Fair Election Act

[Bob Macadoo]

Would you believe it was the Liberals who first complained about vouching - and took it all the way to the Supreme Court? But I think I see your point - when the Liberals make an issue of it - it's noble.

No I wouldn't.

Most of the contested ballots came under scrutiny because Elections Canada officials lost voter registration certificates or failed to document properly how they established people’s identities.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/voting-process-to-be-tightened-after-top-court-ruling-on-etobicoke-centre-election/article4651590/

The noble issue wasn't voter fraud but making sure EC is resourced sufficiently to correctly vet and count votes, which the "Fair" act is a preamble to deconstruct/defund..... but try another talking point. Misquote, Misuse, Mistake.

[Bob Macadoo]

What if the new law required that all voters had to pass a literacy test, had to be white, votes in Alberta and Saskatchewan would count for double and people would be jailed if they didn't vote? While that scenario is far fetched just how “partisan” can any new legislation be?

The same as any rushed flawed legislation with predefined errors prime for revision; an advocacy group will raise a court challenge. This will lead to the proposer to claim the "will of the people" is being thwarted by "special interests" or "foreigners" (insert brooding musak). This will lead to the enevitable donor drive push (both sides) and scaring of low info voters (both sides). This is a planned cynical political move to benefit "Big Politic", when this could all be nipped right now if an engaged electorate got involved to demand A+ legislation rather than whatever the sausage factory can spew out. We're not talking unified theory here, there are other experiments to observe, there are subject matter experts to consult and prescript, and there are public consultations to cause review, etc. PMO gamemanship shouldn't be a participant in legislation development.

[Keepitsimple]

No I wouldn't.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/voting-process-to-be-tightened-after-top-court-ruling-on-etobicoke-centre-election/article4651590/

The noble issue wasn't voter fraud but making sure EC is resourced sufficiently to correctly vet and count votes, which the "Fair" act is a preamble to deconstruct/defund..... but try another talking point. Misquote, Misuse, Mistake.

I agree that the court termed it mostly an administrative foulup - but that was qualified by "there was no proof" that any of the 79 were not eligible to vote. Nonetheless, some were bound to be ineligible. The whole idea of vouching opens up a can of worms and if there wasn't such partisan mistrust - it wouldn't be an issue. Put it another way, if there was no ability to "vouch" today, would you want to introduce such an ability? With 39 pieces of eligible documentation, I think we've made it as easy as possible to identify themselves.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[Bonam]

What if the new law required that all voters had to pass a literacy test, had to be white, votes in Alberta and Saskatchewan would count for double and people would be jailed if they didn't vote? While that scenario is far fetched just how “partisan” can any new legislation be?

If the new law required that, then it'd be very quickly struck down by the Supreme Court, as it would be in contravention of the Charter.

[hitops]

I haven't really paid attention to this issue. Anyone care to summarize what it actually changes?

[On Guard for Thee]

Would you believe it was the Liberals who first complained about vouching - and took it all the way to the Supreme Court? But I think I see your point - when the Liberals make an issue of it - it's noble.

Link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/election-reform-bill-gets-an-a-minus-from-ex-election-chief-1.2523345

Nope. Otherwise the Liberals wouldn't be vouching, for vouching.

[On Guard for Thee]

I have paid fairly close attention to the commitee hearings on C23. The Conservatives have provided no viable argument for anything even close to voter fraud. Perhaps occasional irregularities in that someone here or there may have vouched for more than one voter. Guess what, I certainly know a lot more than 1 person I could vouch for. Don't we all?

[cybercoma]

I feel bad for students living in residences and seniors in retirement homes. This new law is going to make it incredibly difficult for each of those groups to vote. Also, it's a bit insulting that the Conservatives are muzzling the Chief Electoral Officer, instead of expanding his ability to investigate and charge people behind voter fraud, particularly with the outstanding investigations from the last election still underway. You would think the Conservatives, who have claimed repeatedly that they're innocent, would want to find the culprits to clear their name. This legislation makes it pretty clear that they're not as innocent as they claim.

[Keepitsimple]

I feel bad for students living in residences and seniors in retirement homes. This new law is going to make it incredibly difficult for each of those groups to vote. Also, it's a bit insulting that the Conservatives are muzzling the Chief Electoral Officer, instead of expanding his ability to investigate and charge people behind voter fraud, particularly with the outstanding investigations from the last election still underway. You would think the Conservatives, who have claimed repeatedly that they're innocent, would want to find the culprits to clear their name. This legislation makes it pretty clear that they're not as innocent as they claim.

Why do you feel sorry for Seniors in Retirement Homes - or Students in Residence? Here's the procedures - looks like we make every effort to help Seniors - and Students in residence out of town presumably are smart - and engaged enough to follow the procedure: Only one of the options for seniors was vouching but now that identification has been increased to 39 different alternatives, how is it now going to be "incredibly difficult for these groups to vote"? Heck - even your name on a hospital bracelet is acceptable.

I live in a hospital or long-term care facility. How can I vote?

