Online voting increases voter turnout minimum 30%

[eyeball]

What you have said is stupid. The majority of Canadians didn't vote for any of Chretiens governments. Each of those was less then 50%, but what no whining, from the left about that fact was there?

I whined. Where were you? Probably somewhere contentedly saying "oh well them's the rules and they've served us just swimmingly this long so we might as well just keep things the way they are forever and ever and ever".

Is that about right?

[Riverwind]

The majority of Canadians that didn't vote for the government we've got. I can't say it any clearer than that.

A coalition between the Liberals, the NDP and the BQ was not on the ballot. If it was the Conservatives would have got a majority as the right of center Liberal vote deserted the party. If the Liberals had a comparable number of seats then one could have argued that Canadians voted for a Liberal or Conservative government. However, the Liberals got a fraction of the of Conservative seats. This means the only reasonable interpretation of the results is that a plurality of Canadians wanted a Conservative government and in our system a plurality is enough.

[eyeball]

A coalition between the Liberals, the NDP and the BQ was not on the ballot. If it was the Conservatives would have got a majority as the right of center Liberal vote deserted the party. If the Liberals had a comparable number of seats then one could have argued that Canadians voted for a Liberal or Conservative government. However, the Liberals got a fraction of the of Conservative seats. This means the only reasonable interpretation of the results is that a plurality of Canadians wanted a Conservative government and in our system a plurality is enough.

Yes, and our system blows, big time.

[Smallc]

Yes, and our system blows, big time.

Pure opinion, and nothing more. For having such a crappy system, we sure don't live in all that bad of a country.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Smallc

[eyeball]

Pure opinion, and nothing more. For having such a crappy system, we sure don't live in all that bad of a country.

I think that has a lot more to do with geography and luck. I think that luck is running out and we'll likely see just how crappy our system is and how ill prepared its left us for a real national challenge.

A coalition may not have been on the ballot but it was certainly on the minds of more than a few voters. Next time I expect it will be on a few more. I think electoral reform is based on more than just pure opinion, it seemed in BC it was and in my region a lot of people were of a mind to vote strategically or do anything that might effect some perceptible change.

[Riverwind]

I think that has a lot more to do with geography and luck.

Many countries are blessed with Canada's resource rich geography: Russia, Argentina, Brazil. The difference is the superior political and economic institutions in Canada allowed us to better leverage our assets.

I think that luck is running out and we'll likely see just how crappy our system is and how ill prepared its left us for a real national challenge.

Our 'crappy' system has got us through many challenges. There is no reason to believe that our system is unable to deliver change when it is needed in the future. Your problem is you presume that not getting your preferred policies adopted by the government means the system is failing.

A coalition may not have been on the ballot but it was certainly on the minds of more than a few voters.

NDP voters mostly. The Liberals are centrist party and have many supporters who would never support the party if a coalition with the NDP was promoted at election time. Edited January 28, 2009 by Riverwind

[Molly]

How is a non-binding plebiscite more useful than a poll?

At todays rates it would cost in the neighbourhood of $30,000,000 more than a comprehensive poll... so why on earth would we wish to spend that money?

Edited January 28, 2009 by Molly

[madmax]

And jealous people become obsessed with those who apparently are better off than they are and can't ever seem to shake their minds free of that.

Sad, really.

Public Sector Fat Cat

[madmax]

Great! The first thing I want is to have a referendum to decide whether you're a human or a dog. After all, the majority rules, right?

I would like a referendum to roll back Public Sector Wages. Just not one done online

[ToadBrother]

I think that has a lot more to do with geography and luck. I think that luck is running out and we'll likely see just how crappy our system is and how ill prepared its left us for a real national challenge.

A coalition may not have been on the ballot but it was certainly on the minds of more than a few voters. Next time I expect it will be on a few more. I think electoral reform is based on more than just pure opinion, it seemed in BC it was and in my region a lot of people were of a mind to vote strategically or do anything that might effect some perceptible change.

The Coalition doesn't need to be on the ballot. Hypothetically, all those MPs could go to Ottawa, tell their leaders to stuff it and form a coalition of their own. WE DO NOT VOTE FOR A GOVERNMENT, WE VOTE FOR A PARLIAMENT.

Half the people in these forums should be forced to take High School social studies again.

Edited January 28, 2009 by ToadBrother

[eyeball]

How is a non-binding plebiscite more useful than a poll?

Its more impartial than a poll and the question would be framed by a constiuent assembly instead of someone who's fishing for a result or trying to generate a consensus as often seems to be the case. It might be useful to have really contentious issues put to non-binding votes a few time to ensure its really the direction Canadians want to go.

