Election reform bill an affront to democracy

[alfred2]

some posters make stupid remarks, whether you are homeless native or otherwise you need i.d. to live in todays world. they have to have a social insurance card, file income tax etc. what you are spouting does not make any sense, just like the new dumb party

[Atomoa]

Fact is 99% plus of people have two of 18 or more approved pieces of ID that will be accepted. The less than one percent of the fringe you defend could easily obtain ID if they cared unless they are freemen and they don't recognize any gov't so why would they vote anyway?

The report and author of the report that this law is apparently based on clearly states that 100,000+ plus will be effected by this law. The head of Elections Canada says so. The experts say so. The Conservatives are enjoying a majority based on a vote spread of 1200 votes, across Canada. So "the fact is" in your statement, is incorrect.

There is no problem with people casting multiple ballots or vouching problems. People dont risk 5 years in jail to cast a ballot twice. It doesn't happen. For that M.O of voter fraud to be effective you'd need thousands of people across Canada doing it, on behalf of the whatever political party wanted it done. They would be caught. Someone would talk. Not worth the risk.

The main problem with Elections in Canada that people don't vote. Rich people with cars who work 12 hour work weeks "cant find the time" to vote. The youth don't vote (you can file taxes and bank and get a mortgage online but you cant vote?) This law PREVENTS Elections Canada from encouraging people to vote. This law makes it HARDER for people to vote. The author of the report this law is based on says this government is twisting his words.

It is a well known actual strategy and "social science" that is sought after by right wing political parties. 'Winning elections by voter apathy" The only hardcore voters out there are grey haired wealthy conservatives. They vote in droves no matter what. Taint the game, muddy the field for everyone else. Make government "useless" and make people give up hope. Make it difficult. Then your 20-25% show up at the polls and give you the golden keys come election time.

I wonder if the NDP passed a law making it illegal to drive luxury cars to the poling stations - would these posters be just as thrilled? Or how about people living under the poverty line get 2 votes instead of one? There was a time in Canada where land owners were the only ones that could cast a vote.

Only true blue "Con company men" are standing behind this bill. This bill is treasonous.

[twobits]

The report and author of the report that this law is apparently based on clearly states that 100,000+ plus will be effected by this law. The head of Elections Canada says so. The experts say so. The Conservatives are enjoying a majority based on a vote spread of 1200 votes, across Canada. So "the fact is" in your statement, is incorrect.

Without googling numbers......what...... a 100,000 out of 18 million eligible voters? Seems to be about right % wise. 100k voters that are so unmotivated to get any two of the basic ID requirements, one of which is a simple utility bill with their name on it, and I should be concerned that they are not eligible to vote. Besides that, ample notice has been given since we are over a year away from a Federal election that anyone who is remotely interested in casting a vote has ample time to save an original copy of their utility bill and get a replacement gov't ID with pic that they lost. You bleeding heart types kill me. Invent a problem where one doesn't exist. Get your frigging ID!!!!

[Atomoa]

Invent a problem where one doesn't exist.

You mean like people casting ballots twice?

Writing laws for problems that don't exist?

[twobits]

You mean like people casting ballots twice?

Writing laws for problems that don't exist?

Do you have a drivers license? I presume yes. Do you expect to show it if requested and understand why you should produce it. As in legally able to drive. Why is that level of verification not apprpriate in order to be able to vote for someone that can shape the laws of the land for the next four years and not the simple privilege of driving?

[twobits]

You mean like people casting ballots twice?

Writing laws for problems that don't exist?

Do you have a drivers license? I presume yes. Do you expect to show it if requested and understand why you should produce it. As in legally able to drive. Why is that level of verification not apprpriate in order to be able to vote for someone that can shape the laws of the land for the next four years and not the simple privilege of driving?

[Atomoa]

1. There is no problem or issue with people who do not have drivers licences or utility bills voting today currently. The vouching system works.

2. By re-writing the rules (for a problem that doesn't exist) 100,000+ people now have to go out and get ID ( + pay for it) and jump thru hoops in order to vote, when voter participation in Canada is at a all time low.

This is voter suppression, plain and simple.

Every elections expert has said so. The head of elections Canada says so.

Anyways, this is only one of many "issues" with the Bill. Elections Canada wont be able to monitor the spending of political parties effectively, and since at least 5 Conservative MP's have been charged and convicted and the Conservative Party of Canada has been charged and convicted of overspending - where do you sit on that issue?

Why does Elections Canada not have the power to compel testimony? 80% of the country's riding's were robocalled last election, trying to trick non Conservative voters to go to the wrong polling station. You'd think the "fair elections act" would address the biggest assault/fraud on our voting process in the history of our country.

Why would the government not allow Elections Canada to encourage people to vote?

Why would the government not allow Elections Canada to tell Canadians that someone tried to cheat during a election?

[Atomoa]

Mulcair also cited widespread criticism of the bill by electoral experts and former auditor general Sheila Fraser, adding that he was stunned by a comment posted last week on Twitter by Conservative senator Linda Frum.

The tweet, posted April 9, said: "Elections Canada should not have a vested interest in recording a high voter turnout. That's a conflict." Frum followed up with: "Elections Canada role is to administer fair elections. Not to motivate. Not to induce."

Frum's comments stem from a controversial section of the bill that would prohibit Elections Canada from encouraging people to vote, a measure the government says is intended to put the onus on political parties rather than bureaucrats

...my god.

[erinmore3775]

It would appear that the authors of the Fair Elections Act really do not know what the left and right hands within their departments are really doing.

