Online voting increases voter turnout minimum 30%

[Molly]

Wilbur-- in extreme situations, you can also arrange for a returning officer and witness to come to your home. I don't know first-hand of it being done, but it is part of the list of options.

[noahbody]

Voter fraud was attempted in Calgary in 2004. What prevented it from succeeding was the person tried to drop of a large number of ballots, which, of course, drew suspicion. Many of the ballots had similar handwriting as well, which was evidence of fraud.

Voter fraud would be too easy to accomplish with Internet voting.

[Topaz]

IF Canada does decided to go to computers to vote at the polling stations, then it has to be that you get a paper trail back . Just like cash register, you put your vote in and you get a receipt back showing who you voted for, that's the only way I can think it to be trusted. If the paper shows your guy didn't get your vote, then you should be able to hit "cancel" and do it again.

[Argus]

I have no interest in increasing voter turnout. In fact, I think we should make it much harder to vote in hopes of discouraging far more people from voting.

As far as I'm concerned, the more hoops you make people jump through the vote, the fewer sheep will be willing to bother making the effort.

[eyeball]

I have no interest in increasing voter turnout. In fact, I think we should make it much harder to vote in hopes of discouraging far more people from voting.

As far as I'm concerned, the more hoops you make people jump through the vote, the fewer sheep will be willing to bother making the effort.

How do you feel about more opportunities to vote for people who do want to make the effort?

[Alta4ever]

How do you feel about more opportunities to vote for people who do want to make the effort?

Nothing is stopping them now from making the effort.

[madmax]

I have no interest in increasing voter turnout. In fact, I think we should make it much harder to vote in hopes of discouraging far more people from voting.

As far as I'm concerned, the more hoops you make people jump through the vote, the fewer sheep will be willing to bother making the effort.

Many people sitting in cushy soft jobs with sizable paychecks courtesy of the taxpayers are happy to see low voter turnout and keep their overpaid and under scrutinized jobs protected from prying eyes or questions.

[eyeball]

Nothing is stopping them now from making the effort.

No, nothing is stopping people from making the effort to increase the opportunities to vote a lot more often on a far wider range of issues than simply picking a representative. Just as nothing is stopping you from making any effort to restrict people to one vote every 4 - 5 years. The question is why would you want to?

[eyeball]

I have no interest in increasing voter turnout. In fact, I think we should make it much harder to vote in hopes of discouraging far more people from voting.

As far as I'm concerned, the more hoops you make people jump through the vote, the fewer sheep will be willing to bother making the effort.

And you're the one who want's more of my money so you can put your life in harm's way for the sake of democracy?

Now I've heard everything.

[Alta4ever]

No, nothing is stopping people from making the effort to increase the opportunities to vote a lot more often on a far wider range of issues than simply picking a representative. Just as nothing is stopping you from making any effort to restrict people to one vote every 4 - 5 years. The question is why would you want to?

You can't turn everything into a pleblisite. The country would cease to function if we always had to wait for a vote. It would be nice to have the odd referendum but....People don't vote ever 4-5 years we have a municiple election every 3 years, a provincial election every 4- to five years and a federal election every 4 - five years. The logest I have ever gone between votes is 2 years. Now if you are also a member of municple planning boards ect, you get to vote on policy at least once a month so....If you want to vote more and have more of an impact it is very possible you just have to find a way to be invovled. Why should everything have to come to you?

[Argus]

Many people sitting in cushy soft jobs with sizable paychecks courtesy of the taxpayers are happy to see low voter turnout and keep their overpaid and under scrutinized jobs protected from prying eyes or questions.

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.

[Argus]

And you're the one who want's more of my money so you can put your life in harm's way for the sake of democracy?

Now I've heard everything.

Sorry but... whatever are you talking about?

[Argus]

No, nothing is stopping people from making the effort to increase the opportunities to vote a lot more often on a far wider range of issues than simply picking a representative. Just as nothing is stopping you from making any effort to restrict people to one vote every 4 - 5 years. The question is why would you want to?

