Dementia and the voting process

[Harry]

We have an age restriction becfore citizens are eligible to vote but as far as I know no restrictions on the other end when folks are aging and have Dementia. As Dementia is a growing phenomena with our aging population, should we not ask Elections Canada to remove people with Dementia from the voter's list? Otherwise we possibly could end up having large-scale abuse of the voting process.

Edited April 18, 2011 by Harry

[Hydraboss]

No they should not be removed. The NDP have as much right to their supporters as any other party.

[Harry]

No they should not be removed. The NDP have as much right to their supporters as any other party.

Good one Hydraboss.

Edited April 18, 2011 by Harry

[Molly]

We have an age restriction becfore citizens are eligible to vote but as far as I know no restrictions on the other end when folks are aging and have Dementia. As Dementia is a growing phenomena with our aging population, should we not ask Elections Canada to remove people with Dementia from the voter's list? Otherwise we possibly could end up having large-scale abuse of the voting process.

How old are you? 18?

You might want to give EC some criterion a little clearer than 'people with Dementia' to work with. EC is, after all, a legal, not a medical entity.

[Harry]

How old are you? 18?

You might want to give EC some criterion a little clearer than 'people with Dementia' to work with. EC is, after all, a legal, not a medical entity.

Well I kinda figured, if they don't have one already, that EC could develop some kind of appropriate process.

Edited April 18, 2011 by Harry

[CANADIEN]

Well I kinda figured, if they don't have one already, that EC could develop some kind of appropriate process.

You just forget one thing. EC administers the electoral process, it does not determine who has or do not have the right to vote. That's done by the federal Parliament, in accordance with the Constitution.

[Posc Student]

What stage of dementia would you say they are unable to vote at? There are lots of people with dementia who are functioning well enough that they can easily make a decision on who to vote for based on their values. I don't see how voting could be abused? They are still voting by themselves, what's the difference in me taking a person with no knowledge of politics to vote and saying vote for this party?

[GostHacked]

What stage of dementia would you say they are unable to vote at? There are lots of people with dementia who are functioning well enough that they can easily make a decision on who to vote for based on their values. I don't see how voting could be abused? They are still voting by themselves, what's the difference in me taking a person with no knowledge of politics to vote and saying vote for this party?

Agreed. It could be a first step type of thing to start barring anyone with any mental condition from voting. So I would not support it.

It's usually the people in and running the campaigns that are abusing the votes, not the voters themselves.

[Chippewa]

They should exclude part-time Canadians from the list aswell. Part-timers include those who have lived in Canada and been a citizan part-time, and exclude part-timers who have only been here for less then a generation. The right to vote should be down to those who are really part of the Country and have history here and went to war for this country. Not the rights for some immigrant who just showed up and a Political Party like the Conservatives or Liberals are at the door and telling them, " Here's your Canadian Citizanship, So vote for me!".

It wasn't long ago that my grandfather was piling up Germans and Koreans and using them as sandbags, now they can come here into this country and become a citizan. That's not right. First Nations aren't even considered Canadians, and they have been here for Thousands of years. Go figure, This whole process is about who gets a shot at dividing up First Nations Resources, and who gets to have a party on some tax money, while the Resource Companies who make all the profits in North America leaving part-time citizans who have only been here for a generation or 2 out of the economy.

Its enough that the racism against First Nations has crippled them from economic terrorism, and land laundering, but the immigrants who come to North America have no chance, because the Corporations already own them when they show up. They have doctors from foreign countrys who now are Cab Drivers in Canada. Thats racism in your face. The voting process is just plain backwards.

It wasn't long ago political parties would be waiting for the next banana boat full of immigrants to show up on the docks, and tell them, welcome you new Canadian, vote for me and I will put First Nations in Residential Schools, Steal all the land, steal all the money, and create a country without even asking them.

Thats democracy at its finest.

[Wild Bill]

Why should we bar people with dementia from voting?

We allow them to serve in the Senate!