A constitutional challenge to voter-identification rules brought in by the Harper government in 2007 may be on its way to the Supreme Court of Canada — where the latest Conservative electoral reforms would create an awkward legal backdrop.

That's because the government of Canada has successfully argued in B.C. courts that its previous round of ID requirements were protected, in part, by the "failsafe" of voter vouching.

Now the Conservatives have introduced sweeping new changes under Bill C-23, dubbed the Fair Elections Act, that would eliminate vouching altogether.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-lawyers-argued-vouching-a-failsafe-in-2007-legal-challenge-1.2609144 Federal lawyers argue Vouching a Failsafe...

The BC Supreme Court ruled that that while the 2007 voter ID requirements did breach the Charter of Rights and Freedoms it agreed with Federal lawyers that vouching "... enables those without acceptable identification to cast a ballot if vouched for by another elector who is on the list at the same polling division and who does have acceptable identification." I would ask the government why their position has changed so dramatically since this 2008-9 court case?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/senate-flexes-muscles-over-fair-elections-act/article17955323/
Senate panel sets up confrontation with Harper on Elections Act

It would also seems that the Senate committee set up by the Government to simultaneously "investigate" the Fair Elections Act as it passes through the House, has some major concerns with the Bill as proposed.

The Senate committee, two-thirds of whose members are Conservatives appointed by Mr. Harper, heard from a broad range of experts last week, the vast majority of whom called for substantial changes to the deeply divisive bill.

Now the senators are set to recommend, unanimously, specific amendments.

I would suggest that it is not just the "left-wing media", opposition parties, and a few experts that disagree with major portions of this legislation, but that there is a significant conservative faction of the general population that disagrees with it as well.

This is a poorly crafted piece of legislation based largely on bogus statistics that will do very little to stop "robocalls" or illegal and fraudulent election practices by the major political parties. Continuing to push forward with this poorly crafted piece of legislation is not in the best interest of good government but purely for the defense of a few political egos and ideology. Bills based on ego and ideology make for poor legislation. It is time the Government listened to its critics, its own lawyers, and the general populus and made the amendments necessary to promote truly fair elections.

[maryjane48]

exactly , i see few harper cons on here spitting about people with no id , yet nothing on voter fraud in last election

[Urbane]

Vouching is a great idea and could be extended to other areas of society. If you want to enter a bar just have someone vouch for you. Why should you have to show ID? You want to drive a car but don't want to show your driver's licence? Just have someone vouch for you. Sounds good, eh?

[Atomoa]

They are currently extending voter vouching in the NWT in order to broaden voter participation.

Urbane, there is not a problem with voter vouching as per Eelctions Canada and every elections expert in Canada. The only people saying so are card-carrying members of the CPC.

Your comments are treasonous towards Canadian democracy. You are furthering the perception of a problem that doesn't exist in order to help your chosen political party change the laws to cheat the election process.

Shame.

Meanwhile, we now have a Conservative Senator saying that Elections Canada encouraging people to vote is a conflict of interest.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/04/10 ... 25811.html

Senator Linda Frum @LindaFrum
Elections Canada role is to administer fair elections. Not to motivate. Not to induce.

Conservative Senator Linda Frum says Elections Canada's efforts to increase voter turnout put it in a conflict of interest.
Frum has made the argument before while promoting her party's Bill C-23

[Urbane]

Your comments are treasonous towards Canadian democracy. You are furthering the perception of a problem that doesn't exist in order to help your chosen political party change the laws to cheat the election process.

Shame.

LOL . . . guilty of treason for suggesting that people should have ID in order to vote . . . LOL.

[maryjane48]

LOL . . . guilty of treason for suggesting that people should have ID in order to vote . . . LOL.

no for trying to make laws that prevent canadians from voting, if anything the laws should help, motivate more people to vote

[Urbane]

FIRST POSTED: MONDAY, APRIL 07, 2014

Ottawa Sun Editorial

You've really got to stop and ask what sort of politician thinks it's a scandal to eliminate vouching at the polls.

Most media reports out there note that this is the most controversial part of the Fair Elections Act, currently working its way through Parliament.

Based on what it does, it should be the least controversial -- the one unanimously agreed upon.

Let's be clear about what we're discussing: Vouching allows a person with absolutely no identification to vote if another person with ID vouches that they are who they say they are.

The NDP have a petition going around labelling the measures "voter suppression tactics." But why on earth would we want to keep such a measure?

Even without this provision, it's not that difficult to vote -- even for people who move frequently.

If a voter doesn't have a piece of government-issued ID with the right address on it, he or she can still vote.

The voter just needs to present two pieces of authorized ID and only one must have the correct address. There are 39 options!

The broad options include: Debit card, mortgage statement, soup kitchen admission form.

Then there's the argument that this alteration could wind up being unconstitutional. What nonsense! The whole point of checking for ID is to make sure the person is even someone to whom such constitutional rights even apply in the first place. Do tourists have the right to vote? Of course not!

Anyone who follows campaigns closely will have heard the rumours of operatives bribing the homeless to vote for their candidate or sending undocumented voters to vote multiple times at different polling stations.

Regardless of what you think of these rumours, these sorts of things can't happen if vouching goes away. It's the foot in the door for all kinds of unscrupulous activities.

Chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand said this move could restrict aboriginals on reserves from voting. But acquiring valid ID on reserves is a problem in itself. It should be addressed directly. It certainly shouldn't be the main reason to keep vouching. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Voting is not a difficult thing to do in Canada. Simply asking voters to identify themselves isn't undemocratic. It's common sense to eliminate vouching.