Fair Election Act

[cybercoma]

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

Why does it have to be a serious case to create restrictions that will disenfranchise voters according to experts? Are you really asking that?

[Smallc]

But it shouldn't disenfranchise anyone, because there's no reason that, given the ID requirements, people can't prove who they are at a polling station.

[Big Guy]

I believe that the basic tenet of our democracy is that every member of our society is allowed a vote and that all votes are of equal value. That means that the very poor, homeless, middle class and rich should all be provided with an equal opportunity to cast their vote. I also believe that special accommodation has to be made for those who would have difficulty in being able to vote because of their living conditions and financial status.

The current process is one that has evolved over the years and has resulted in the election of the Conservatives as a majority government. Do the Conservatives want to change the process because they feel the process was so faulty that they got elected to a majority?

Strange way for these folks to act.

[On Guard for Thee]

But it shouldn't disenfranchise anyone, because there's no reason that, given the ID requirements, people can't prove who they are at a polling station.

Then why do the experts claim it could disenfranchise something in the order of half a million people? Neufelds report, (that's the one Polievre keeps on misquoting) claims that 400,000 voters used VIC's and a further 120,000 were vouched for. There's your half million. Of course we all know the embarrasment Brad Butt caused when he got caught in a lie over the VIC's.

[hitops]

Double post.

Edited March 31, 2014 by hitops

[hitops]

Then why do the experts claim it could disenfranchise something in the order of half a million people? Neufelds report, (that's the one Polievre keeps on misquoting) claims that 400,000 voters used VIC's and a further 120,000 were vouched for. There's your half million. Of course we all know the embarrasment Brad Butt caused when he got caught in a lie over the VIC's.

It doesn't claim to disenfranchise 400,000 people. It claims that 400,000 people used VIC. Those are different things.

If you get a card in the mail that is uniquely for voting, obviously you would think of using that when it comes time to vote. If you remove that card, those people don't magically get transformed into stumbling brain-dead zombies, flailing hopelessly. They just do whatever they did before that card came out.

It's like saying if you take away somebody's motorcycle license, they can't drive a car either.

Edited March 31, 2014 by hitops

[On Guard for Thee]

This assumes that those people don't have any other way to vote, which is a false assumption.

If you received in the mail, a card specifically for the purpose of voting, obviously you would think of using that to vote. That has nothing to do with whether you would have voted another way if that card had not come.

So what was the purpose of Brad Butt's bald faced lie then? Why is Polievere misquoting Harry Neufeld? If they could come up with some real evidence of voter fraud, folks might buy it. If you buy it, I have some great property I'd like to show you.

[hitops]

So what was the purpose of Brad Butt's bald faced lie then? Why is Polievere misquoting Harry Neufeld? If they could come up with some real evidence of voter fraud, folks might buy it. If you buy it, I have some great property I'd like to show you.

Don't know. Did you have a response to my post?

[On Guard for Thee]

Don't know. Did you have a response to my post?

"Don't know" is not a response, it's a copout. The good news in my book is that they CPC keeps flogging this turkey, and Polievre is such a bunglar that the whole mess is driving their polls into the muck, which is where I want them come 2015.

[ReeferMadness]

It doesn't claim to disenfranchise 400,000 people. It claims that 400,000 people used VIC. Those are different things.

If you get a card in the mail that is uniquely for voting, obviously you would think of using that when it comes time to vote. If you remove that card, those people don't magically get transformed into stumbling brain-dead zombies, flailing hopelessly. They just do whatever they did before that card came out.

It's like saying if you take away somebody's motorcycle license, they can't drive a car either.

Even for the internet, the level of debate on this issue is so low, it's disgraceful. Over the past several elections, the Conservatives have continually bent and broken Election Canada rules and for that they have been rightly criticized. In fact, if anything, they've gotten away with some pretty serious violations of election laws.

So, the response of our Dear Leader Chairman Harper is to weaken Elections Canada and disenfranchise poor people. This is such an outrage that these guys should be tossed out of office. Instead, we have people who are so busy kissing Harper's ass and arguing technicalities that they can't be bothered to look at what's going on.

Andrew Coyne should be an ideological friend of this government (he's a believer in smaller government, more accountability and lower taxes). The fact that he is one of its leading critics should tell you just how screwed up this government is.