[Pliny]

Posc student makes a good point but perhaps there should be some qualifiers to voting. Convicted criminals perhaps should be excluded from the voting process until they have earned the right to vote again. It could be consdiered that in order to make votes valuable and thoughtful they can't be just looked at as a democratic right. If you are just going to vote to have the government look after you and your concerns or special interests, using the welfare of individuals as your metre for voting and not the welfare of the nation, then why should you have a vote? Why just vote from whom you wish government to collect their taxes and to whom they should spend those taxes on when you should be solely concerned, on the federal level, with the welfare of the country as a whole. Or, on the provincial level, with the welfare of the province as a whole. A society is comprised of individuals with mutual interests and common bonds that look after each other - government is supposed to provide an assurance that they will have the freedom and liberty to do just that, keeping internal and external forces from threatening those freedoms and liberties and protecting the sanctity of person and property.

[William Ashley]

We have an age restriction becfore citizens are eligible to vote but as far as I know no restrictions on the other end when folks are aging and have Dementia. As Dementia is a growing phenomena with our aging population, should we not ask Elections Canada to remove people with Dementia from the voter's list? Otherwise we possibly could end up having large-scale abuse of the voting process.

Leaving the medical community to determine who can vote is problematic.

Once you strike off dementia you then have to ask, what about delusional people, should multiple personality disorder people have more than one vote, one for each personality? What about simply two faced people? What about people with bad morals, or conservatives?

What about anyone that goes against the national security objectives set by various bodies such as CSIS? Criminal minds? People who voted for the incumbent government?

You can see how criteria for only letting sound voters vote can become quickly problematic even if it does yeild results people are happier with after the fact.

Personally I think minors should have a vote that their gaurdians can cast. (if not they themselves.)

Agism is against the constitution - and discrimination by age. Frankly the system is screwed up so the outcome will likely just be another batch of screwups to make the world less idealic and corrupt. No one is willing to bite the bullet for the right world. Fact is it is an evil world suited for tyrants not benevolance and freedom.

No one running wants to free the people.

Edited April 18, 2011 by William Ashley

[wyly]

They should exclude part-time Canadians from the list aswell. Part-timers include those who have lived in Canada and been a citizan part-time, and exclude part-timers who have only been here for less then a generation. The right to vote should be down to those who are really part of the Country and have history here and went to war for this country. Not the rights for some immigrant who just showed up and a Political Party like the Conservatives or Liberals are at the door and telling them, " Here's your Canadian Citizanship, So vote for me!".

It wasn't long ago that my grandfather was piling up Germans and Koreans and using them as sandbags, now they can come here into this country and become a citizan. That's not right. First Nations aren't even considered Canadians, and they have been here for Thousands of years. Go figure, This whole process is about who gets a shot at dividing up First Nations Resources, and who gets to have a party on some tax money, while the Resource Companies who make all the profits in North America leaving part-time citizans who have only been here for a generation or 2 out of the economy.

Its enough that the racism against First Nations has crippled them from economic terrorism, and land laundering, but the immigrants who come to North America have no chance, because the Corporations already own them when they show up. They have doctors from foreign countrys who now are Cab Drivers in Canada. Thats racism in your face. The voting process is just plain backwards.

It wasn't long ago political parties would be waiting for the next banana boat full of immigrants to show up on the docks, and tell them, welcome you new Canadian, vote for me and I will put First Nations in Residential Schools, Steal all the land, steal all the money, and create a country without even asking them.

Thats democracy at its finest.

I've met plenty of immigrants who came here with nothing and none of the advantages first nations people are offered and done very well, I don't hear them whining how tough life is they just get on with improving their lives... life is what you make of it...

immigrants are fully deserving of citizenship, they make a conscious decision to give up their homeland to start a new life in a different culture, a new language, a very intimidating prospect...native born canadians never have to make that decision, maybe they should be required to take a citizen test before being granted voting rights, I've no doubt many would fail...

dementia patients aren't capable of voting but we open up a real can of worms trying to control that, there likely many non dementia people also incapable of casting an intelligent vote(one local woman's reason for not voting for ignatieff-his name sounds like a sneeze )...

in the end we hope that the votes of stupid people just cancel each other out, unfortunately statistics show most stupid people vote conservative...campaign tactics in the US deliberately target people who are easy to mislead(the poorly educated and unsophisticated))...

