Tories changing Election Canada

[On Guard for Thee]

On Guard - to be clear, the final reported tally was 1394 complaints scattered across 234 ridings. We know that at least 600 came from Guelph leaving about 800 scattered across the other ridings - an average of a little more than three per riding. That should help put some context as to why no one has stepped forward to complain that they couldn't vote because of a robocall. I posted the original link to correspond to your figure of 31,000. Here's more up-to-date article. It really does beg the question as to how you still thought the number of complaints was 31,000 - didn't you catch it in the wide-spread media reports that slammed the online campaign?

Link: http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/robocall-complaints-rise-to-1394-specific-occurrences

It's not my 31,000 figure, it comes from Elections Canada so you can argue it with them. I am well aware of the fact that as EC began to realize the size of the flood of complaints that there was a need for something more formal than phone calls or emails. You may be aware they added a seperate page to their website specifically to receive complaints with an eye to a formal investigation. A lot of people probably didn't bother but there was still sufficient evidence for A judge (Bosley) to reach a finding that voter fraud did occur and the likely source was CIMS. That's no real surprise as I doubt the Liberals or the NDP phoned their own constituents to send them to phony polls. I am just a tad suspicious that the current re-jiging of the "Act" is just an attempt to achieve voter suppression in the next election

[Keepitsimple]

It's not my 31,000 figure, it comes from Elections Canada so you can argue it with them.

There's nothing to argue. It was cleared up long ago. It should be a concern to you that after all this time, you still thought that there were indeed 31,000 complaints. It just demonstrates how misleading information can be repeated over and over - because the original story is carried on Page one and it's usually sometime later that the "correction" is in the back pages. Remember your post?

No one stepped forward? Helloooo. EC has something like 31,000 complaints.

Edited March 4, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[On Guard for Thee]

There's nothing to argue. It was cleared up long ago. It should be a concern to you that after all this time, you still thought that there were indeed 31,000 complaints. It just demonstrates how misleading information can be repeated over and over - because the original story is carried on Page one and it's usually sometime later that the "correction" is in the back pages. Remember your post?

You're right, there is nothing to argue, voter suppression did occur. One way to actually clear up the current issue would be to let the comittee travel and see what Canadians actually think of the changes the gov is trying to make to how they vote with the hope that voter suppression doesn't occur again.

[Mighty AC]

That`s a horrible idea. The point of the bill is to discourage young voters from showing up at the polls. Raising awareness of the bill will not achieve that goal. The best option is to force it through quickly and as quietly as possible.

[On Guard for Thee]

"Dam the torpedoes, full speed ahead" Who want's "kids" voting anyway?

[On Guard for Thee]

Um, once again I must correct myself: we can't go to full speed ahead until we get a new motor in the sub.

[Keepitsimple]

The best way to increase voting among young people is to focus more on civic duty in school - how government works - Municipal/Provincial/Federal responsibilities - our Constituion - Canad's place in the world. If you have to wait for a marketing ploy to encourage voting, you're way too late. Our schools are failing us - or at least the curriculum is.

[On Guard for Thee]

And by your own description, so is our current government by gutting EC from being able to do exactly what you say is needed. I appreciate the endorsement.

[Keepitsimple]

And by your own description, so is our current government by gutting EC from being able to do exactly what you say is needed. I appreciate the endorsement.

Education is a Provincial responsibility - and don't forget - it's not just Federal voting turnout - it's Provincial and Municipal turnout that's declining as well. In my opinion, you have to start engaging people when they are young - in school - much more so that we are doing today. I get it that you don't like the Act....but for the longest time, Elections Canada had had the mandate to "get out the vote" and for all that time, voter turnout has steadily declined. The results we've seen from EC indicate it's almost irrelevant - certainly no big loss that they will no longer be running their programs.... and doing something different is long overdue.

What do you think about the Provincial Governments modifying their Education curriculums to provide a better focus on civic engagement - civic responsibility?

Edited March 5, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[Michael Hardner]

The best way to increase voting among young people is to focus more on civic duty in school - how government works - Municipal/Provincial/Federal responsibilities - our Constituion - Canad's place in the world. If you have to wait for a marketing ploy to encourage voting, you're way too late. Our schools are failing us - or at least the curriculum is.

The "schools failing us" meme is pretty hard to prove, but that's another thread...

I would say that I'd rather have quality show up at the polls than quantity. I don't see the point in promoting the act of voting if that voter has no inkling of what is going on. So, we should encourage public engagement. But... since we don't really encourage that, then... what ?

[Keepitsimple]

The "schools failing us" meme is pretty hard to prove, but that's another thread...

I would say that I'd rather have quality show up at the polls than quantity. I don't see the point in promoting the act of voting if that voter has no inkling of what is going on. So, we should encourage public engagement. But... since we don't really encourage that, then... what ?

I disagree - if you're judging that one voter is smarter than another. It's everyone's right to vote - and they should actually feel like it's an obligation.....and as long as they are committed enough to make a trip to the polling booth, they can put their X wherever they want.

[Michael Hardner]

I disagree - if you're judging that one voter is smarter than another.

No, I'm not providing an assessment of intelligence, or even measuring how informed people are.

Instead, I would assess engagement.

It's everyone's right to vote - and they should actually feel like it's an obligation.....

If it's an obligation, then it's equally an obligation to inform yourself, do you agree ?

