender-income-gap.aspx#context I will however agree that the employment equity lion has been slain on the day that the local grocery stores quit automatically offering a higher starting wage to those applicants who have dangly bits.

If ABC=NDP, then so be it. I can describe 3 (4) undecided voters- 'cause we travelled together to an all-candidates meeting. I'd show up in polls as a Liberal (My father-in-law is laughing his butt off somewhere in the afterlife over that). One of the others was polled, and said he was a decided Green voter (Rii-i-ight.). The third would come up clearly as undecided and (4) is his wife, who he noted was completely uninterested in Canadian politics but nonetheless would vote, and would ask him, "Who should I vote for, then?" (He found that embarrassing.) All three of us went there in hope of finding a solid Liberal candidate- our various needs would be satisfied by that- but we were disappointed. While all of us are generally fiscally conservative, socially laissez-faire, red tory kind of range, I can guarantee that none of us will be voting for the CPC candidate, and I'm thinking CHP is extremely unlikely, too, even as a joke. Beyond that, anything is possible. Any or all could go Liberal, or NDP... or CAP... Edit: and all four will vote. 'Undecided' does not mean apathetic.

To me it's about integrity and respect for our democratic systems. Lest anyone assume that's just 'following the party line' on the contempt of parliament ruling, A led to B, not the other way around. (And 'my party' is pretty much ABC.) I was apalled at the appointment of David Emmerson; dismayed by the 'economic update' and outraged by the deception and excuse-making that followed it. 'Contempt' has been obvious from the day these guys were elected. I see them as being (extremely dishonest,) anti-parliamentary, and even fundamenatally anti-democratic. I'd also like to see a lot more talk about our place in the world. Not just "The troops are all good boys." and "Those are sure some expensive planes, eh?", but what the heck are we doing in Libya? What exactly should our global role be, and does our current unquestioned willy-nilly action fit with that philosophy?" I could say the economy and jobs are big, but I believe our current situation was built through decades of small-c conservatism. If it can be claimed by anyone, then it's folks of all parties who mostly retired 5 or more years ago. The Liberals can claim the Martin/Chretien years; the NDP can claim perfectly functional governments in Saskatchewan and Manitoba... and the CPC can claim an unanticipated $56B deficit, and the suggestion that catastrophic unemployment is a good 'buy' opportunity.

Even more hilarious that you would think I meant that as a defense! IMO it's an indictment.

Ha! This thread is hilarious! Let me make an alternate suggestion wrt the target audience: http://www.bradtrost.ca/commentary/2011/03/14/assassination-of-shahbaz-bhatti/

Advising him about party platforms was the part I'd call a lapse of judgement and of law, but the spirit of providing neutral, 'whatever you need' help was maintained (or so your comments seemed to suggest). Physically assisting those who ask for help is part of the job.

This isn't quite the optimum source, but... http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=med&document=jun2504&dir=spe〈=e "... Voters who have difficulty marking their ballots may be accompanied behind the voting screen by a friend or relative who can help them. Otherwise, voters may ask the deputy returning officer for assistance. Anyone assisting a voter is required by law to preserve the secrecy of the vote. Except for the deputy returning officer, a person may help only one elector to vote..."

What? ! I might expect Trost to have run seriously afoul of the PMO particularly because his comments are a clear statement that the 'secret agenda' is alive and well, and not very secret!

Pft! His tolerance of the anti-choice caucus members- folks like Trost and Bruinooge- says it all. A candidate who pulled the same sort of mid-campaign stunt as Trost with any other game-changing policy might have found themselves ejected from the party. Kent, for instance, heard the riot act fast when his tongue took him where CPC candidates dare not go. Trost argued about it, and even when 'corrected' made no categorical retraction. Private members billson the subject are allowed to see the light of day. There is no doubt, Rick, and never was.

That's what makes that discussion of dementia and voting a conversation worth having... though it fell on its face right off the top. The situation you describe- sounds like the DRO did a pretty good job of sticking to what the law demands. Not perfect, but not bad, either. A valid, appropriately-intended attempt. It's a tough spot to be in. Literally, you cross your fingers and hope the elector comes up with some lucidity, and you do what they want/need you to do. Voters and their ballots are sacred. (That one sounds like a call for police/healthcare intervention -pick one- would have been a good idea, too.) Elections Canada officials, though, do not get to assess the mental fitness of electors, even when it's an issue. I'd just as soon keep it that way.

I'm kinda thinking that being in a sorry enough mental/emotional state to put a gun in your own vagina and pull the trigger is punishment enough. Whaddya think? Have you ever been that distraught? I know I sure as heck haven't.

Scrutineers for advance polls is a pretty low priority. Usually there are very few votes cast, the polls are in the hands of experienced officers (so the chance of anything screwy happening is much reduced) and as a rule, you have no particular need to track who has voted.

Sooooo... where do you suggest interest (self-education, informed decision making and turnout) begins? I know that my own first party membership was the admission ticket I needed to an evening of free beer. Is that worse than those who learn their politics (but not any analysis of those political objectives) from their parents and grandparents?

My objection to PR is that voters representatives will be even more beholden to political parties (and thus be even less responsible to the people who elect them) than they are now.

I'll never forget watching him answering for the first proroguation. The bs was flying at a rate of 6 or 7 outright falsehoods to a spittle-laced sentence, delivered as from a gattling gun, with no gaps left for questions or factual corrections. It was amazing to behold. I've never seen anything like it before or since, except, of course, from Baird himself. Honest! He personifies all the things that make me so virulently anti-Harperite!

That should be a hint to you about your own place on the political spectrum. His political predisposition was beyond obvious. I was surprised that he would accept that well-earned partisan reward, though. Even as lucrative as it is, to a journalist, it should be deeply embarrassing to even recieve the offer.

Joh Baird and 'honest' inthe same sentence....

I thought I had already answered that in another thread. (You could look it up, too.) At the end of each voting day, the ballots and all of the paraphanalia are sealed into the ballot box, which is then either returned to the RO, or safeguarded by the DRO. DRO and clerk both mark the seals so that they can clearly identify them; candidates agents are also welcome to mark them, and should there be some staffing catastrophe, an elector can be pressed into service to witness the seals, too. In any case, they are certainly verified by at leasttwo people (often several more). A ballot box should beformally sealed any time it is left under the supervision of a single person, even a trip to the washroom by one of the poll officers.

I'm inclined to disagree, largely because of the Kim Campbell dictum- that election campaigns are no time to talk about the issues. Campaigns are the silly season. Their function is not to introduce the leaders, who would be old news to anyone who thinks or cares. Their function is to introduce the individual candidates, and to allow for the administrative arrangements to be properly made. If it was just about leaders, a mass vote taken the same day the election is called would be a better, more realistic, more reasonable, more democratic approval system.

Gadz! Does anyone suppose that senatorships are handed out to reward journalistic neutrality and even-handedness?