[Pliny]

It wasn't long ago political parties would be waiting for the next banana boat full of immigrants to show up on the docks, and tell them, welcome you new Canadian, vote for me and I will put First Nations in Residential Schools, Steal all the land, steal all the money, and create a country without even asking them.

Thats democracy at its finest.

Sounds racist to me.

Maybe it would be a good idea for you to find out how property becomes property or why property should even exist. Should it? Did it exist in North America before Columbus arrived? Did it even exist in Europe or was everything considered to be the property of European Monarchs? Do Canadians have exclusive property rights, even today? Natives have more property rights than non-native Canadians, collectively, at least but somehow you are missing individual property rights on your reserves.

[wyly]

Leaving the medical community to determine who can vote is problematic.

Once you strike off dementia you then have to ask, what about delusional people, should multiple personality disorder people have more than one vote, one for each personality? What about simply two faced people? What about people with bad morals, or conservatives?

What about anyone that goes against the national security objectives set by various bodies such as CSIS? Criminal minds? People who voted for the incumbent government?

You can see how criteria for only letting sound voters vote can become quickly problematic even if it does yeild results people are happier with after the fact.

Personally I think minors should have a vote that their gaurdians can cast. (if not they themselves.)

Agism is against the constitution - and discrimination by age. Frankly the system is screwed up so the outcome will likely just be another batch of screwups to make the world less idealic and corrupt. No one is willing to bite the bullet for the right world.

certainly kids can make just as logical choice as many adults but we already have too many adults who shouldn't vote and most kids will vote for whoever their parents tell them to...

[wyly]

Why should we bar people with dementia from voting?

We allow them to serve in the Senate!

:lol:

[M.Dancer]

. First Nations aren't even considered Canadians, and they have been here for Thousands of years.

For someone so young, you are 60 years behind....

In 1960, under Prime Minister John Diefenbaker's enlightened thinking, the government made a decision that would prove to be most beneficial in promoting the eventual recognition of the civil and human rights of First Nations citizens. It decided to permit all Registered Indians to vote in federal elections. Registered Indians living on-Reserve had previously been prevented from doing so by this section of the Canada Elections Act:

http://www.danielnpaul.com/CanadianVotingRights-1960.html

[Pliny]

unfortunately statistics show most stupid people vote conservative...campaign tactics in the US deliberately target people who are easy to mislead(the poorly educated and unsophisticated))...

....that sort of contradicts the fact that Obama is President? You may consider welfare recipients beneath you, or the poor just stupid, but they do tend to vote liberal.

[William Ashley]

Sounds racist to me.

Maybe it would be a good idea for you to find out how property becomes property or why property should even exist. Should it? Did it exist in North America before Columbus arrived? Did it even exist in Europe or was everything considered to be the property of European Monarchs? Do Canadians have exclusive property rights, even today? Natives have more property rights than non-native Canadians, collectively, at least but somehow you are missing individual property rights on your reserves.

Actually they don't. They are essentially municipalities.

The government actually says that if we want any of the reserve land for development we can take it --- nonnatives go through a far more complex expropriation process. (The difference is they are "Federal Municipalities, rather than Provincial Municipalities)

The second complexity is that resource development tends to be a provincial mandate.

http://www.expropriationlaw.ca/news/news.asp?id=48

(its funny many of the major exporpriation cases are happening in BC...)

Edited April 18, 2011 by William Ashley

[wyly]

Actually they don't. They are essentially municipalities.

The government actually says that if we want any of the reserve land for development we can take it --- nonnatives go through a far more complex expropriation process.

really, Calgary the provincial and federal governments have been unsuccessful in negotiating to run the last section of a city ring road through a neighboring reserve for over 25years, expropriation isn't in cards...

