Fair Election Act

[eyeball]

Responsibility my ass.

It does sound trite, especially in the face of politicians who have irresponsibly not lived up to their right honourable titles and who have infected our democracy with their dishonesty.

Piss on them and their ill gotten privileges.

[guyser]

I have not seen a single one of those on this site.

Then simply you have NOT looked.

Or blind

Your choice I suppose

[-TSS-]

How is the project going on to move towards PR in the electoral system? Let me guess: It is going nowhere. In Canada just as well as in the UK the big parties just don't want to share power, which would be the inevitable outcome of PR.

[Topaz]

Watching the senate Committee on this and one of the senators asked Pierre why wasn't the government doing more to crack the robo calls, and why weren't they trying to find out who used the Tory data base for those robocalls, which is fraud. Pierre, changed the channel to vouching, in his answer.

[Keepitsimple]

Watching the senate Committee on this and one of the senators asked Pierre why wasn't the government doing more to crack the robo calls, and why weren't they trying to find out who used the Tory data base for those robocalls, which is fraud. Pierre, changed the channel to vouching, in his answer.

You know the answer. The case is before the courts - Michael Sona has been charged and the case will start in June. A Tory staffer has been granted immunity to testify. I'm sure we'll learn a whole bunch about the robo-call "scandal" very soon.

[On Guard for Thee]

It looks like Rob Anders got into the robocall act in his attempt to retain power in Signal Hill. I guess that backfired badly! Will the cons never learn?

[Big Guy]

The Senate committee has decided to propose a number of amendments to this bill. This is a committee headed by a Conservative and with a Conservative majority. This means that the bill will probably be sent back for more deliberation.

Is this the Senate going rogue?

Is this the Senate trying to re-establish its "chamber of second thought" mandate?

Is this the start of a revolt in the Conservative Party?

Is this the end of Pierre Poilievre?

Is this the end of this bill?

Is this much ado about nothing?

[Keepitsimple]

The Senate committee has decided to propose a number of amendments to this bill. This is a committee headed by a Conservative and with a Conservative majority. This means that the bill will probably be sent back for more deliberation.

Is this the Senate going rogue?

Is this the Senate trying to re-establish its "chamber of second thought" mandate?

Is this the start of a revolt in the Conservative Party?

Is this the end of Pierre Poilievre?

Is this the end of this bill?

Is this much ado about nothing?

Much ado about nothing. The Senate is doing its job......and the tweaks seem reasonable to consider. Vouching is still eliminated except for the attestations for the homeless. Although Trudeau has completely divorced LIberals from their Senators, the Conservatives have not done the same. One could say that the Senate recommendations provide "cover" for the government to make changes to a rough-edged bill, show that they are not inflexible (it's those bad opposition parties) - while at the same time, allowing the Senate to reclaim some legitimacy.

[WWWTT]

Here's the link to the above comments

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/senate-flexes-muscles-over-fair-elections-act/article17955323/

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

For those who know how parliament works, this is the end of the bill!

Same thing happened with bill C-377.

It will be sent back, if it ever makes it to the senate. And by that time we'll be staring down spring 2015, and the conservatives will have no stomach for poll numbers in the low 20% range!

WWWTT

[waldo]

oh my! Following lock-step with the Harper Conservative "Unfair Elections Act" intent to change the role of Elections Canada, Conservative Senator Linda Frum claims Elections Canada's existing mandate to "get out the vote" is in conflict with administering/ensuring fair elections... a conflict of interest because disqualifying fraudulent votes would lower voter turnout.

Elections Canada is a bureaucracy with two missions: to ensure the integrity of the voting process and also to promote voter turnout. Those two missions are contradictory. You want the biggest vote total? Accept every ballot. You want to eliminate voter fraud? Eliminating improper ballots may reduce vote totals.

apparently, to Ms. Frum (and Harper Conservatives), the role of motivating or increasing the number of voters is the job/role of politicians!!!

[Michael Hardner]

Will the cons never learn?

Hi there OGFT - just to remind that terms like 'cons' 'flibberals' 'dippers' and such are generally not supposed to be used on the board. Thanks.

[cybercoma]

Politicians have absolutely no conflict of interest when it comes to getting people out to the polls. Whatever you say, Linda. I wonder what her speech-writing husband is up to these days?

[cybercoma]

Hi there OGFT - just to remind that terms like 'cons' 'flibberals' 'dippers' and such are generally not supposed to be used on the board. Thanks.

I was always under the impression that Cons was an acceptable shorthand, as Libs is for the Liberals. I tend to use CPC and LPC to avoid any of these inconsistently applied rules anyway.

