Why do the Harper Conservatives dislike students?

[scribblet]

Proxy, eh?

Right.

Yes - right

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=bkg&document=ec90785〈=e

The new Act also introduced a system of proxy voting for fishermen, seamen, prospectors and full-time students absent from their electoral districts on both election day and the advance voting days. The right to vote in advance was extended to persons with disabilities, and level access was required for all advance polling stations.

With the extension in 1977 of the right to vote by proxy to airline crews, lumber and survey teams, and trappers, yet more barriers were removed.

Anyone can vote by proxy in the Ontario election.

[scribblet]

That is my point! That is what this type of behavior leaves Canada open to. If you are going to provide equal access to all groups of people you must set up special polls wherever they are requested. Otherwise you are treating one group differently from another.

Good point...

[Molly]

Anyone can vote by proxy in the Ontario election.

But we are talking about federal elections now, dear.

[cybercoma]

Students in residence also have to jump through some serious hoops to get their residence address verified. They have to contact their "res life" or some other such committee for confirmation of their address throughout the semester and provide that at the polls in their hometowns, so they can vote for the MP in the ridings where they spend 8 months out of the year.

Seriously, equal access my ass. It's much more difficult for students to vote in these elections, especially now that classes will have ended for the year. "Special" polls are nothing short of making it as easy for students to vote as it is for the rest of the population that simply has to show up on voting day. Few of you here are considering the additional headaches that students have when it comes to voting. Over 30% of Canadians in general can't be bothered voting. If they had the same obstacles as students, I suspect that number would be even lower as well. By not allowing ease of access to voting, you're actually inhibiting the vote, rather than allowing equal access. All of this hot air about students getting an unfair advantage is completely unfounded. They're simply trying to reduce the barriers to voting that they face that very few other voters face.

[scribblet]

But we are talking about federal elections now, dear.

Right dear, and students can vote by proxy... as per E.C.

[Molly]

Right dear, and students can vote by proxy... as per E.C.

Am I being punked? Is this just some wierd performance art thing?

Federal proxy voting was discontinued in 1992, upon the introduction of special ballots, which made it redundant.

[cybercoma]

You're not being punked. People are just that ignorant and they expect the government to make equally uninformed decisions.

[scribblet]

You're not being punked. People are just that ignorant and they expect the government to make equally uninformed decisions.

Get real... if that is so than I stand corrected, I did believe proxy voting was still allowed, must have been getting mixed up with Ontario.

[cybercoma]

Get real... if that is so than I stand corrected, I did believe proxy voting was still allowed, must have been getting mixed up with Ontario.

Actually, that wasn't fair of me. You usually make well informed posts. I was out of line. My apologies.

Edited April 20, 2011 by cybercoma

[CANADIEN]

THE WHOLE FIGHT IN THE SOUTH WAS ABOUT EQUAL ACCESS TO THE VOTE! If you don't think for a second in the south in the 60s they thought a Special poll in a white area would up their vote count over an African America one they wouldn't do it you are crazy.

Let's talk about crazy indeed.

The fight in the South was not about access to polling stations, it was about the right to vote itself.

Southern state did not merily make it easier for Whites to vote. They passed laws that DENIED African-Americans the right to vote, period. And when that was threatened, violence and intimidation, including arsons, beatings and MURDER, was used to prevent African-Americans from voting.

Feel free to prove anytime that the same kind of thing is happening in Canada in 2011. With the specific date and place of the crimes, and information about the victims.

Edited April 20, 2011 by CANADIEN

[punked]

Let's talk about crazy indeed.

The fight in the South was not about access to polling stations, it was about the right to vote itself.

Southern state did not merily make it easier for Whites to vote. They passed laws that DENIED African-Americans the right to vote, period. And when that was threatened, violence and intimidation, including arsons, beatings and MURDER, was used to prevent African-Americans from voting.

Feel free to prove anytime that the same kind of thing is happening in Canada in 2011. With the specific date and place of the crimes, and information about the victims.

NO they had the right to vote they didn't have equal access to the vote. You see the laws were applied differently for different groups. So if you were African American you would be given a literacy test which white people would not have to take and if you failed on any question (and the questions could be on anything) you were not allowed to vote. They didn't pass laws that Denied them the vote the Fifteenth Amendment prohibits this.

You clearly don't understand the history of Equal access and because of that you are making an argument that was made in the south all the way up until the 60s and 70s. It is ok to treat groups of voters differently. Simple as that. The voters rights act of 1965 talks very much about EQUAL ACCESS and stopped unfair treatment of minority votes simply by treating all voters equally. You clearly think differently.

Edited April 20, 2011 by punked

[CANADIEN]

NO they had the right to vote they didn't have equal access to the vote. You see the laws were applied differently for different groups. So if you were African American you would be given a literacy test which white people would not have to take and if you failed on any question (and the questions could be on anything) you were not allowed to vote. They didn't pass laws that Denied them the vote the Fifteenth Amendment prohibits this.