Didn't the entire mass media, and virtually a united Left have apoplexy at the thought of people voting for themselves on decisions the Left felt better able to make on their behalf?

I believe the subject was gay marriage, and the nearly unanimous opinion of the Left was "We've decided. Therefore, there's no reason for anyone to be voting on it. Our decision is morally pure, and anyone who would want to vote against that is a morally bankrupt idiot and we can't let such people make decisions for themselves."

I believe the Left's position on referendums about things like abortion, the death penalty, and immigration, are similar.

Edited January 26, 2009 by Argus

[ToadBrother]

Didn't the entire mass media, and virtually a united Left have apoplexy at the thought of people voting for themselves on decisions the Left felt better able to make on their behalf?

I believe the subject was gay marriage, and the nearly unanimous opinion of the Left was "We've decided. Therefore, there's no reason for anyone to be voting on it. Our decision is morally pure, and anyone who would want to vote against that is a morally bankrupt idiot and we can't let such people make decisions for themselves."

I believe the Left's position on referendums about things like abortion, the death penalty, and immigration, are similar.

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?

[eyeball]

Sorry but... whatever are you talking about?

I had you mixed up with Army Guy, sorry my mistake. That said you support putting AG in harm's way in the name of democracy don't you?

[eyeball]

Didn't the entire mass media, and virtually a united Left have apoplexy at the thought of people voting for themselves on decisions the Left felt better able to make on their behalf?

I believe the subject was gay marriage, and the nearly unanimous opinion of the Left was "We've decided. Therefore, there's no reason for anyone to be voting on it. Our decision is morally pure, and anyone who would want to vote against that is a morally bankrupt idiot and we can't let such people make decisions for themselves."

I believe the Left's position on referendums about things like abortion, the death penalty, and immigration, are similar.

Who or what is this Left you're talking about? I see you've capitalized it, is it a new political party or something?

Speaking for myself I've long maintained that the things Canadians vote on should be a mix of binding and non-binding referenda. We'd still have the Senate to provide the sober 2nd look and also the SC to ensure minority rights weren't trampled by a majority. I've also said many times that citizens assemblies should first examine issues before they frame the questions that are put before the people. Immigration and the death penalty are probably good candidates for non-binding votes. As for using democracy to infringe on an individual's basic human rights things like abortion and SSM are probably best left to the courts...if people like you just want to use democracy to revisit controversial issues over and over again until such time as you get the result you want then we might as well just leave things the way they are. This is almost guaranteed to tear the country apart but perhaps a bunch of separate provinces or regions where like-minded folks can be amonsgt their own kind is the best way to go.

[Alta4ever]

Who or what is this Left you're talking about? I see you've capitalized it, is it a new political party or something?

Speaking for myself I've long maintained that the things Canadians vote on should be a mix of binding and non-binding referenda. We'd still have the Senate to provide the sober 2nd look and also the SC to ensure minority rights weren't trampled by a majority. I've also said many times that citizens assemblies should first examine issues before they frame the questions that are put before the people. Immigration and the death penalty are probably good candidates for non-binding votes. As for using democracy to infringe on an individual's basic human rights things like abortion and SSM are probably best left to the courts...if people like you just want to use democracy to revisit controversial issues over and over again until such time as you get the result you want then we might as well just leave things the way they are. This is almost guaranteed to tear the country apart but perhaps a bunch of separate provinces or regions where like-minded folks can be amonsgt their own kind is the best way to go.

So let me get this straight you want to abolish the house of commons for referendums but retain the partisan appointments who have no one to answer to for sober second thought?

Whould anybody work anyomore between researching this or that for upcomming votes? Or would we all just be lead around by the nose through TV ads and band wagon tactics by small vested interest groups...NO THANKS.