[waldo]

It's everyone's right to vote

then why have Harper Conservatives engaged in voter suppression pursuits?

[Wilber]

The best way to increase voting among young people is to focus more on civic duty in school - how government works - Municipal/Provincial/Federal responsibilities - our Constituion - Canad's place in the world. If you have to wait for a marketing ploy to encourage voting, you're way too late. Our schools are failing us - or at least the curriculum is.

Maybe but how much trouble is it to vote for cripes sake? Even if you vote in all the federal, provincial and municipal elections, it is only 45 minutes of your time every couple of years to exercise a right that hundreds of millions of people on this planet are willing to risk their lives in order to have. If people are too lazy to do even that, why should I worry about them.

[Keepitsimple]

No, I'm not providing an assessment of intelligence, or even measuring how informed people are.

Instead, I would assess engagement.

If it's an obligation, then it's equally an obligation to inform yourself, do you agree ?

That's a given - but you are obviously making a judgement that many people who vote are uninformed. I think that's what they call a specious argument. Indeed you are assessing intelligence which relates to your initial preference for "quality over quantity". We want people make the effort to get to the polling booth. They won't do that unless they have an opinion of sorts - they don't go eeny meeny miny Mo.....and that makes them informed - perhaps not to the level that you would like - but people come in all sizes and models.

[Bryan]

….you're judging that one voter is smarter than another.

They are though. The ones who are engaged and informed are smart enough to know that these things matter, and that they absolutely can do something about it. The ones who aren't, well…. aren't. "Smart" might not be the nicest choice of adjective, but it's not wholly inaccurate either. More accurate would be to label those who are disengaged and uninformed as ignorant, but you're not going to win any friends going with that either.

The majority of people are not informed enough about pretty much any topic to be actively involved in anything that could affect other people. If they know anything at all, they know what they saw on the TV news which is a small snippet of the bigger picture, usually presented with heavy bias. They really do not know enough to actually have an informed opinion about which candidate has better policies than the other. If those people don't vote, we really are better off for it.

[On Guard for Thee]

They are though. The ones who are engaged and informed are smart enough to know that these things matter, and that they absolutely can do something about it. The ones who aren't, well…. aren't. "Smart" might not be the nicest choice of adjective, but it's not wholly inaccurate either. More accurate would be to label those who are disengaged and uninformed as ignorant, but you're not going to win any friends going with that either.

The majority of people are not informed enough about pretty much any topic to be actively involved in anything that could affect other people. If they know anything at all, they know what they saw on the TV news which is a small snippet of the bigger picture, usually presented with heavy bias. They really do not know enough to actually have an informed opinion about which candidate has better policies than the other. If those people don't vote, we really are better off for it.

Wow! Can you say "elitist"?

[jacee]

Wow! Can you say "elitist"?

Ya.

I've heard drunk street people (with no ID) do better character analysis of politicians than anyone here.

.

Edited March 6, 2014 by jacee

[On Guard for Thee]

Ya.

I've heard drunk street people (with no ID) do better character analysis of politicians than anyone here.

.

My grandparents go off a boat in Montreal that came from Scotland, about a hundred years ago. And I'm not exagerating. They went to work, managed to get enough money together to buy a piece of ground, establish a farm, and raise six happy kids, one of them my mother. When they stepped off that boat they wouldn't have been able to vote. So maybe the "fair elections act" is taking us back in time.

[Bryan]

Wow! Can you say "elitist"?

You can say it, but you'd be wrong. Anyone can choose to get informed and be engaged.

[On Guard for Thee]

You can say it, but you'd be wrong. Anyone can choose to get informed and be engaged.

Apparently you think the people who don't live on your street are stupid. I will let the next sentence in this communication write itself.

[Keepitsimple]

They are though. The ones who are engaged and informed are smart enough to know that these things matter, and that they absolutely can do something about it. The ones who aren't, well…. aren't. "Smart" might not be the nicest choice of adjective, but it's not wholly inaccurate either. More accurate would be to label those who are disengaged and uninformed as ignorant, but you're not going to win any friends going with that either.

The majority of people are not informed enough about pretty much any topic to be actively involved in anything that could affect other people. If they know anything at all, they know what they saw on the TV news which is a small snippet of the bigger picture, usually presented with heavy bias. They really do not know enough to actually have an informed opinion about which candidate has better policies than the other. If those people don't vote, we really are better off for it.

Michael and I were talking only about people who do vote. My thought is that I'm OK with people who at least make the effort to go to the polls to vote. If they do that - they do it for a reason - and perhaps they are not as "well informed" as some would like - but they've at least made the effort. Those that don't vote? That's a different story.

[Michael Hardner]

That's a given - but you are obviously making a judgement that many people who vote are uninformed. I think that's what they call a specious argument. Indeed you are assessing intelligence which relates to your initial preference for "quality over quantity".

"being informed" and "being intelligent" are completely different things.

[Michael Hardner]

My thought is that I'm OK with people who at least make the effort to go to the polls to vote. If they do that - they do it for a reason - and perhaps they are not as "well informed" as some would like - but they've at least made the effort. Those that don't vote? That's a different story.

Agreed. But shouldn't "we" care about the quality of public dialogue, and information ? My sense is that these things are worse, but indeed "we" don't pay attention so how can we know ?

[bleeding heart]

Are they worse? I'm not disputing...it's an honest question.