[Molly]

We have an age restriction becfore citizens are eligible to vote but as far as I know no restrictions on the other end when folks are aging and have Dementia. As Dementia is a growing phenomena with our aging population, should we not ask Elections Canada to remove people with Dementia from the voter's list? Otherwise we possibly could end up having large-scale abuse of the voting process.

I must ask... what form would this 'large scale abuse' take? How would it be accomplished? (Do you know about some loopholes in the Elections Act that I don't? 'Cause IMO it's a pretty ingenious process. Filled with extraordinary, but well-placed, trust.)

[William Ashley]

really, Calgary the provincial and federal governments have been unsuccessful in negotiating to run the last section of a city ring road through a neighboring reserve for over 25years, expropriation isn't in cards...

The Federal Government doesn't think it is needed.

There appears to be slight changes in 1999

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CEEQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.edo.ca%2Fpages%2Fdownload%2F6_765&ei=_VysTcHKEYaCgAfQodTzBQ&usg=AFQjCNEzl0cTyJzl-jyTOJIfE21MkP0Q_w

constitution "gives the federal parliament exclusive power to legislate in matters related to "Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians."

Those 14 some first nations have slightly enhanced capacities through land use plans (municipalities also create municipal plans. "Known as Official Plans")

6. (1) A first nation that wishes to establish a land management regime in accordance with the Framework Agreement and this Act shall adopt a land code applicable to all land in a reserve of the first nation, which land code must include the following matters:

(j) the general rules and procedures that apply in respect of the granting or expropriation by the first nation of interests or rights in first nation land;

It seems these ones are party to the act...

1. Westbank

2. Musqueam

3. Fort George (also known as Lheit-Lit’en and Lheidli T’enneh)

4. Anderson Lake (also known as N’Quatqua)

5. Squamish

6. Siksika Nation

7. John Smith (also known as Muskoday)

8. Cowessess

9. The Pas (also known as Opaskwayak Cree)

10. Nipissing Band of Ojibways (also known as Nipissing)

11. Scugog (also known as Mississaugas of Scugog Island)

12. Chippewas of Rama (also known as Chippewas of Mnjikaning)

13. Chippewas of Georgina Island

14. Saint Mary’s

15. Garden River

16. Moose Deer Point

17. Whitecap No. 94

18. Kinistin

19. Mississauga

20. Whitefish Lake

21. Songhees

22. Beecher Bay

23. Pavilion

24. [Repealed, 2008, c. 32, s. 27]

25. Tsawout

26. Kingsclear

27. Skeetchestn

28. Muskeg Lake

29. Burrard

30. Sliammon

31. Osoyoos

32. Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point

33. Dokis

34. Chippewas of the Thames

35. Kitselas

36. McLeod Lake

37. Shxwhá:y Village (also known as Sqay Village)

38. T’Sou-ke (also known as Tsouke)

39. Leq’á:mel (also known as Leqamel)

40. Flying Dust

41. Swan Lake

42. Henvey Inlet

43. Matsqui

44. Seabird Island

45. Squiala

46. Tzeachten

47. Pasqua

48. We Wai Kai (also known as Cape Mudge)

49. Chemawawin

50. Kahkewistahaw

51. Alderville

52. Big Island (also known as Anishnaabeg of Naongashiing)

53. Fort McKay First Nation

54. Innue Essipit

55. Nanoose

56. Campbell River

57. Sumas

58. Skawahlook

Is the Calgary reserve not on that list if so the Indian act would apply not the First Nations Land Management Act.

?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsuu_T%27ina_Nation_145,_Alberta

Tsuu Tina?

CALGARY DOESN'T NEED THE LAND

"City of Calgary announced that alternative plans will put the ring road on municipal and provincial lands only"

They were going to build a road through a fragile ecosystem on natives lands they could have built through municipal and provincial land... this one is clear why it didn't happen it was abuse.

Look at it this way, would you want a road to go through your house, if it could go through the person building the roads house instead?