Eligible electors who live in hospitals and facilities that provide long-term care may have the extra option of voting at a mobile polling station in their residence.

Elections Canada offers mobile polling stations in some residences and hospital wards. If required, we transport the ballot box from room to room to facilitate voting.

Everyone who votes must prove their identity and address. This page lists all the kinds of proof of address and identity accepted at mobile polls.

Here are some ways to prove your identity and address:

• To prove your identity (name), you can show a piece of ID with your name on it, like a health card, social insurance card (SIN card), birth certificate, Veterans Affairs Canada Health Identification Card, or hospital bracelet.
  • For residents of long-term care facilities, it is acceptable to show photocopies of your proof of identity and address documents.
• To prove your address, one option is to show an "Attestation of Residence." This is an official letter from a long-term care facility that says this person lives there. You can request this letter from the facility administrator.
• If you don't have documents to prove your identity and address, you can take an oath and get someone you know to vouch for you. That person has to be an eligible elector in the same polling division as you, and he or she must show authorized documents that prove his or her identity and address.

Vote by special ballot from outside your riding.

This option applies to people whose residence is in Canada but who are travelling outside their riding, in Canada or abroad (e.g., snowbirds, students living away from home to attend university).

With this option, you can vote by mail from anywhere in Canada or the world. To vote by special ballot from outside your riding:

Apply ASAP after an election is called. Allow enough time for a special ballot voting kit to reach you and for your ballot to travel back to Ottawa.

We must receive your application and documents proving your identity and address by the Tuesday before election day:

• in person at any Elections Canada office before 6:00 p.m. (local time), or
• by fax or by mail sent to Elections Canada in Ottawa, before 6:00 p.m. (Eastern Time)

Once we process and accept your application, we mail you a special ballot voting kit (or hand it to you, if you apply in person at an Elections Canada office). Your kit explains how to vote.

Your completed ballot must be received at Elections Canada in Ottawa before 6:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) on election day. By law, we cannot accept late application forms and we cannot count late ballots.

Once you have registered to vote by special ballot, you cannot vote another way.

Link: http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=faq&document=faqvoting〈=e#a1

Edited March 18, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[Bob Macadoo]

The vouching aspect is the smallest of my concerns for this piece of garbage; did we know now that the incumbent riding association will now get to select the polling officers rather than EC?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/03/07/andrew-coyne-the-tories-were-right-to-be-nervous-marc-mayrand-shredded-their-fair-elections-act-almost-line-by-line/

Tell me, talking point crowd, how this benefits democracy and is not another scam point by the governing party. I say we have Mr. A- appear at committee and provide some detail to that "phenomenal" grade.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Bob Macadoo

[scribblet]

The vouching aspect is the smallest of my concerns for this piece of garbage; did we know now that the incumbent riding association will now get to select the polling officers rather than EC?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/03/07/andrew-coyne-the-tories-were-right-to-be-nervous-marc-mayrand-shredded-their-fair-elections-act-almost-line-by-line/

Tell me, talking point crowd, how this benefits democracy and is not another scam point by the governing party. I say we have Mr. A- appear at committee and provide some detail to that "phenomenal" grade.

E.C. never did select the polling officers, and neither did the riding association, so get over it, there's no scam.

The incumbent party and opposition have always sent in lists of names to the returning office. The incumbent party gets to select the DROs and the opposition the Poll clerks- up to a certain date. The returning office assigns them to polls and training.

After the set date for that, the returning office can take other names and fill vacant positions. E.C. can forward applications received, but that's all, they never had any say in hiring poll staff.

The only change to the process is that of selecting poll supervisors which were normally picked by the returning office based on experience, they are usually repeaters. I suspect that the R.O. will still try to pick the best qualified as you cannot train a supervisor in one election, they must be experienced.

It doesn't give the governing party an edge or challenge democracy in any way, there never was a 'democratic process' per se in the first place, it's just a perk more or less. Supervisors are always experienced and only care about enforcing the rules and regulations, I doubt that any party would want incompetent supervisors because that wouldn't benefit anyone.

I do disagree with this process because of the time frame and challenges associated with selecting and training staff in such a short time frame. In fact, they should change the selection of all polling staff to be totally the responsibility of the returning office as the time frame for selection and training is just way too short.

Other than that, I don't have a big problem.

Edited March 19, 2014 by scribblet

[On Guard for Thee]

I feel bad for students living in residences and seniors in retirement homes. This new law is going to make it incredibly difficult for each of those groups to vote. Also, it's a bit insulting that the Conservatives are muzzling the Chief Electoral Officer, instead of expanding his ability to investigate and charge people behind voter fraud, particularly with the outstanding investigations from the last election still underway. You would think the Conservatives, who have claimed repeatedly that they're innocent, would want to find the culprits to clear their name. This legislation makes it pretty clear that they're not as innocent as they claim.

You have absolutely nailed it. If they are so squeaky clean they should be happy to let the light of day shine. Instead they pull down the blinds. I just wish the RCMP would get their you know what together and bring some charges.

