Fair Election Act

[The_Squid]

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.

Please tell us (and provide evidence) of why it needs to be changed.

[TimG]

Please tell us (and provide evidence) of why it needs to be changed.

The integrity of the system depends on people believing that reasonable precautions are taken to reduce fraud. The fact that certain segments of the population complain about a reasonable ID requirement only convinces more people that it is necessary.

Another example of the importance of perception: Richmond Skytrain. Originally there were no turnstiles because the transit authority decided (rationally) that the cost of putting them in exceeded the money they might save. But the lack of turnstiles created the impression that the system was open to abuse so Translink relented and put them in.

Edited March 25, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

From what I saw and heard in the comittee meetings, the government failed to provide any substantial evidence that the elections system needs turnstyles. Except of course if you consider their use of Robocalls last time around. Have they brought in a bill to limit their own bad behaviour?

[TimG]

From what I saw and heard in the comittee meetings, the government failed to provide any substantial evidence that the elections system needs turnstyles.

You appeared to miss the point. There are different types of people in the country. Some want to see a system with more checks to insure integrity even if that means fewer people will vote. Others who want fewer checks so more people can vote even if that increases fraud. There is no onus on the people want the system tighten up to show that it is necessary. It is value judgement that they are entitled to make as long as the ID requirements are fair and flexible there then there is nothing wrong with them. Edited March 25, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

There is very definitely an onus on the government to show why they want to change the system, which is why they should have taken the committee on the road to actually ask people how they feel instead of assuming things.

[TimG]

There is very definitely an onus on the government to show why they want to change the system, which is why they should have taken the committee on the road to actually ask people how they feel instead of assuming things.

Why? They are elected to govern. A roadshow does not actually get the opinion of ordinary people - it just collects the opinions of activists with axes to grind. I fail to see why it should have made any difference - especially since no prior government had roadshows before amending the act.

[On Guard for Thee]

I think a lot of people are leary after what went on in the last election. The "roadshow" as you call it may have helped clear the air.

[The_Squid]

The integrity of the system depends on people believing that reasonable precautions are taken to reduce fraud. The fact that certain segments of the population complain about a reasonable ID requirement only convinces more people that it is necessary.Another example of the importance of perception: Richmond Skytrain. Originally there were no turnstiles because the transit authority decided (rationally) that the cost of putting them in exceeded the money they might save. But the lack of turnstiles created the impression that the system was open to abuse so Translink relented and put them in.

Richmond sky train doesn't need photo ID to ride. Your analogy fails. Voting is nothing like riding public transit.

Show how the integrity of the voting system is failing. Cite some voter fraud, like the kind MP Brad Butt lied about... But actual truths this time....

[TimG]

Your analogy fails. Voting is nothing like riding public transit.

I suggest you read the analogy again and think about it. Your response simply shows that your failed to comprehend the point.

To reiterate: the belief in the integrity of system depends on people believing that measures to prevent fraud are in place. A system that depends on the "honour system" may be "good enough" (i.e. losses due to fraud are small) but it bothers people. There is nothing wrong with adopting reasonable measures like ID checks to reduce the perception that the system is open to abuse.

If you had an argument that ID checks are "unreasonable" then you might have a point - but you can't. Your only argument is that that whatever fraud results from the existing system is too small to worry about.

Edited March 25, 2014 by TimG

[Keepitsimple]

I think a lot of people are leary after what went on in the last election. The "roadshow" as you call it may have helped clear the air.

Roadshows attract "squeaky wheels".....especially when egged on by an opposition party like the NDP. Do you seriously think they would present the Act in a constructive manner and similarly ask for constructive feedback? Were you aware that the vast, vast majority of Robocall complaints were the result of form letters made available by third parties? How about the "mob the mike" activities by Environmental "activists" that resulted in thousands of names being added as "speakers" to gum up the pipeline process? This is the mentality that is encouraged to show up at "roadshows".

Edited March 25, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[TimG]

vast majority of Robocall complaints were the result of form letters made available by third parties?

Robo-letters to protest robo-calls? How ironic...

[cybercoma]

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.

Semantics.

First, I didn't say that they shouldn't form government. I said that a majority government, giving them carte blanche to pass any legislation they want, is an issue when a party gets less than 40% of the popular vote. With voter turnout as it is, that's around 25% of eligible voters that gave them their vote. Majority rule with such little support seems qualitatively wrong, even if that's the criteria for FPTP.

Second, broken is obviously not being used to mean "beyond repair" here or that it doesn't function. Of course it functions, but with power concentrated in the PMO and backbenchers with no teeth against the cabinet, representative democracy is not functioning the way it should. You get your say during the election, then after that the boys in short pants call the shots. I would say the average Canadian is aware of enough of the issues, but completely unaware of how Parliament currently functions. I imagine taking a poll of Canadians and asking them what the PMO is, you would be astonished as to how few do. Hell, I bet the politically interested on this forum only have a tenuous grasp on the office.

So it's not that it's "broken" in the way that you're framing it in your reply. It's that it's broken in the sense that it's not working as it should. Government is not held accountable by their backbenchers and the opposition alike. They whip their backbenchers and unelected officials write up their scripts, while the PM demands obedience. You can sit here and say that in theory they're free to make independent decisions, but it's quite obvious that in practice they aren't. They have no teeth to hold the cabinet accountable. (As an aside, this is probably one of the reasons Harper's cabinet is so bloated. With umpteen cabinet posts and their corresponding parliamentary secretaries, there's very few truly independent backbenchers that aren't sycophants looking for a promotion.)

[cybercoma]

If you had an argument that ID checks are "unreasonable" then you might have a point - but you can't. Your only argument is that that whatever fraud results from the existing system is too small to worry about.