[waldo]

Politicians have absolutely no conflict of interest when it comes to getting people out to the polls. Whatever you say, Linda. I wonder what her speech-writing husband is up to these days?

Conservative Senator Linda Frum took quite a twitter assault for her ridiculous comments... to the point she doubled down with an op-ed the G&M was all too willing to publish:

her brother seemed to disappear there for a while, although I did see him pop-up on Bill Maher/Morning Joe. Oh wait, it seems being a former Bush speechwriter/(former) conservative blowhard still has deemed value in some corners with his recent appointment to The Atlantic. Of course, I say "former" as he really seemed to become the Republican outcast for calling out the Tea Party and the failed tactics/positions of the GOP and its prominent leaders/candidates: --- David Frum Named Senior Editor at The Atlantic

Edited April 15, 2014 by waldo

[Bryan]

The Senate committee has decided to propose a number of amendments to this bill. This is a committee headed by a Conservative and with a Conservative majority. This means that the bill will probably be sent back for more deliberation.

Is this the Senate going rogue?

Is this the Senate trying to re-establish its "chamber of second thought" mandate?

Is this the start of a revolt in the Conservative Party?

Is this the end of Pierre Poilievre?

Is this the end of this bill?

Is this much ado about nothing?

Much ado about nothing. It's all part of the process. Polievre himself asked the Senate to propose amendments to the bill.

Ms. Frum said Mr. Poilievre asked senators in a closed-door meeting for proposed changes, and the committee took him up on it.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/proposed-changes-to-election-rules-not-a-rebuke-of-tories-senator-says/article18005444/

[waldo]

Much ado about nothing. It's all part of the process. Polievre himself asked the Senate to propose amendments to the bill.

oh please! Polievre only did that for optics... and he only did it after receiving the weeks long barrage of criticisms, to him personally and to Harper Conservatives broadly. Let's see what actually gets revised and then you can "possibly" speak to "much ado about nothing".

[On Guard for Thee]

 

Much ado about nothing. It's all part of the process. Polievre himself asked the Senate to propose amendments to the bill.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/proposed-changes-to-election-rules-not-a-rebuke-of-tories-senator-says/article18005444/

 

It's quite fun watching Poilievre being put in his place. I think Mulcair's description of "smarmy arrogance" was adept. More time wasted on a bill which only seeks to taint the upcoming election. It's gonna bacjfire big time IMO.

[Bryan]

How is he being put in his place? He's got a right to have an attitude about this with all of the outright lies coming from the left over what's actually in the bill.

[On Guard for Thee]

How is he being put in his place? He's got a right to have an attitude about this with all of the outright lies coming from the left over what's actually in the bill.

He's being put in his place by the overwhelming resistance to his bill. And I wouldn't call Harper appointed senators "the left" by a longshot. And so now you are calling Shiela Fraser, various past and present CEO's at EC and a myriad of elections experts....liars? No I think most of us of whatever stripe know who the liar's are.

[Bryan]

What resistance? A bunch of paid parrots continually repeating the same left-wing talking points that have already been completely debunked.

Sheila Fraser? When she calls this bill "an attack on democracy", yes, she is lying. You don't see her publicly railing against Quebec and Ontario who already don't allow vouching in provincial elections.

[On Guard for Thee]

What resistance? A bunch of paid parrots continually repeating the same left-wing talking points that have already been completely debunked.

Sheila Fraser? When she calls this bill "an attack on democracy", yes, she is lying. You don't see her publicly railing against Quebec and Ontario who already don't allow vouching in provincial elections.

What resistance? Have you been under a rock? Never mind Shiela Fraser if you are such a right wing parrot not to understand how well she is respected across this country, go check the Harper appointed senators who want this bill heavily altered or dumped altogether.

[Bryan]

What resistance? Have you been under a rock? Never mind Shiela Fraser if you are such a right wing parrot not to understand how well she is respected across this country, go check the Harper appointed senators who want this bill heavily altered or dumped altogether.

The Senate's proposed changes to the bill are quite minor, none even remotely enter the realm of "heavily altered", and they most certainly are not suggesting dumping it. They emphatically rejected the idea of reinstating vouching.

[On Guard for Thee]

The Senate's proposed changes to the bill are quite minor, none even remotely enter the realm of "heavily altered", and they most certainly are not suggesting dumping it. They emphatically rejected the idea of reinstating vouching.

Apparently you are reading different news than I am. One of the 9 major changes the senate proposed was to exchange vouching with letters of attestation. Same idea.

[Bryan]

The letter of attestation provision was already in the original bill.