Trudeau and Singh's teams quietly planning electoral reform legislation

[CdnFox]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-and-singh-s-teams-quietly-planning-electoral-reform-legislation-1.6744379

As progress on some measures in the Liberal-NDP confidence-and-supply agreement continue to play out publicly, the two parties have quietly been in talks to table electoral reform legislation before the next federal vote.

Leading these negotiations on the political front, are Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc, and NDP MP and democratic reform critic Daniel Blaikie.

 

These scumbags are planning to make changes to our democracy without any public input, without any mandate to do so, in order to try to win the next election knowing that polling is against them.

WHo's bringing US style politics to Canada?

I hope people see this for what it is and it backfires in their face entirely. There is NO excuse to mess with election law without a mandate.

[Queenmandy85]

And people critisized  me for suggesting they need all party agreement, instead of the Liberals just ramming it through using their majority. 

[TreeBeard]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

And people critisized  me for suggesting they need all party agreement, instead of the Liberals just ramming it through using their majority. 

Libs don’t have a majority. 

[eyeball]

Three things are on the table.

Allowing an "expanded" three-day voting period during general elections;

Allowing voters to cast their ballots at any polling place within their riding; and

Improving the mail-in ballot process with both accessibility and maintaining integrity in mind.

What is it that's so threatening here exactly - getting out the vote, seriously?

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

WHo's bringing US style politics to Canada?

Paranoid conservatives.

I can see why they did this quietly. Trigger much? LMAO!

[CdnFox]

28 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Three things are on the table.

Allowing an "expanded" three-day voting period during general elections;

Allowing voters to cast their ballots at any polling place within their riding; and

Improving the mail-in ballot process with both accessibility and maintaining integrity in mind.

What is it that's so threatening here exactly - getting out the vote, seriously?

If it's no big deal why do it behind closed doors and in secret consultations?

And yes - how you get out the vote is a BIG FREAKIN DEAL.

And we only have the media's statement to go by - seeing as it's secret behind the door consultations we don't know WHAT they're discussing.

Hey - don't EVER talk to any of us about 'accountability' again btw - you just blew off secret gov't behind closed door meetings as absolutely perfectly fine

[eyeball]

28 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

If it's no big deal why do it behind closed doors and in secret consultations?

To trigger conservatives I said. In any case EVERYTHING governments do is done behind closed doors.

31 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And yes - how you get out the vote is a BIG FREAKIN DEAL.

Why exactly? Many countries do similar things to try and encourage more people to vote. Would you prefer compulsory voting?

31 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And we only have the media's statement to go by - seeing as it's secret behind the door consultations we don't know WHAT they're discussing.

It says right in your article what they're discussing and with whom.

35 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Hey - don't EVER talk to any of us about 'accountability' again btw - you just blew off secret gov't behind closed door meetings as absolutely perfectly fine

No I didn't. I'm laughing my ass off at you for being such a butt hurt hypocrite. Closed door governance is what you want and support. You've made this clear many times around here.

In any case I can't wait to hear why you think increasing the opportunity to vote is so insidious and such a BIG FREAKIN DEAL.

Okay, I admit I know perfectly well why but I just want to hear you say it.

And Liberals obviously want Canadians hear Poilievre lose his shit too over this.

I'm betting it was the NDP who proposed these improvements to voting and the Liberals are who got all Machiavellian with it.

[Queenmandy85]

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

These scumbags are planning to make changes to our democracy without any public input, without any mandate to do so, in order to try to win the next election knowing that polling is against them.

WHo's bringing US style politics to Canada?

I hope people see this for what it is and it backfires in their face entirely. There is NO excuse to mess with election law without a mandate.

How will these proposals prevent Pierre Poilievre from being appointed Prime Minister in 18 months?

What is "US style" about making voting easier?

Prime Minister Trudeau promised election reform in the 2015 election. So he has a mandate. It was NDP resistance that blocked it then. Now, before bringing it in, don't you think getting the NDP on board is a good idea? 

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

To trigger conservatives I said. In any case EVERYTHING governments do is done behind closed doors.

And you're just fine with it as long as it's the liberals doing something with our democracy.

What a hypocrite.  Like i said you just lost any credibility on the 'transparancy' issue.

Quote

Why exactly? Many countries do similar things to try and encourage more people to vote. Would you prefer compulsory voting?

How do you know they're not considering that?

Maybe they're looking at sending EVERYONE a mail in ballot like the states - look at how well that's gone.

If what they're doing is so innocent and obvious - why is there a need to 'negotiate'?

Quote

It says right in your article what they're discussing and with whom.

No, it really doesn't.  And that's not actually a gov't release.

Again - you lost any credibility on the 'transparency' issue. You are literally defending the liberals for discussing our democracy behind closed doors to 'work out a deal' on it.   We wouldn't know about it if it weren't for a leak, they haven't even commented on it.  And you had the balls to whine and cry that the conservatives didn't do enough.