[tomcat]

So let me get this straight you want to abolish the house of commons for referendums but retain the partisan appointments who have no one to answer to for sober second thought?

Whould anybody work anyomore between researching this or that for upcomming votes? Or would we all just be lead around by the nose through TV ads and band wagon tactics by small vested interest groups...NO THANKS.

Don't you think your being lead around by the nose now by partisan politicians? Every election your lambasted with Conservative nonsense about Liberals, Liberals nonsense about Conservatives, and the odd throw in from another party just for good measure.

Online voting would only be the beginning of something much larger than itself. For the first time the Canadian mass would have a quick way of responding to their government if the government would use it. There are Independent candidates who are all for listening to their constituents on an ongoing basis through out a mandate.

Online voting once in will change the face of Canadian politics forever! No Doubt

[eyeball]

So let me get this straight you want to abolish the house of commons for referendums but retain the partisan appointments who have no one to answer to for sober second thought?

Whould anybody work anyomore between researching this or that for upcomming votes? Or would we all just be lead around by the nose through TV ads and band wagon tactics by small vested interest groups...NO THANKS.

Nope, I'd just let those technocrats who are educated lawyers pick our judges and ignore what that vast ocean of stupidty known as voters thinks. I could care less what my representative thinks, I've never had one who gave shit about what I wanted, so what's the difference?

I think I've decided we might as well just leave the system exactly the way it is because I can't think of anything that will undermine it faster. In the meantime I'll just content myself with rocking the boat and disturbing the shit.

Cheers.

[Alta4ever]

Nope, I'd just let those technocrats who are educated lawyers pick our judges and ignore what that vast ocean of stupidty known as voters thinks. I could care less what my representative thinks, I've never had one who gave shit about what I wanted, so what's the difference?

I think I've decided we might as well just leave the system exactly the way it is because I can't think of anything that will undermine it faster. In the meantime I'll just content myself with rocking the boat and disturbing the shit.

Cheers.

Maybe you just aren't finding yourself in the majority, how long before your referendum votes go the wrong way would you be back on here complaining about that system?

[Alta4ever]

Don't you think your being lead around by the nose now by partisan politicians? Every election your lambasted with Conservative nonsense about Liberals, Liberals nonsense about Conservatives, and the odd throw in from another party just for good measure.

Online voting would only be the beginning of something much larger than itself. For the first time the Canadian mass would have a quick way of responding to their government if the government would use it. There are Independent candidates who are all for listening to their constituents on an ongoing basis through out a mandate.

Online voting once in will change the face of Canadian politics forever! No Doubt

Ya you'd like the ablity to vote for your position more then once wouldn't you? Lets lead society further down the path of not having any responsiblity to do something to use their right, you think you are just entitled to sit on your duff and have everyone come to you. It might be good for you to go to the polling station and take sometime out of your day to exercise your right. Instead of expecting the taxpayer to pony up so you don't have to leave your couch.

[eyeball]

Maybe you just aren't finding yourself in the majority

What are you talking about? I'm in the majority that didn't vote for the government we've got, as usual.

[Alta4ever]

What are you talking about? I'm in the majority that didn't vote for the government we've got, as usual.

what marjority was that? A larger majority didn't vote Liberal and an even larger majority didn't vote NDP.

Or are we now in a two party state the CPC and everbody else?

[eyeball]

what marjority was that? A larger majority didn't vote Liberal and an even larger majority didn't vote NDP.

Or are we now in a two party state the CPC and everbody else?

The majority of Canadians that didn't vote for the government we've got. I can't say it any clearer than that. Why do you think its called a minority government?

[Alta4ever]

The majority of Canadians that didn't vote for the government we've got. I can't say it any clearer than that. Why do you think its called a minority government?

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?

A greater majority of Canadians did vote liberal, an even great majority of Canadians didn't vote NDP.

This arguement that you present over and over is utter nonsense, it is just a left over battle cry from the 2001 presidential campaign.