At todays rates it would cost in the neighbourhood of $30,000,000 more than a comprehensive poll... so why on earth would we wish to spend that money?

I suspect this cost has more to do with traditional voting being more like a one shot deal with the cost of setting it up and tearing it down each and every time. In any case 30 million breaks down to about 2 bucks a vote per person judging by the numbers of people who voted last election, which are the lowest on record. I said earlier I'd be quite willing to pay up to hundred bucks a year for the convienience and opportunity to vote more often so this should be enough to cover up to 50 votes a year. That's the traditional way with paper and ballots.

2 bucks a vote is nothing. What's worse, someone who's too cheap to shell out 2 bucks a vote or someone who's too lazy to bother? I'll donate a twoonie or two if it helps.

Even if elections cost 10 times these figures we'd still be able to afford 5 referendums a year. That's about ten times as much democracy as we have now.

Edited January 28, 2009 by eyeball

[eyeball]

The Coalition doesn't need to be on the ballot. Hypothetically, all those MPs could go to Ottawa, tell their leaders to stuff it and form a coalition of their own. WE DO NOT VOTE FOR A GOVERNMENT, WE VOTE FOR A PARLIAMENT.

More often than not though we've wound up with a government that can tell parliament and us to go stuff it. Now that we're in an age of minority governments it seems people can't wait to get back to some version of that. Its downright creepy I tell you. I'm appalled at how deferrential many Canadians are to this thinly disguised form of dictatorship. Its no wonder we get the governments we deserve.

Half the people in these forums should be forced to take High School social studies again.

The other half should be given as much opportunity to vote as they can.

[benny]

The problem that I see with internet or telephone voting is that buying votes will become more attractive because the buyer can verify the selection of the voters.

[CAMP]

The problem that I see with internet or telephone voting is that buying votes will become more attractive because the buyer can verify the selection of the voters.

The intellevote system would have extensive 3rd party auditing. But as far as has been explained to me the results are not public domain as to who exactly voted for who. Only the final results would be public domain.

[punked]

Funny on Halifax 2008 election first online voting in the city it dropped voter turn out by 10%. So I guess that isn't true of Canada.

http://live.haligonia.ca/halifax-ns/news-h...appointing.html

[benny]

The intellevote system would have extensive 3rd party auditing. But as far as has been explained to me the results are not public domain as to who exactly voted for who. Only the final results would be public domain.

What I find reassuring about on-site voting is that, although we don't see for whom a citizen votes, we can still somewhat see that he is not taking a picture of himself making a cross on a candidate and thereafter, secretly, show this picture to someone ready to buy votes for this candidate.

[CAMP]

What I find reassuring about on-site voting is that, although we don't see for whom a citizen votes, we can still somewhat see that he is not taking a picture of himself making a cross on a candidate and thereafter, secretly, show this picture to someone ready to buy votes for this candidate.

I'm not sure what you're saying here but I'll explain that when you do electronic voting you only get one vote and you would have a pin number set up previously or some other secondary check. If a person wants to sell their one vote I guess they could.

Likewise I could probably go buy off some polling booth official and have the station corrupted in many ways also.

I could also set up fake ID (easy to do on the internet) and buy off someones voting rights and actually go right into the polling station and cast it.

Any system can be worked around by bad people, and I'm sure the present system already has been.

[benny]

I'm not sure what you're saying here but I'll explain that when you do electronic voting you only get one vote and you would have a pin number set up previously or some other secondary check. If a person wants to sell their one vote I guess they could.

Likewise I could probably go buy off some polling booth official and have the station corrupted in many ways also.

I could also set up fake ID (easy to do on the internet) and buy off someones voting rights and actually go right into the polling station and cast it.

Any system can be worked around by bad people, and I'm sure the present system already has been.

To me, right now voting is the most important public gesture a citizen is doing. In the future, I would like to see wide public debate participation as an even more important political gesture still. But for now, I think we have to be proud of the people that are willing to associate their face, and even their fingerprints, to their name in front of some witnesses watching each others and having an eye on trickery.

Edited June 30, 2009 by benny

[CAMP]

To me, right now voting is the most important public gesture a citizen is doing. In the future, I would like to see wide public debate participation as an even more important political gesture still. But for now, I think we have to be proud of the people that are willing to associate their face, and even their fingerprints, to their name in front of some witnesses watching each others and having an eye on trickery.

I agree with your statement of voting being important. Unfortunately we have a lower voter turn out than we

should. Electronic voting can be as secure or even more secure than the polling stations we now operate.