Thanks God your logic isn't used to make other laws. We don't create laws then argue that they shouldn't be in place. The burden is on the lawmakers to argue that the law is necessary in the first place. So why not answer the original question: Show evidence of voter fraud being a substantial issue, requiring more restrictive voting legislation. The fact is, we can't get people who are supposed to vote out to the polls, let alone have a problem with systematic fraud. Then you want to advocate for making it MORE difficult? Come on.

Edited March 25, 2014 by cybercoma

[Keepitsimple]

Thanks God your logic isn't used to make other laws. We don't create laws then argue that they shouldn't be in place. The burden is on the lawmakers to argue that the law is necessary in the first place. So why not answer the original question: Show evidence of voter fraud being a substantial issue, requiring more restrictive voting legislation. The fact is, we can't get people who are supposed to vote out to the polls, let alone have a problem with systematic fraud. Then you want to advocate for making it MORE difficult? Come on.

Have you not followed the Robocall "scandal". No one has been able to prove that even one person was prevented from voting. (although I do believe one perrson stepped forward to claim such). But with great difficulty, it's been proven that there was an attempt to fraudulently do so. It's pretty clear that the vouching process creates the circumstances for fraud to occur - and people being people, it will or has occurred - but it would take a whole bunch of effort to prove it happens every 3 or 4 years. So the loopholes are being closed now.

[TimG]

We don't create laws then argue that they shouldn't be in place. The burden is on the lawmakers to argue that the law is necessary in the first place.

Many laws are passed without any evidence that they are necessary. Pick any environmental regulation - chances are the cost of the regulation exceeds any potential harm but people demand laws because they don't want to live with 'acceptable losses'. They want to feel the government is doing everything it can to reduce the losses to zero. Now if you want to argue that this 'evidence of necessity' criteria should be applied across the board then you might have an argument. But I suspect your tune would change when it comes to laws that you think are important.

The fact is, we can't get people who are supposed to vote out to the polls, let alone have a problem with systematic fraud. Then you want to advocate for making it MORE difficult? Come on.

If people are too lazy to vote then that is their problem. Edited March 25, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

I am aware that a federal judge found that fraud did occur and that the source of the calls came from the CIMS system. I now see that Kinglsey has changed his tune a fair bit as well. I guess that A minus might go down a few notches if the CEO isn't left alone and vouching is removed.

[eyeball]

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.

Sure there's a way, you simply put the policy in question to the people.

Life under such a regime would more resemble a communist state than a democracy.

That's just knee-jerk response that can be counted on every single time any meaningful reform that is ever suggested by anyone is made...anywhere.

[eyeball]

Roadshows attract "squeaky wheels".....especially when egged on by an opposition party like the NDP. Do you seriously think they would present the Act in a constructive manner and similarly ask for constructive feedback? Were you aware that the vast, vast majority of Robocall complaints were the result of form letters made available by third parties? How about the "mob the mike" activities by Environmental "activists" that resulted in thousands of names being added as "speakers" to gum up the pipeline process? This is the mentality that is encouraged to show up at "roadshows".

These seem more like symptoms of a democratic process that is as broken as the decision making process is inaccessible - a clear cut example of downward causation.

[TimG]

Sure there's a way, you simply put the policy in question to the people.

Then it becomes government by referenda which places the power in the hands of well moneyed lobbied groups that have money to spend on advertising that pushes hot buttons (see the California ballot measures if you want evidence for how the ballot process is used to advance minority views).

That's just knee-jerk response that can be counted on every single time any meaningful reform that is ever suggested by anyone is made...anywhere.

Because every suggestion I have seen is worse than what we have now. Edited March 26, 2014 by TimG

[eyeball]

Does your disdain for special interests using their money to lobby the public extend to doing the same thing with the government?

If there is something wrong with money and lobbyists, what would you suggest be done about it?

Edited March 26, 2014 by eyeball

[WWWTT]

Nothing like first entering into a thread swinging hard is there?

Thanks for proving your a run a fascist political party Harper!

WWWTT

[TimG]

Does your disdain for special interests using their money to lobby the public extend to doing the same thing with the government?

I don't see any real evidence that lobby groups have a huge impact on the policy process in Canada. I know that conspiracy theorists everywhere claim that lobby groups manipulate the process but making claims don't mean it is true. Parties of all stripes seem to favour policies that favour the groups that are likely to get them elected rather than narrow lobby groups.

In the US where individual representatives are free lancers means it is a lot easier for lobby groups to purchase the votes of individual members.

Edited March 26, 2014 by TimG

[hitops]

Nothing like first entering into a thread swinging hard is there?

Thanks for proving your a run a fascist political party Harper!

WWWTT

Hey, this cartoon shows only a white guy voting. You must be racist.

[eyeball]

I don't see any real evidence that lobby groups have a huge impact on the policy process in Canada. I know that conspiracy theorists everywhere claim that lobby groups manipulate the process but making claims don't mean it is true. Parties of all stripes seem to favour policies that favour the groups that are likely to get them elected rather than narrow lobby groups.

In the US where individual representatives are free lancers means it is a lot easier for lobby groups to purchase the votes of individual members.

All the same, is it safe to assume you're against making in-camera lobbying illegal?

Of course you don't see any evidence of lobbying, you're not supposed to.

[guyser]

I don't see any real evidence that lobby groups have a huge impact on the policy process in Canada.

Im guessing you will change your tune the minute someone says.....Environmental Group....right?

I know that conspiracy theorists everywhere claim that lobby groups manipulate the process but making claims don't mean it is true.

And you have been adamant to shut down environmental groups since you think they only want to stop progress and make us poor.

So you are in the conspiracy theorist camp?

Edited March 26, 2014 by Guyser2