Fair Election Act

[On Guard for Thee]

Obviously not. I just did a really quick scan of this thread and within less than a minute I found four posts that answer the question.

Then why cant Poilievre seem to find it?

[Bryan]

Then why cant Poilievre seem to find it?

He's been pretty clear as well. Perhaps you're suffered a head injury and it's affecting your memory?

[On Guard for Thee]

He's been challenged countless times to provide evidence of fraud, and so far nothing. Maybe you both suffer from head injuries.

[eyeball]

I just did a really quick scan of this thread and within less than a minute I found four posts that answer the question.

Which four?

[Keepitsimple]

Once again, it's useful to see what's going on in other parts of the world. In the UK, the Electoral Commission (Marc Mayrand's counterpart) is the one proposing Voter ID - and much more restrictive than we have in our Fair Elections Act. Why? To combat fraud. Here's a balanced article that demonstrates that Canada's approach provides a lot more flexibility to those who might be at risk of being "disenfranchised".

At first sight, the suggestion from the Electoral Commission that voters should be required to show photographic ID at polling stations appears sensible. On closer examination, it is not so straightforward. The rationale for the move is to reduce the incidence of electoral fraud. Yet the latter is, as Jenny Watson, chairman of the commission, pointed out, fairly unusual. So before the entire population is required to provide such ID, there should surely be a greater effort to clamp down on fraud where it is known to exist.

The commission identifies 16 “suspect” areas and makes the point that some communities, “specifically those with roots in parts of Pakistan or Bangladesh”, are particularly vulnerable to the practice. Yet politicians are reluctant to say so, not least because when they do, the roof caves in – as Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, found a few weeks ago when he raised the issue in an interview with this newspaper. He was forced to apologise after being criticised not just by his political opponents but even by his colleague Grant Shapps, the Conservative Party chairman. But Mr Grieve was right: effective policing of electoral fraud where it is suspected should be a priority. To that end, data from the 16 suspected fraud “hot spots” should be published, not covered up.

As for the rest of us, the Electoral Commission proposes that by 2019, a passport, driving licence or bus pass should be produced before ballot papers are issued. Yet not everyone, especially older people, has these documents. Are they to be disfranchised because they cannot provide them?

Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/10558897/Voter-ID-cards-will-not-solve-electoral-fraud.html

[cybercoma]

Once again, it's useful to see what's going on in other parts of the world.

No. It really isn't. What would be useful is to demonstrate the amount and the severity of voter fraud before monkeying with people's ability to vote easily.

[Bryan]

What would be useful is to demonstrate the amount and the severity of voter fraud before monkeying with people's ability to vote easily.

There is no reason to demonstrate anything. Even if it had never happened, that would still be irrelevant. If a bank has never been robbed, they still keep the money in the vault. They still lock the doors at night. Asking for ID to show that you are eligible to vote is the very least we should do, especially since the list of acceptable IDs (and exceptions to them) is so comprehensive. Not expecting people to prove who they are to vote is irrational. If anything, the new proposals are still far too lax.

[On Guard for Thee]

Not according to the senate apparently.

[Bryan]

Not according to the senate apparently.

The Senate did not change any substantial part of the bill. They made some good suggestions, some of which were already the intent of the legislation but were just not as clear as they should be. The Senate should be commended for treating the bill with respect, and making suggestions based on merit rather than partisanship.

[On Guard for Thee]

Partisanship? one of Harper's own appointed senators said if the amendments weren't made she wanted to tie it up for as long as was possible in the senate. Poilievre is still stonewalling but it's not hard to imagine the strategy. I can almost hear the chatter that this bill will be very unpopular and may drive our polls even lower, but if we push as hard as possible and maybe make a couple of insignificant changes if we absolutely have to, we can get it through and stop those nasty beggars who don't vote for us from voting at all in the poll that really counts. And I think the changes they want are a little more important than you make out.