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

How will these proposals prevent Pierre Poilievre from being appointed Prime Minister in 18 months?

How should i know - we don't even know what they're talking about. They haven't announced anything, this is one person leaking the fact that they're negotiating.

IF PP gets in, and then decides to make a bunch of changes to how people vote without sharing the ideas with the people beforehand as a faid de complit without input from the other parties, you'll be on here talking about how great that is?

Quote

What is "US style" about making voting easier?

Very frequently in the states "making voting easier" means partisan rule changes that benefit one party over another, just as 'making voting more secure'  does the same thing the other way.

And what it does is breed distrust of the voting system and calls into question the validity of the gov't.

If it's so innocent and above board ... why do it behind closed doors away from the public?  IF it's so obviously good why do they need to spend a bunch of time 'negotiating' it and trying to 'work out the details' in secret?

[Queenmandy85]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

If it's so innocent and above board ... why do it behind closed doors away from the public?  IF it's so obviously good why do they need to spend a bunch of time 'negotiating' it and trying to 'work out the details' in secret?

The government tried it your way in their first term and it ended up dead in the water. Since it was blocked by the NDP last time, is it not prudent to explore what is possible? 

 

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The government tried it your way in their first term and it ended up dead in the water.

 

ROFLMAO - what a blatant lie THat's terrible.

First off - "My" way is open and honest discussion. And what you're saying is literally "When they asked people they found out they didnt' WANT the changes they wanted to make, so to solve the problem they doing it secret so they don' t have to listen to the people"     Seriously - what the hell's the matter with you that you thought THAT was a good argument?

And it wasn't blocked by the ndp last time.  EVERYBODY - CPC, NDP, the public all said they wanted a verson of PR.  What JUSTIN wanted wast to use a type of ranked ballot that would grossly favour the liberals, and he dopped the idea without ever presenting it when he realized nobody would go for his scam.

Now we're supposed to trust him behind closed doors to work it out with a party that's already sold their soul for a bit of power and a pension?

[Queenmandy85]

27 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Now we're supposed to trust him behind closed doors to work it out with a party that's already sold their soul for a bit of power and a pension?

Now you are getting it. But, there are limits. If it were up to me, they would outlaw the Social Credit Party, but that is not going to happen because, by convention, they will need all party support. I think we can depend on future Prime Minister Poilievre to oppose that. I can't see him opposing making it easier to give as many voters the opportunity to exersise their right to cast a ballot for their MP. If you recall, you and I were in agreement on the PR question. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.😉

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

They are obviously only interested in changes that will benefit their own parties.

I am trying to remember the last time a political party was interested in doing something that would benifit another party. In matters such as election law, Canadian political parties will usually look for consensus, but I've never heard of a party freely handing an advantage to another party.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Now you are getting it. But, there are limits. If it were up to me, they would outlaw the Social Credit Party, but that is not going to happen because, by convention, they will need all party support. I think we can depend on future Prime Minister Poilievre to oppose that.

Social credit party? You're a few dozen years too late for that, do you mean the ndp?    And they won't need all party support, if the ndp and libs agree on it they can vote it through without issue.

 

Quote

I can't see him opposing making it easier to give as many voters the opportunity to exersise their right to cast a ballot for their MP. If you recall, you and I were in agreement on the PR question. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.😉

I can.  Look at the disaster that mail in ballots has caused in the states, so if that's what they're talking about a sensible person would oppose it.

Making it "easier" generally means making fraud easier as well. There is NOTHING  hard about our system as it is, anyone who wants to vote can vote with a pretty minimal effort.  WE have advanced polls, you can go in and vote any time in the registrar's office, if you want they'll mail you a ballot if you're a shut in, we set up polling booths in old people's homes, etc etc etc.

If you can't be bothered to vote when it's THAT easy then maybe you shouldn't be voting. 

Show me ONE person who says "gosh, i wanted to vote last election but there was just no way".

And when you make fraud easier you start to erode the faith people have in the election process. Which is already under fire thanks to the whole 'chinese interference' thing. So far we've dodged the mess that the states has with no matter who wins the other side claims it's illegitimate (which has happened for SEVERAL elections now).  That is NOT something we need to import.

[CdnFox]

Just now, Queenmandy85 said:

I am trying to remember the last time a political party was interested in doing something that would benifit another party. In matters such as election law, Canadian political parties will usually look for consensus, but I've never heard of a party freely handing an advantage to another party.

Financing laws.  In the past, the liberal party benefited from directly recieving huge amounts of donations directly from big business. That lead to the whole sponsorship scandal. 

Chretien, whom i dislike but credit where credit is due, changed the donation laws entirely Business donations were limited and eventually phased out - now they couldn't 'buy' a gov't.  Personal donations were also capped to prevent the rich from having undue sway.

That was probably the biggest single act of securing our democracy for the average person in our entire history. And it hurt the libs badly compared to the ohter parties. They STILL to this day have not recovered their fundraising from that, and that's 25 years or so.