The applicable section of the Indian Act would be

Taking of lands by local authorities

35. (1) Where by an Act of Parliament or a provincial legislature Her Majesty in right of a province, a municipal or local authority or a corporation is empowered to take or to use lands or any interest therein without the consent of the owner, the power may, with the consent of the Governor in Council and subject to any terms that may be prescribed by the Governor in Council, be exercised in relation to lands in a reserve or any interest therein.

Procedure

(2) Unless the Governor in Council otherwise directs, all matters relating to compulsory taking or using of lands in a reserve under subsection (1) are governed by the statute by which the powers are conferred.

Grant in lieu of compulsory taking

(3) Whenever the Governor in Council has consented to the exercise by a province, a municipal or local authority or a corporation of the powers referred to in subsection (1), the Governor in Council may, in lieu of the province, authority or corporation taking or using the lands without the consent of the owner, authorize a transfer or grant of the lands to the province, authority or corporation, subject to any terms that may be prescribed by the Governor in Council.

Payment

(4) Any amount that is agreed on or awarded in respect of the compulsory taking or using of land under this section or that is paid for a transfer or grant of land pursuant to this section shall be paid to the Receiver General for the use and benefit of the band or for the use and benefit of any Indian who is entitled to compensation or payment as a result of the exercise of the powers referred to in subsection (1).

R.S., c. I-6, s. 35.

Simply put... Harper didn't want you to have the road there.

Harper picked the Natives over his own constiuents.

Edited April 18, 2011 by William Ashley

[Pliny]

Actually they don't. They are essentially municipalities.

The government actually says that if we want any of the reserve land for development we can take it --- nonnatives go through a far more complex expropriation process. (The difference is they are "Federal Municipalities, rather than Provincial Municipalities)

The second complexity is that resource development tends to be a provincial mandate.

http://www.expropriationlaw.ca/news/news.asp?id=48

(its funny many of the major exporpriation cases are happening in BC...)

That doesn't refute what I said which is they have more property rights, as a collective, than Canadians do as individuals.

[August1991]

You just forget one thing. EC administers the electoral process, it does not determine who has or do not have the right to vote. That's done by the federal Parliament, in accordance with the Constitution.

That's correct, up to a point.

The Federal Court has arguably ruled that anything less than full suffrage would be discriminatory:

At the federal level in Canada today, every citizen who is 18 years of age or older on election day is entitled to vote.1 Until 1993, however, the Canada Elections Act excluded from voting "every person who is restrained of his liberty of movement or deprived of the management of his property by reason of mental disease."2 This provision was eliminated in April 1993 by Bill C-114.

The 1993 amendment may be seen as a response to the October 1988 ruling by the Federal Court of Canada, which declared the provision to be invalid on the grounds that it conflicted with section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees every citizen of Canada the right to vote. In explaining her ruling, Madame Justice Reed noted that while section 1 of the Charter allows for limitations that are demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society, and that "a requirement of mental competence or judgmental capacity" may well constitute such a limitation, the section of the Act "as presently drafted does not address itself only to mental competence or capacity insofar as that quality is required for the purposes of voting." She went on to describe the limitation as "arbitrary", noting that "it catches people within its ambit who should not be there and, arguably, it does not catch people who perhaps should be."3 Madame Justice Reed also made reference to two parliamentary committee reports,4 as well as to changes that had been made to the law in Ontario5 and Manitoba.6

Elections Canada

Different understandings of disability have informed these reforms – a not surprising situation, given that various understandings of disability exist in Canada and internationally. A human rights perspective, stressing equality and human dignity, has successfully challenged disqualifications to vote based on mental conditions as unfair and discriminatory.

Elections Canada

It appears that the bureaucracy/legal system wants to extend suffrage to the widest group possible, and to make it easier to vote - even if this might invite fraud, multiple voting or misuse of ballots. I would not be surprised to see a backlash and a desire to ensure the integrity of the voting system.

A few days ago, Elections Canada sent voter cards to people who had died several years ago. Irony aside, mistakes like this are bound to happen.

