Fair Election Act

[On Guard for Thee]

Well you can blame the media if you want. I doubt they made up a story that most of the calls were directed at non CPC voters. What would the point be of that?

[Bryan]

The same point their other anti-CPC reporting. It's what they do.

[On Guard for Thee]

As the old saying goes, "paranoia will destroy ya'" I try and assess the words that come out of a politicians mouth not by the party of the speaker, but by the veracity of the words. I have crticized what I felt was BS as I saw it. Harper is full of it. The press didn't put the words into his mouth, he did.

[cybercoma]

No one is asking for that. All they want is for you to prove that you are who you say you are. If you can't be bothered to do that, you're the one who decided that democracy is not that important to you.

People are already required to prove they are who they say they are.

What if I told you I was actually a dinosaur?

It's completely relevant to what you're saying. You're arguing that people shouldn't be opposed to the legislation because it's easy to pay $20 and get ID if you need it. Well, if it's so easy to pay $20, why don't we ask everyone in the electorate to cough up $20 to offset the costs of the election?

The simple answer is because it disenfranchises voters and discourages voter turnout. Even if one could afford $20, they may not be willing to pay it to vote. That's not even getting into the problem with getting ID like transportation and other required documentation that people may not have.

All of this to solve a problem that no one has shown exists.

[cybercoma]

Yeah but the unfair elections act doesn't seek to close that off.

Exactly. It solves problems that don't exist by creating a crapload more problems.

[cybercoma]

That's the narrative the media tried to portray.

The same point their other anti-CPC reporting. It's what they do.

Did it ever occur to you that the media seems to be anti-CPC because the CPC does painfully stupid things?

[hitops]

No proof? Here's the problem: If you never look for evidence, and you don't even have a mechanism to look for it, obviously you won't find it

How would you ever prove electoral fraud from in eligible vouching? You can't. If there was mass fraud, there would no way to know.

[Smallc]

Who are these people that don't have ID anyway?

[cybercoma]

Who are these people that don't have ID anyway?

If I'm a student and I don't drive, then the only ID I would probably carry around with me is my student card (if that) and health card. If I'm living in another province for school, my parents might have my birth certificate and social insurance cards. What other photo ID with a signature would I have? If I'm an elderly person living in a retirement home, perhaps I don't drive anymore, so I would no longer have a license. Same for them, what photo ID with a signature and address would they have? Probably none. Those are just two examples I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure if I took two seconds to search Google, there's probably plenty more examples with the criticism of this law and the Republican laws just like it south of the border.

[On Guard for Thee]

I wonder how many more past and present elections experts opinions they will continue to ignore as they try to ram this thing home. I wonder who, if anybody, they consulted on this. They seem to like to shoot themselves in the foot as well. Noone is paying much attention to their attempts at free trade deals and other business.

[eyeball]

I wonder how many more past and present elections experts opinions they will continue to ignore as they try to ram this thing home. I wonder who, if anybody, they consulted on this. They seem to like to shoot themselves in the foot as well. Noone is paying much attention to their attempts at free trade deals and other business.

It'll probably be on par with the numbers of experts they ignore when it comes to mental illness, economics, crime, climate, fish, etc etc...why no one is paying much attention to that is the real mystery.

Pass the popcorn.

[Keepitsimple]

Damn right! You start trying to steal my vote from me I've got two words for you and they ain't "happy birthday". The Tories keep trying to erase the word "irregularities" from the EC reports and replace it with "frauds" and nobody's buying it. I happen to have a DL in my wallet but I have a good friend who does not, she never has. Is she Canadian, you bet. Would I vouch for her, you bet. I just can't envision this wave of fraudulent voters convening at the polling stations with all these fraudulent vouchers in tow. If there is any evidence of this, Polievre can't seem to find it, try as he might.

Couldn't find any Robocall voters who were prevented from voting either - but you damn well know there was an effort. Same here - can't prove it but you know its happening in some form or another. I don't particularly like calling it fraud - I'd rather stick. with "ineligible voters"

[Smallc]

If I'm a student and I don't drive, then the only ID I would probably carry around with me is my student card (if that) and health card. If I'm living in another province for school, my parents might have my birth certificate and social insurance cards. What other photo ID with a signature would I have? If I'm an elderly person living in a retirement home, perhaps I don't drive anymore, so I would no longer have a license. Same for them, what photo ID with a signature and address would they have? Probably none. Those are just two examples I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure if I took two seconds to search Google, there's probably plenty more examples with the criticism of this law and the Republican laws just like it south of the border.

I just don't understand how you can survive without photo ID. There are so many things that you can't do.

[On Guard for Thee]

You not being able to find them doesn't mean they don't exist. There could well be many who didn't bother to report. More to the point, it was the attempt that is totally illegal.

[On Guard for Thee]

I think they fired all the experts, especially around environment. Who needs those nasty people telling you things you don't want to hear?

[cybercoma]

I just don't understand how you can survive without photo ID. There are so many things that you can't do.

It doesn't matter. There are people who don't use it or don't need it. At the end of the day, we have the current Chief Electoral Officer, the past Chief Electoral Officer, the person responsible for investigating electoral fraud in the last election, and numerous experts on electoral law saying that this piece of legislation is abysmal. When that many experts on the matter say it's garbage, there really is no reasonable explanation for defending it.