[On Guard for Thee]

I do hope the RCMP get their stuff concluded and start laying charges. I would love to see Harper testifying under oath. And I wouldn't really care if it was Robocalls or Senate scandal, just so's he had to actually be "very clear" about something, for once.

[hitops]

"Don't know" is not a response, it's a copout. The good news in my book is that they CPC keeps flogging this turkey, and Polievre is such a bunglar that the whole mess is driving their polls into the muck, which is where I want them come 2015.

That's great but once again has nothing to do with anything in my post.

Various conservatives could well be total clowns worthy of losing their seats. I'm debating the bill on its merits, not its authors.

There exists a reality of debate beyond team a vs team b, much as posters here may struggle to believe

Edited March 31, 2014 by hitops

[hitops]

Even for the internet, the level of debate on this issue is so low, it's disgraceful. Over the past several elections, the Conservatives have continually bent and broken Election Canada rules and for that they have been rightly criticized. In fact, if anything, they've gotten away with some pretty serious violations of election laws.

So, the response of our Dear Leader Chairman Harper is to weaken Elections Canada and disenfranchise poor people. This is such an outrage that these guys should be tossed out of office. Instead, we have people who are so busy kissing Harper's ass and arguing technicalities that they can't be bothered to look at what's going on.

Andrew Coyne should be an ideological friend of this government (he's a believer in smaller government, more accountability and lower taxes). The fact that he is one of its leading critics should tell you just how screwed up this government is.

You're a perfect example of the debate you're complaining of. I don't think there's a single substantive point in this post.

You hate the CPC. Ok good for you, I don't like them either.

What dose that have to do with the bill? I've seen tons of posts like yours all claiming this massive disenfranchisement.

What I haven't seen is any credible argument to support that, nor a single example of a person who would not be able to vote after these changes. Can you offer one?

Oh wait wait.....I've figured it out. The conservatives have a secret plan to stop the old from voting....because they.....always vote conservative?

Edited March 31, 2014 by hitops

[On Guard for Thee]

That's great but once again has nothing to do with anything in my post.

Various conservatives could well be total clowns worthy of losing their seats. I'm debating the bill on its merits, not its authors.

There exists a reality of debate beyond team a vs team b, much as posters here may struggle to believe

I don't see such a struggle. I see the naysayers such as myself referring to the overwhelming flood of opinion from electoral experts who say the bill is undemocratic and possibly unconstitutional and needs to be amended or chucked.

[hitops]

I don't see such a struggle. I see the naysayers such as myself referring to the overwhelming flood of opinion from electoral experts who say the bill is undemocratic and possibly unconstitutional and needs to be amended or chucked.

I've also heard those people, what I haven't heard is a logical argument from them as to why. They love to say there's no evidence of fraud. Well there's also no proof that this law would disenfranchise anyone. A single other precedent example would do. None are offered.

I have yet to head a single example of person who could not vote under these changes, or even a theoretical person who could not.

Edited March 31, 2014 by hitops

[On Guard for Thee]

And no, the old don't always vote conservative. Nor do the majority of aboriginal people. Both groups which stand to be disenfranchised by this bill. Once again, if they could come up with some credible evidence of fraud, the bill itself might have some credibility. Up to now that hasn't happenned.

[On Guard for Thee]

Here's where your little argument falls apart: you say "they love to say there's no evidence of fraud" and then you carry on stating emphatically "there is no proof this law would disenfranchise anyone" That's so easy to pick apart. Especially when the "they" you speak of are previous chief electoral officers, constitutional experts, university profs. That same "they" say the bill could disenfranchise up to a half million voters.

Edited March 31, 2014 by On Guard for Thee

[Keepitsimple]

Here's where your little argument falls apart: you say "they love to say there's no evidence of fraud" and then you carry on stating emphatically "there is no proof this law would disenfranchise anyone" That's so easy to pick apart. Especially when the "they" you speak of are previous chief electoral officers, constitutional experts, university profs. That same "they" say the bill could disenfranchise up to a half million voters.

Precisely the type of nonsense that polarizes the debate. In saying that half a million people "could be dis-enfranchised", they are saying that almost 5% of the voting population does not have the proper identification - out of 39 eligible pieces to choose from. If that were really the case, Canada would have a much more serious problem - and it would have nothing to do with elections. That's why "expert" comments like that are so completely irresponsible.