But what should concern us is the fact that Elections Canada sends out more than 23 million voter cards without having the ability to ensure these cards are sent only to Canadian citizens.

Angelo Persichilli

----

Could we apply voter-eligibility tests to people suffering from dementia? I doubt it. Such tests have an obnoxious history. In the case of dementia, I think we'll just live with the possibility of abuse.

----

On a related final point, I think that we in Canada should adopt the foreign practice of dipping a finger in indelible, purple ink when someone has voted.

This would reduce any fraud of double-voting, it would shame non-voters into going to vote and it would identify Canada as a member of the elite club of democractic nations.

[wyly]

The Federal Government doesn't think it is needed.

There appears to be slight changes in 1999

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CEEQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.edo.ca%2Fpages%2Fdownload%2F6_765&ei=_VysTcHKEYaCgAfQodTzBQ&usg=AFQjCNEzl0cTyJzl-jyTOJIfE21MkP0Q_w

constitution "gives the federal parliament exclusive power to legislate in matters related to "Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians."

Those 14 some first nations have slightly enhanced capacities through land use plans (municipalities also create municipal plans. "Known as Official Plans")

6. (1) A first nation that wishes to establish a land management regime in accordance with the Framework Agreement and this Act shall adopt a land code applicable to all land in a reserve of the first nation, which land code must include the following matters:

(j) the general rules and procedures that apply in respect of the granting or expropriation by the first nation of interests or rights in first nation land;

It seems these ones are party to the act...

1. Westbank

2. Musqueam

3. Fort George (also known as Lheit-Lit’en and Lheidli T’enneh)

4. Anderson Lake (also known as N’Quatqua)

5. Squamish

6. Siksika Nation

7. John Smith (also known as Muskoday)

8. Cowessess

9. The Pas (also known as Opaskwayak Cree)

10. Nipissing Band of Ojibways (also known as Nipissing)

11. Scugog (also known as Mississaugas of Scugog Island)

12. Chippewas of Rama (also known as Chippewas of Mnjikaning)

13. Chippewas of Georgina Island

14. Saint Mary’s

15. Garden River

16. Moose Deer Point

17. Whitecap No. 94

18. Kinistin

19. Mississauga

20. Whitefish Lake

21. Songhees

22. Beecher Bay

23. Pavilion

24. [Repealed, 2008, c. 32, s. 27]

25. Tsawout

26. Kingsclear

27. Skeetchestn

28. Muskeg Lake

29. Burrard

30. Sliammon

31. Osoyoos

32. Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point

33. Dokis

34. Chippewas of the Thames

35. Kitselas

36. McLeod Lake

37. Shxwhá:y Village (also known as Sqay Village)

38. T’Sou-ke (also known as Tsouke)

39. Leq’á:mel (also known as Leqamel)

40. Flying Dust

41. Swan Lake

42. Henvey Inlet

43. Matsqui

44. Seabird Island

45. Squiala

46. Tzeachten

47. Pasqua

48. We Wai Kai (also known as Cape Mudge)

49. Chemawawin

50. Kahkewistahaw

51. Alderville

52. Big Island (also known as Anishnaabeg of Naongashiing)

53. Fort McKay First Nation

54. Innue Essipit

55. Nanoose

56. Campbell River

57. Sumas

58. Skawahlook

Is the Calgary reserve not on that list if so the Indian act would apply not the First Nations Land Management Act.

it's a requirement the Feds be on side with the ring road, they approved...the band which is not on your list put the generous finincial and land exchange offer to it's people in a vote and it was rejected...

Over 700 Tsuu T’ina band members voted earlier today on the SW ring road deal and only 38% voted in favor of selling over 400 hectares of reserve land to the Alberta Government for the construction of the massive ring road project. Details of the proposal were not made public but the Calgary Herald obtained documents showing the Provincial Government offering up to $275M with a minimum $240M held in trust by the Federal Government. The band would have also received 2000 hectares of crown land on the northwestern border of the reserve in exchange for 400 hectares needed for the construction of the roadway.