Andrew Coyne tells it like it is: http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpost.com%2F2014%2F03%2F28%2Fandrew-coyne-fair-elections-act-proof-the-conservatives-are-no-normal-government

If this were a normal government, it would have sought the widest possible input on the bill, in recognition that this was no ordinary piece of legislation. Even a radical government, with little time for consensus-seeking in pursuit of its agenda, would understand that an elections bill is different, in that it touches, not just on this or that question of policy, on which there will always be disagreement, but on the public’s faith in the democratic process — on which there should be no disagreement. Indeed, a radical government would be especially concerned on this point — for it would want to arm itself with an unassailable popular mandate to enact the changes it desired.

Coyne continues:

But as this is not a normal government, Mr. Poilievre has instead doubled down. To the detailed objections of its critics, he offers nothing but the same, and I mean exactly the same, talking points, recited without evident effort to persuade but merely to impress upon his listeners how genuinely uninterested in their opinion he is. To Mr. Neufeld’s complaints at having his report misrepresented, he responds that Mr. Neufeld does not understand his own report. The inaccurate and out-of-context passages he had cited from it were, he told Parliament, quoted “accurately and in context.” If Mr. Neufeld did not wish to use these words, he blithely told the CBC’s Evan Solomon, he should not have written them

There is absolutely no excuse for this kind of behaviour. There is no defending it. It's baffling that anyone would stand behind such reprehensible "leadership" and I cringe even calling it that.

[cybercoma]

You not being able to find them doesn't mean they don't exist. There could well be many who didn't bother to report. More to the point, it was the attempt that is totally illegal.

Aside from the fact that they do exist, it hardly matters. The government is changing the way elections are handled without consultation. They're under investigation for the misuse of CIMS and fraud in the last election, so it obviously looks like they're trying to make it easier to fix the next election and to coverup wrongdoing they've done in the past. That brings into question the legitimacy of elections, which should never happen in a democratic nation. They're re-writing the very laws that they're being investigated under. That anyone would defend that is incomprehensible.

[hitops]

If I'm a student and I don't drive, then the only ID I would probably carry around with me is my student card (if that) and health card. If I'm living in another province for school, my parents might have my birth certificate and social insurance cards. What other photo ID with a signature would I have? If I'm an elderly person living in a retirement home, perhaps I don't drive anymore, so I would no longer have a license. Same for them, what photo ID with a signature and address would they have? Probably none. Those are just two examples I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure if I took two seconds to search Google, there's probably plenty more examples with the criticism of this law and the Republican laws just like it south of the border.

Well if you took 2 seconds to search google, you'd find that both those people have other forms of acceptable ID.

Student:

- Internet bill

- Phone Bill

- Any utility bill

- Bank or credit card statement

- Any correspondence from university

- Any correspondence from student loans

- Attestation of residence by dormitory

- Student card

- Library card

- Public transportation

- Debit Card

- Health Card

Senior

- Any utility

- Internet

- Phone

- Attestation of residence by old folks home

- Statement from OSS

- Statement from CPP

- Statement from social assistance

- Library card

- Health card

- Long term care hospital bracelet

You can't think of any way those people could vote? Give me a break. When I was a student I had at least 15 of the acceptable items, and that's just the ones I can think of now.

We don't have any way of detecting voter fraud, so we haven't detected any. I can't think of a single person who would be actually incapable of voting. Perhaps a wild human who has gone undetected by society and raised by wolves.

[cybercoma]

Keep defending this clearly indefensible law. I'm not interested in the misguided opinions of a keyboard warrior when we've already heard from electoral officers and experts on it. The law will disenfranchise voters. That should be unacceptable to anyone, regardless of political affiliation.

[hitops]

Keep defending this clearly indefensible law. I'm not interested in the misguided opinions of a keyboard warrior when we've already heard from electoral officers and experts on it. The law will disenfranchise voters. That should be unacceptable to anyone, regardless of political affiliation.

2 merit points to you for 'appeal to authority' argument.

Care you address the points? I guess you've never bothered to look at the list of ID's before. 'The experts' shouldn't do your thinking for you here.

[cybercoma]

The arguments are out there. It's not the appeal to authority that's the argument. It's the fact that you nor the Conservative have provided any evidence that this legislation solves a real problem, whilst those authorities have argued that it will create a monumental problem that undermines people's fundamental democratic rights. That's why your position is completely indefensible and why this isn't just some mundane piece of policy.

[Smallc]

The law is completely defensible. It's every Canadians right to vote, but that right has to be protected, and anyone voting should be who they say they are.

[cybercoma]

Show there's a serious case of voter fraud that requires a measure to be taken that will disenfranchise voters, then I'll humour your suggestion that it's defensible.

[On Guard for Thee]

There's some interesting "doublespeak" in C23 as well. Polievre talks about how it would thwart the use of robocalls since it increases penalties for the practice, at the same time taking the power to investigate from elections Canada and giving it to the director of public prosecutions. No power to compel witnesses to testify, no more report to parliament. Yep, tougher penalties, if you ever get caught.

[Smallc]

Show there's a serious case of voter fraud that requires a measure to be taken that will disenfranchise voters, then I'll humour your suggestion that it's defensible.

Why does it have to be a serious case? Isn't any amount of voter fraud too much?