Edited March 31, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[hitops]

Here's where your little argument falls apart: you say "they love to say there's no evidence of fraud" and then you carry on stating emphatically "there is no proof this law would disenfranchise anyone" That's so easy to pick apart. Especially when the "they" you speak of are previous chief electoral officers, constitutional experts, university profs. That same "they" say the bill could disenfranchise up to a half million voters.

lol this exactly proves my point. You claim that my argument is easy to pick apart.......and then fail to do it. You prefer to just refer to some great 'other', and I suppose hope that they can.

Like those who haven't even bothered to become familiar with the bill, but quickly claim disenfranchisement, I doubt you've bothered to become familiar with these experts arguments either. They are no better than yours, and likewise do not provide any examples of someone would clearly be disenfranchised.

Precisely the type of nonsense that polarizes the debate. In saying that half a million people "could be dis-enfranchised", they are saying that almost 5% of the voting population does not have the proper identification - out of 39 eligible pieces to choose from. If that were really the case, Canada would have a much more serious problem - and it would have nothing to do with elections. That's why "expert" comments like that are so completely irresponsible.

Ya but if the 'experts' believe it, I don't have to logically reason it out myself. I can just feel good on an emotional level and hope somebody else is making a good case.

And no, the old don't always vote conservative. Nor do the majority of aboriginal people. Both groups which stand to be disenfranchised by this bill. Once again, if they could come up with some credible evidence of fraud, the bill itself might have some credibility. Up to now that hasn't happenned.

If voter fraud happened, how would that be identified? There is no mechanism to do so. We cannot look, and so we cannot find.

And no, the old don't always vote conservative. Nor do the majority of aboriginal people. Both groups which stand to be disenfranchised by this bill. Once again, if they could come up with some credible evidence of fraud, the bill itself might have some credibility. Up to now that hasn't happenned.

I've already pointed out the available forms of ID old people can use, of which virtually every elderly person in the country could have at least one. Consult the list, and tell me who it is that would have none of those.

Aboriginals actually have even more options than other Canadians, given the status card is also usable.

Edited March 31, 2014 by hitops

[cybercoma]

But it shouldn't disenfranchise anyone, because there's no reason that, given the ID requirements, people can't prove who they are at a polling station.

You would think so, but when Chief Electoral Officers past and present, political scientists, and other experts come out and say that it will, I'm more likely to believe their opinions on the subject.

[cybercoma]

I'm pretty sure most of the people supporting the change in this law would not support the NDP, with a majority government, unilaterally changing the way elections are handled without any consultation with Elections Canada nor other experts whatsoever. If people arguing for this law don't even recognize that changing elections is not just any other public policy decision, then there's not any point in even discussing the matter with them because they are deluding themselves.

[On Guard for Thee]

And you don't really have to be an expert at anything to realize things are amiss when the man (Harry Neufeld) who wrote the very report the government is using to sustantiate their claims, keeps pointing out how Polievre continiously misinterprets that report, and Polievre just keeps on "cherry picking" it. I thought Andrew Coyne summed Polievre up pretty well when he said words to the effect he has always been arrogant, just that now he's an arrogant bumbler. But maybe Coyne's no expert either.

[PIK]

In this day and age and you can't come up with the proper ID then you have NO right to vote.

[The_Squid]

And we are all still waiting to hear about specific cases of voter fraud. All we've heard so far are lies from a MP... which should raise some alarm bells with people about this legislation.

Has anyone read anything from someone with some expert knowledge of the issues, other than the CPC politicians, who favour the changes in this legislation?

I know CPC supporters decry experts and knowledgable people because it often doesn't jive with their political view of the world, but this is a bit ridiculous. You don't go changing the electoral system as if it is merely a political viewpoint.

In this day and age and you can't come up with the proper ID then you have NO right to vote.

Everyone has a right to vote, whether they have a picture ID or not. It has been that way since 1867. Please show us, with some evidence, why this is an issue that needs a change in the way Canadians vote.

[cybercoma]

In this day and age and you can't come up with the proper ID then you have NO right to vote.

"Papers, please."