[cybercoma]

There is no reason to demonstrate anything. Even if it had never happened, that would still be irrelevant. If a bank has never been robbed, they still keep the money in the vault. They still lock the doors at night. Asking for ID to show that you are eligible to vote is the very least we should do, especially since the list of acceptable IDs (and exceptions to them) is so comprehensive. Not expecting people to prove who they are to vote is irrational. If anything, the new proposals are still far too lax.

you've supported nothing with these comments. You keep saying should should should without ever explaining why or showing that it's necessary. Meanwhile, there's potential for one of the most fundamental rights to be violated.

[Bryan]

you've supported nothing with these comments. You keep saying should should should without ever explaining why or showing that it's necessary. Meanwhile, there's potential for one of the most fundamental rights to be violated.

You've shown no evidence whatsoever that anyone's rights are bering violated. Everyone will have the same expectations, and the requirements will still be extremely lax.

[eyeball]

In this case, evidence should be the burden of the prior claimants. In this case that would be Harper, Poilievre and you.

So which four posts that you mentioned contain this evidence Bryan?

[cybercoma]

And besides, we're talking about legislation that has yet to be passed. How do I show you that people's rights ARE BEING violated when the law isn't in effect yet? People in the field have made arguments that it would cause problems. Do the benefits outweigh the potential risks? Not at all. Nobody has demonstrated ANY benefit whatsoever.

[Bryan]

And besides, we're talking about legislation that has yet to be passed. How do I show you that people's rights ARE BEING violated when the law isn't in effect yet? People in the field have made arguments that it would cause problems. Do the benefits outweigh the potential risks? Not at all. Nobody has demonstrated ANY benefit whatsoever.

Security and integrity of the process, that's the benefit. Being better than a banana republic with respect to actual democracy, that's the benefit. Opposition to it is partisan extremism and hypocrisy.

[eyeball]

Opposition to it is partisan extremism and hypocrisy.

Support is based on evidence, or so it's claimed.

[On Guard for Thee]

Security and integrity of the process, that's the benefit. Being better than a banana republic with respect to actual democracy, that's the benefit. Opposition to it is partisan extremism and hypocrisy.

So Shiela Fraser is an extreme hypocrite? Or is that only when she's criticising Conservatives and not Liberals? Kinda sounds like you are partaking in a little extreme hypocrisy of your own.

[Bryan]

So Shiela Fraser is an extreme hypocrite? Or is that only when she's criticising Conservatives and not Liberals? Kinda sounds like you are partaking in a little extreme hypocrisy of your own.

Sheila Fraser is saying what she's being paid to say.

[On Guard for Thee]

Sheila Fraser is saying what she's being paid to say.

So then so must Mayrand, Neufeld, and seemingly countless other experts? That goes beyong hypocrisy and all the way to paranoia I think.

[Bryan]

Neufeld is a curious case. In the report, he clearly says that Elections Canada is incapable of ensuring the integrity of Elections in Canada. Now he says otherwise. He appears to have gone to the Vic Toews school of report writing: he appears to have not even READ it, let alone wrote it.

[On Guard for Thee]

Neufeld is a curious case. In the report, he clearly says that Elections Canada is incapable of ensuring the integrity of Elections in Canada. Now he says otherwise. He appears to have gone to the Vic Toews school of report writing: he appears to have not even READ it, let alone wrote it.

I don't think Neufeld says anything like that. Poilievere on the other hand slants it so. And since you brought up Vic Toews, isn't he an even bigger, or at least equal embarrasement for Harper?

[Bryan]

It was silly of Toews to present that bill with his name on it before he'd read the whole thing, he definitely got caught with his pants down.

[On Guard for Thee]

It wasn't so much the presenting of the bill (which was of course a complete horrorshow) it was his statement that if you don't accept this bill then you must be a child pornographer. Oh well now he's been appointed a supreme court judge in Manitoba. I call that pretty scary.

[Bryan]

it was his statement that if you don't accept this bill then you must be a child pornographer.

Of course, that is not what he said.

[On Guard for Thee]

Of course, that is not what he said.

"people can either stand with us, or stand with the child pornographers" is exactly what he said.