Census Form vs. Voting Ballot

[August1991]

I have argued this here before that in an election, each voter gets one single ballot with a simple choice of candidates. Each individual ballot makes no difference whatsoever in the final (local riding) result. Even in a proportional representation voting system, this fundamental fact doesn't change.

A census form, on the other hand, contains many questions about many aspects of one's life. In addition, govermnent policies are directly linked to these responses. Indeed, representation in the House of Commons is based on census results.

So, in my view, a census form is a much more effective way for an individual to express their opinion about government policies. This following report should not be surprising:

Thousands of francophones across Canada are believed to have lied about their ability to speak English in a seemingly co-ordinated attempt to manipulate the 2006 Census in order to guarantee federal funding of programs for francophones.

Citizen

I don't know why Statscan is limiting its concerns to francophones. A heterosexual couple who favours gay marriage could answer the census form by changing the sex of one person and bolstering statistics about gay marriage. Someone in Nova Scotia could add an extra child since equalization payments are based on census results.

IOW, the census forum offers numerous opportunities for an individual to use it as a "ballot" and have a direct impact on government policies.

Edited May 31, 2010 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

Don't forget party-based polling which happens behind the scenes, and is also much more in-depth.

I welcome all of these initiatives as ways for government to reach out to find out about the impressions that the average voter has.

However, we are still lacking in something that is much more important: statistics that allow for public monitoring of performance of services.

If people *demanded* these things you would be able to compare apples-to-apples and no politician would be able to claim that things are significantly improving when they weren't. Of course, no politician would be eager to have an accurate report on how they are performing. Who would ?

That's why we have to demand it.

[eyeball]

Don't forget party-based polling which happens behind the scenes, and is also much more in-depth.

I welcome all of these initiatives as ways for government to reach out to find out about the impressions that the average voter has.

However, we are still lacking in something that is much more important: statistics that allow for public monitoring of performance of services.

If people *demanded* these things you would be able to compare apples-to-apples and no politician would be able to claim that things are significantly improving when they weren't. Of course, no politician would be eager to have an accurate report on how they are performing. Who would ?

That's why we have to demand it.

I imagine human beings have been demanding transparency and accountability, in so many words, from their leaders for thousands of years now. What makes you think they're suddenly going to start supplying it now?

Edited May 31, 2010 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

I imagine human beings have been demanding transparency and accountability, in so many words, from their leaders for thousands of years now. What makes you think they're suddenly going to start supplying it now?

They haven't been demanding it, they've been asking.

[eyeball]

They haven't been demanding it, they've been asking.

Do we just need to be more forceful or less polite?

[Michael Hardner]

Do we just need to be more forceful or less polite?

Vocal, persistent and direct.

[eyeball]

Vocal, persistent and direct.

And what makes you think they're suddenly going to start supplying it now?

[Michael Hardner]

And what makes you think they're suddenly going to start supplying it now?

Depending on how loud we ask for it, they tend to listen. Even monarachy did that... especially after Mme. Lefarge...

Edited May 31, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[eyeball]

If you mean Mme Defarge, don't forget her knitting needles were backed by the direct force of the guillotine.

[Michael Hardner]

If you mean Mme Defarge, don't forget her knitting needles were backed by the direct force of the guillotine.

I did mean her, in fact. The guillotine is always there... if only in the nightmares of the King Louis of the world.

[Leafless]

Thousands of francophones across Canada are believed to have lied about their ability to speak English in a seemingly co-ordinated attempt to manipulate the 2006 Census in order to guarantee federal funding of programs for francophones.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/StatsCan+eyes+francophone+conspiracy/3091164/story.html

I always thought Trudeau's 'just society' relating to Francophones was all about respect.

Beats me how anyone can have respect for Quebec, a fascist state, or this particular group of Francophone cheaters and liars.

Edited June 1, 2010 by Charles Anthony
merged thread

[kimmy]

I don't know why Statscan is limiting its concerns to francophones. A heterosexual couple who favours gay marriage could answer the census form by changing the sex of one person and bolstering statistics about gay marriage. Someone in Nova Scotia could add an extra child since equalization payments are based on census results.

Because in this instance an organized movement to deceive the census actually occurred, and there's reason to believe it influenced the results.

-k

[Dave_ON]

Because in this instance an organized movement to deceive the census actually occurred, and there's reason to believe it influenced the results.

-k

This also sounds somewhat illegal. Anyone know if lying on a census form is actually a federal offense? Seems to me if it's not it should be, otherwise the information gathered is utterly useless for the very reasons August pointed out.

[fellowtraveller]

The one and only question I answer with census takers is 'how many people are resident here?'.

Other than that, I provide detailed financial disclosures every year to Revenue Canada, as does every other taxpayer in the house. That is enough.

StatsCan sells their demographic info to every business with the money. they simply strip your name and address off, sort by postal code and flog it like a used car salesman. I don't need to and will not be part of that.

[Bryan]

I don't doubt that some Francophones are lying about not being able to speak english. I've spent plenty of time in Quebec, and I've lived 30+ years in St. Boniface, Manitoba, one of the largest French communities outside Québec. I know more native french speakers than I can count, but I've never found a single person that I couldn't at least converse with in english. Not one. Sure n=1, and just because I haven't seen them doesn't mean they don't exist, but if they were a common (even increasing) occurrence, I do not believe it to be possible for me to have never come across such a person.

Myself, I've had a love-hate relationship with the census for quite a while.

I get it that governments use that data for distribution of tax dollars, etc. But, like Fellowtraveller says, they already have most if not all of that info from my tax forms. Also, if you end up with the long form version (which for some reason I usually do), they ask a lot of questions that in my mind fall firmly into the category of "none of your business".

Last time around, I threw the forms away and when the census people came around to check I lied and told them I already mailed it in. So, Manitoba "officially" has at least 4 less residents than there really are. Is that omission as much of a lie as the francophone one?

[geoffrey]

Indeed, representation in the House of Commons is based on census results.

I'd argue it's more based on arbitrary constitutional allotments than anything. A Newfie or PEI'er are worth more than myself under the constitution anyways. So in Alberta we can lie all we want on our census, we will always be under-represented compared to the Atlantic provinces and much of the rest of Canada.

[August1991]

Don't forget party-based polling which happens behind the scenes, and is also much more in-depth.

Unless I am chosen in the sample, I can't "vote" in a poll. But I can vote in an election, or submit a census form.

My point is that my vote in an election will change nothing but my completed census form will. For example, teh Quebec government receives about $8 billion annually through equalization. This total is determined on a per capita basis so each person declared on a census form in Quebec is worth about $1000 to the Quebec government.

If I add a person or two (call them "temporary roommates") to my census form, I can in effect add a few thousand dollars to the Quebec government's revenues.

Because in this instance an organized movement to deceive the census actually occurred, and there's reason to believe it influenced the results.

If it were an "unorganized" movement, would that make it more acceptable?

The OP refers to Statcan finding an anonymous email and claiming this makes it "organized". Individuals on their own could arrive at the same conclusion. Indeed, I suspect that some people in the future will make this conclusion and will use the census form "to vote".

Is this dishonest? Well, is "strategic voting" dishonest?

I know more native french speakers than I can count, but I've never found a single person that I couldn't at least converse with in english. Not one.

This is going slightly afield but IME, people like to communicate so much that they quickly gravitate towards other people who speak a common language. I recall meeting a man in Greece (unilingual Greek) who had lived in Toronto for awhile and was convinced that half of Toronto spoke Greek. Edited June 5, 2010 by August1991