You clearly don't understand the history of Equal access and because of that you are making an argument that was made in the south all the way up until the 60s and 70s. It is ok to treat groups of voters differently. Simple as that. The voters rights act of 1965 talks very much about EQUAL ACCESS and stopped unfair treatment of minority votes simply by treating all voters equally. You clearly think differently.

EXCUSE ME?

So, until 1965, there was no laws and practices in the southern US states that actually PREVENTED people from voting? You mentioned the infamous literacy tests, which was a way of DENYING the right to vote to African-Americans. And anybody with an actual and honest understanding of the history of that time knowns that it was not merely the same level of access to polling stations that was denied. It was the capacity to vote, period.

As well, somebody with an actual and honest knowledge of what took place at the time would know that the argument put forward by white segregationists was not "there is a need to provide more venues for Whites to vote" (by the way, I have clearly stated that I do not believe there is a need for special polling station, not that expect you to have the honesty to admit it). Nor was it "We will make it more difficult for Blacks to vote". It was "No Ni**r shall vote" (this are not actual quotations).

Do you actually believe that men in white robes terrorized people at night, or that three volonteers trying to help African-Americans register for voting were murdered in 1964 in Mississppi just so it would be difficult for African-Americans to vote? The intent was clear - that no African-Americans would vote, period.

Your intellectual dishonesty in equating that to to setting of a special poll station on a university campus is appalling. Since that's the best you can offer, it's better ignored.

Edited April 20, 2011 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

There is, in my opinion, no need for special advanced polling stations on university campus in this election. That being said, there is nothing in such stations would deny or limit ANY other voter's right or capacity to vote. People who claim otherwise do not know what they are talking about.

[bush_cheney2004]

EXCUSE ME?

So, until 1965, there was no laws and practices in the southern US states that actually PREVENTED people from voting? You mentioned the infamous literacy tests, which was a way of DENYING the right to vote to African-Americans. And anybody with an actual and honest understanding of the history of that time knowns that it was not merely the same level of access to polling stations that was denied. It was the capacity to vote, period....

Yes there were, but the chronology and impact of such impediments to voting (Direct Disenfranchisement) was not exclusive to African Americans or even the South, which usually gets all the focus in such discussions. Poor whites, Asians, Natives, and others also met barriers to registration and voting through direct and indirect means. Barriers to voting could also be found in Canada (e.g. Chinese Canadians in BC).

[punked]

EXCUSE ME?

So, until 1965, there was no laws and practices in the southern US states that actually PREVENTED people from voting? You mentioned the infamous literacy tests, which was a way of DENYING the right to vote to African-Americans. And anybody with an actual and honest understanding of the history of that time knowns that it was not merely the same level of access to polling stations that was denied. It was the capacity to vote, period.

As well, somebody with an actual and honest knowledge of what took place at the time would know that the argument put forward by white segregationists was not "there is a need to provide more venues for Whites to vote" (by the way, I have clearly stated that I do not believe there is a need for special polling station, not that expect you to have the honesty to admit it). Nor was it "We will make it more difficult for Blacks to vote". It was "No Ni**r shall vote" (this are not actual quotations).

Do you actually believe that men in white robes terrorized people at night, or that three volonteers trying to help African-Americans register for voting were murdered in 1964 in Mississppi just so it would be difficult for African-Americans to vote? The intent was clear - that no African-Americans would vote, period.

Your intellectual dishonesty in equating that to to setting of a special poll station on a university campus is appalling. Since that's the best you can offer, it's better ignored.

See this where you are letting your emotions get in the way of your better judgment. Your thought process goes "As long as we are making it easier for minorities to vote it must be better," the problem here is their is no line. If we make easier for minorities to vote we can make it easier for the majority to vote to, and if we make it much easier for the majority to vote then minorities we are back to the same old problem.

You seem to think providing "special" polling places for different groups is a good thing however in the states many times it has been argued this sort of special treatment (which usually goes in the other direction) is wrong because it provided unequal access to the vote. Think of it this way if we cost each vote brought in these voters votes are costing more then others who live in the same area. That is wrong they are being treated unequally.

EQUAL ACCESS is the corner stone of the Voters Right act passed 1965 it is covered in Section 2 and makes it so no voters may be discriminated against. You argue against this. I think you are dead wrong, we have seen what treating different groups of voters differently has got us and I don't think that is right. You might be against the voters rights act I am not.

[punked]

There is, in my opinion, no need for special advanced polling stations on university campus in this election. That being said, there is nothing in such stations would deny or limit ANY other voter's right or capacity to vote. People who claim otherwise do not know what they are talking about.

It limits them because they don't have the same access to a special polling place 2 feet away from where they live either. They have different access, so if you live in a University you get a "special polling" place but if you live in Northern Manitoba you get jack. That isn't right. You should either treat all voters the same or offer no special treatment.