[Bob Macadoo]

The only change to the process is that of selecting poll supervisors which were normally picked by the returning office based on experience, they are usually repeaters. I suspect that the R.O. will still try to pick the best qualified as you cannot train a supervisor in one election, they must be experienced.

It doesn't give the governing party an edge or challenge democracy in any way, there never was a 'democratic process' per se in the first place, it's just a perk more or less. Supervisors are always experienced and only care about enforcing the rules and regulations, I doubt that any party would want incompetent supervisors because that wouldn't benefit anyone.

I do disagree with this process because of the time frame and challenges associated with selecting and training staff in such a short time frame. In fact, they should change the selection of all polling staff to be totally the responsibility of the returning office as the time frame for selection and training is just way too short.

Other than that, I don't have a big problem.

In addition, the party whose candidate received the most votes in the previous election will be able to make recommendations to the returning officer for individuals to occupy the position of central poll supervisor.

So rather than make it more impartial we decicide to go more partisan......I have a problem with this among others.

[ramadawn]

Instead of trying to reform our methods of elective democracy , which are broken, we should be looking to bring in greater levels of demarchy. Let's give our citizens a REAL role in their own governance; instead of always depending on professional politicians.

I wrote a paper on this on reddit; if your interested in learning more.

here's the link:

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/213c9n/the_failure_of_elective_democracy_a_proposal_for/

Edited March 23, 2014 by ramadawn

[Michael Hardner]

It's an interesting idea, but I don't know that it would work for an entire election. For smaller issues, I like the idea a lot.

[g_bambino]

[O]ur methods of elective democracy , which are broken.

They are?

we should be looking to bring in greater levels of demarchy.

Where's responsible government?

[TimG]

Let's give our citizens a REAL role in their own governance

Giving decision making power to a randomly selected group of people is a bad idea.

It also misrepresents the purpose of voting which is:

1) Provide a non-violent way to fire the leaders of government and put a new group in charge.

2) Allow the people to indicate the values/principles which are important to them when decisions are made.

The need for 1) may supersede the need for 2) at times.

That said, the premise is unworkable because you cannot create a truly random sample of people because not everyone has the time or inclination to become involved. Therefore your "pool" of candidates would be heavily biased towards people with strong opinions and little in form of work or family responsibility.

Even if you accepted the bias inherent in the selection process there would be no way to repudiate unpopular decisions. i.e. if the randomly selected pool agrees on a policy that is widely reviled then there is no way for the public to express their displeasure and future of the policy would depend only on the "random" selection of the next committee. Life under such a regime would more resemble a communist state than a democracy.

Edited March 23, 2014 by TimG

[cybercoma]

They are?

It's not representative enough. A party that receives less than 40% of the vote should not have a majority government (both Liberals and Conservatives in the past). That's not to say that they should get over 50% to have a majority, but FPTP is a flawed system when there's multiple parties vying for power.

[On Guard for Thee]

I guess the bottom line here is, of course Harper is going to ram this through just because he can (constitution be damned) so we have to look ahead to election time and make sure we have the proper paperwork in hand so we can go and throw these bums out.

[On Guard for Thee]

It's not representative enough. A party that receives less than 40% of the vote should not have a majority government (both Liberals and Conservatives in the past). That's not to say that they should get over 50% to have a majority, but FPTP is a flawed system when there's multiple parties vying for power.

I agree there are flaws with the FPTP system. I don't know where you're from and I may be telling you something you already know, but in one recent provincial election it was discussed to have a ballot were you could mark it such that me first preference is this candidate, my second is that one, etc, etc. It made sense to me, bu tit didn't happen. It would help to alleviate that situation that if you vote A and I vote B we cancel each other so we may as well have stayed home. More democratic I thought, and it certainly flies in the face of what Harper is up to. (Keep that under your hat OK? I think Vic Teows is reading my emails.)

[hitops]

I have paid fairly close attention to the commitee hearings on C23. The Conservatives have provided no viable argument for anything even close to voter fraud. Perhaps occasional irregularities in that someone here or there may have vouched for more than one voter. Guess what, I certainly know a lot more than 1 person I could vouch for. Don't we all?

To get evidence of voter fraud, you would need a way to detect it, and you would need to look for it.

If I don't look outside all day, I can safely say that I have 'no evidence' that life exists outside my office.

[g_bambino]

A party that receives less than 40% of the vote should not have a majority government...

It should when the other parties each have less than 40% of the vote.

Regardless, even if you see FPTP as unacceptable, that shouldn't equate with the idea that our methods of elective democracy are broken. Broken means they no longer function.

[g_bambino]

I guess the bottom line here is, of course Harper is going to ram this through just because he can (constitution be damned).

What part of the bill is unconstitutional?

[hitops]

Can anyone explain what exactly the problem is to require ID to vote? Seems pretty self evident. It is incredibly easy, not to mention free, to get have some kind of ID.

[On Guard for Thee]

The bill seeks to make changes to our election process without us having any reak say so. Add to that the recent attempt to ignore the constitution with regard to the Nadone attempted appointment and you begin to see a pattern.