I don't think we fingerprint anyone at a polling booth do we? When I go and vote all I have to do is show some ID and then receive my ballot. No system is totally full proof. But with electronic voting you would engage more people to vote easier than ever before. Plus it could be used in between the main election to give the people a method to

persuade their MP to vote as the majority in a riding wants on various issues.

The advantages of upgrading our voting system to electronic voting would provide opportunities to provide timely communication as well as accountability of our elected MPs, if a party or government would take advantage of

using electronic voting in this way.

This is why the Central Party of Canada adopts on line voting as a key ingredient in getting back to a more democratic society with accountability and transparency.

Also we would be able to keep in check a majority government if that should ever happen again.

Edited June 30, 2009 by CAMP

[benny]

I agree with your statement of voting being important. Unfortunately we have a lower voter turn out than we

should. Electronic voting can be as secure or even more secure than the polling stations we now operate.

I don't think we fingerprint anyone at a polling booth do we? When I go and vote all I have to do is show some ID and then receive my ballot. No system is totally full proof. But with electronic voting you would engage more people to vote easier than ever before. Plus it could be used in between the main election to give the people a method to

persuade their MP to vote as the majority in a riding wants on various issues.

The advantages of upgrading our voting system to electronic voting would provide opportunities to provide timely communication as well as accountability of our elected MPs, if a party or government would take advantage of

using electronic voting in this way.

This is why the Central Party of Canada adopts on line voting as a key ingredient in getting back to a more democratic society with accountability and transparency.

Also we would be able to keep in check a majority government if that should ever happen again.

So it seems some are enthusiastic about online voting and some others, distrustful of this method. The question become will the enthusiastic be able to convince enough skeptics. We have to remember also that a scam can destroy rapidly the credibility of a voting method and the reputation of its promoters. I think a people have already to believe a lot in itself to be persuaded that possible cheaters can be stopped before causing harm to democracy.

Edited June 30, 2009 by benny

[CAMP]

So it seems some are enthusiastic about online voting and some others, distrustful of this method. The question become will the enthusiastic be able to convince enough skeptics. We have to remember also that a scam can destroy rapidly the credibility of a voting method and the reputation of its promoters. I think a people have already to believe a lot in itself to be persuaded that possible cheaters can be stopped before causing harm to democracy.

The Central Party of Canada has looked into the Canadian company called Intellivote and has had a good deal of dialogue with them. You are correct in making sure the system is a safe system. Intellivote is a very professional and world renoun company that has been involved in setting up electronic voting in the UK and many other countries.

There is extensive 3rd party auditing to ensure a true out come. It is a win win for Canada. We have a very good company with in our borders to set up the system thus creating jobs, and we as Canadians open up the possibilities to improving our democracy greatly.

Electronic voting is new and so people don't like change. But like anything new it will have skeptics. Skeptics are good they would be the watch full eye. I'm sure the skeptics would still use the regular walk in method until they realize the ease of use.

[Topaz]

The Central Party of Canada has looked into the Canadian company called Intellivote and has had a good deal of dialogue with them. You are correct in making sure the system is a safe system. Intellivote is a very professional and world renoun company that has been involved in setting up electronic voting in the UK and many other countries.

There is extensive 3rd party auditing to ensure a true out come. It is a win win for Canada. We have a very good company with in our borders to set up the system thus creating jobs, and we as Canadians open up the possibilities to improving our democracy greatly.

Electronic voting is new and so people don't like change. But like anything new it will have skeptics. Skeptics are good they would be the watch full eye. I'm sure the skeptics would still use the regular walk in method until they realize the ease of use.

Do you have a website than shows the founder of Intellivote? How do we know that its not Diebold and just change its name?

[benny]

The Central Party of Canada has looked into the Canadian company called Intellivote and has had a good deal of dialogue with them. You are correct in making sure the system is a safe system. Intellivote is a very professional and world renoun company that has been involved in setting up electronic voting in the UK and many other countries.

There is extensive 3rd party auditing to ensure a true out come. It is a win win for Canada. We have a very good company with in our borders to set up the system thus creating jobs, and we as Canadians open up the possibilities to improving our democracy greatly.

Electronic voting is new and so people don't like change. But like anything new it will have skeptics. Skeptics are good they would be the watch full eye. I'm sure the skeptics would still use the regular walk in method until they realize the ease of use.

Intellivote, the company, doesn't seem to have a webpage!

[Topaz]

Intellivote, the company, doesn't seem to have a webpage!

suspicious?

[Topaz]

For any of you that don't know, the first coalition Fed. government was back in 1917. http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.c...s=A1ARTA0008217