Of course - he was EXTREMELY pissed at the party at the time, but still.  It happened.

[Legato]

The Liberals will do anything to benefit themselves, They don't give a rats ass about you or me. This is just another in a long line of examples.

[Jack9000]

sounds more like improvements then reform   lol... you cons get butthurt so easily. its not like there trying to ram thru ending fptp system lol.

[Queenmandy85]

I've always viewed the 2020 US election to be a success. They needed the mail in ballots because it was at the height of the pandemic. Many people didn't want to risk their lives by mixing in a crowd at the polling station. The only fraud was in the sore loser's imagination. I've been on enough election day campaigns to know how hard it is to get some supporters out to vote. Election fraud is even less of a problem in Canada. It's not like the good old days when the Grits and Tories would place bottles of gin and whiskey by the ballot box. If you took a swig of the gin, it meant you were a tory. If you drank the whiskey, you voted grit. If the CPC/Social Credit  had been around, they would have provided tea. Manning and Bennett always bragged about being Temperance, God -fearing crooks that they were.

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I've always viewed the 2020 US election to be a success.

Look up "january 6".  Any election that leaves one side so certain the other cheated is an utter failure. Democracy is useless without the faith in the process by the people.  And before that was russian collusion and we had hanging chads and yadda yadda.  It failed.

11 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

They needed the mail in ballots because it was at the height of the pandemic. Many people didn't want to risk their lives by mixing in a crowd at the polling station

Doesn't matter why they needed them - the way it was done left the door absolutely wide open to abuse and there'd be no way to know.  And that's the problem. It doesn't even matter if there was or wasn't fraud, the fact there could be is damaging enough.

It should not be 'easy' to vote. There should be no actual barriers but voting is a somewhat sacred responsiblity and if you're not willing to make at least a TINY bit of effort then maybe you don't care enough to be voting. Voting isn't a casual thing.

Honestly - i would change it so that advance polls can't be open until a week before the end of the election and i would only allow special stations to accomodate the elderly (nursing homes) and the disabled or ill (hospitals etc.)

 

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

You conveniently ignored a serious issue.

I heard they plan to change eligibility to allow recent immigrants, refugees?, and many who came to Canada relatively recently and who are NOT Canadian citizens to give them the right to vote.  These people would obviously vote Liberal and NDP because these parties brought them in.  This could significantly benefit the NDP and Liberals.   

They are obviously only interested in changes that will benefit their own parties.

Heard where?

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

If it's so innocent and above board ... why do it behind closed doors away from the public?

I've been asking the very same thing about our governance for decades now.  Why are you so afraid of transparency whenever I do?

In any case I answered you by suggesting Liberals are simply trying to trigger the type of paranoid knee-jerk reaction you're putting on display.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

I heard they plan to change eligibility to allow recent immigrants, refugees

Cite please.

Only citizens can vote in federal elections and it takes 4 - 5 years for an immigrant to become a citizen. How on Earth will recent arrivals help anyone in the next election? 

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Heard where?

Does it matter? The gov't isn't telling us what they're doing so all it will be is leaks and such right now.

Be nice if the gov't was doing this if in the name of transparency they discussed it with people, woudln't it

Just now, eyeball said:

Cite please.

 

Can't - the gov't isn't talking so it's all whatever the whistleblowers and leaks share.

Be nice if the gov't was TRANSPARENT enough to tell us - oh but you don't care about transparency when you think it's benefitting justin.  I forgot. Its probaby harper's fault they're doing this, him and his transparency act.

[Queenmandy85]

Americans take their politics too seriously. In Canada, I may not like Social Credit, but aside from the corruption by the Bennetts and the Gaglardis, they were not that bad. Their promise to get rid of the Jews never became policy. Harper was terrifying before he was elected, but as it turned out, he kept the social(ist) conservatives at bay. When the King's designate appoints Mr. Poilievre Prime Minister, we will see a change in tone, but the actual governing will not change significantly. There is only one way to deal with inflation, or moderate the death toll in an epidemic. He will face the same pressures from the electorate for services while at the same time that same electorate will demand lower taxes and no deficits. He will also come into office with the Trump administration fully established and that is going to be a major distraction. The poison cherry on top will be the unrealistic expectations of his supporters. I feel sorry for Mr. Poilievre. He is on the cusp of his life-long ambition. In 18 months, his life will change and he will discover being the Leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition is a lot more fun than being Prime Minister. Lets hope he savours the few months he has left.

[CdnFox]

Just now, Queenmandy85 said:

Americans take their politics too seriously. In Canada, I may not like Social Credit,

You're an 1diot plain and simple. There is no social credit and the fact you have to lie to explain your position tells us all we need to know about your politics - you're a liberal. so it's pretty obvious you don't care about canada at all.

Go home kid, it's time for the adults to run the country for a while.  Pathetic.