Topaz

Fair Election Act

484 posts in this topic

I've been listening to the debate on this topic and I'm wondering if you agree with the Opposition Parties, to have hearings on this Act across Canada for 2 months, March and April to hear what Canadians think of this new Act. The Tories say no, that people can come to Ottawa to the committee hearings instead. The Opposition parties are saying this Act is not fair and many people will not be able to vote and I agree, Canadians should be told exactly what is in this Act before the Tories pass it. Of course, if there are things as bad as the Opposition Parties say, it will be just another reason NOT to vote Tory. Thoughts?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to remember this all in another thread.......Of COURSE the opposition partiesare going to oppose and criticize. That's what they do. What do you think about the previous Elections Canada commissioner - Jean Pirre Kingsley? He said that on balance, it was a good piece of legislation - he rated it an A-......and this quote is via the CBC - no lover of the Harper government. Thoughts, Tpaz?

Jean-Pierre Kingsley, the former head of Elections Canada, calls the government's proposed fair elections act "overall, a good bill" and gives it a solid grade of "A–."

Link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/election-reform-bill-gets-an-a-minus-from-ex-election-chief-1.2523345

Edited by Keepitsimple
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to remember this all in another thread.......Of COURSE the opposition partiesare going to oppose and criticize. That's what they do. What do you think about the previous Elections Canada commissioner - Jean Pirre Kingsley? He said that on balance, it was a good piece of legislation - he rated it an A-......and this quote is via the CBC - no lover of the Harper government. Thoughts, Tpaz?

Link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/election-reform-bill-gets-an-a-minus-from-ex-election-chief-1.2523345

It doesn't really matter what the FORMER Com. thinks, its the majority of voters, right???

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing fair about it. I think hearings would be a great idea. It didn't get enough debate time in the house of commons.

Edited by poliforthepeople
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't really matter what the FORMER Com. thinks, its the majority of voters, right???

The majority of voters are represented in parliament. That's why Canada is a representative democracy, not a direct one.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As more debate about his Act comes to light, the Tories want to get rid of the voter information cards, as a way to use as an ID when voting. The Opposition parties are against this idea because no proof of voter fraud has really been found and its only reason behind it is to reduce the numbers of voters. I wouldn't be surprise to see protestors on the Hill, when the Tories pass this. http://www.canada.com/life/Warnings+from+Canada+plans+changes+voter+rules/9514012/story.html

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As more debate about his Act comes to light, the Tories want to get rid of the voter information cards, as a way to use as an ID when voting. The Opposition parties are against this idea because no proof of voter fraud has really been found and its only reason behind it is to reduce the numbers of voters. I wouldn't be surprise to see protestors on the Hill, when the Tories pass this. http://www.canada.com/life/Warnings+from+Canada+plans+changes+voter+rules/9514012/story.html

Hogwash. The proposed legislation is nothing like the American fiasco. To even compare them is ludicrous.

The new rules envisioned in Ottawa are not nearly as cumbersome as the ones struck down in Pennsylvania. The right to a ballot there hinged on a document from the state Department of Transportation, and the ability to get that document required ID that some voters simply couldn't obtain.

The Canadian bill would still allow 39 types of ID. People could still vote with one government-issued card that includes a photo and home address, or with two other documents like a bank statement and utility bill.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As more debate about his Act comes to light, the Tories want to get rid of the voter information cards, as a way to use as an ID when voting. The Opposition parties are against this idea because no proof of voter fraud has really been found and its only reason behind it is to reduce the numbers of voters. I wouldn't be surprise to see protestors on the Hill, when the Tories pass this. http://www.canada.com/life/Warnings+from+Canada+plans+changes+voter+rules/9514012/story.html

No they want to get rid of the NDP bringing in 10 people and vouching for them all. We have something like 20(?) goverment issued ID's and people can't get one.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they want to get rid of the NDP bringing in 10 people and vouching for them all. We have something like 20(?) goverment issued ID's and people can't get one.

If someone cant get or keep government ID they have no business voting.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this act didn't benefit the CPC, then why are they ramming it through. This affects us all, we should ALL have a say. And as has been pointed out on here and elsewhere, A CPC MP on the comittee reviewing this act has already been caught lying about his "witnessing" of voter fraud. How ironic is that in light of the robocalls scandal? The whole thing stinks to the high heavens.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this act didn't benefit the CPC, then why are they ramming it through. This affects us all, we should ALL have a say. And as has been pointed out on here and elsewhere, A CPC MP on the comittee reviewing this act has already been caught lying about his "witnessing" of voter fraud. How ironic is that in light of the robocalls scandal? The whole thing stinks to the high heavens.

Why because maynard said so? I will give you what the guy said , but what he did not actually see does go on.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This affects us all, we should ALL have a say.

Did "we all" have a say when the Canada Elections Act was amended before? Or, is it just when the Conservatives have a majority that parliament must be subordinated to direct democracy, as though voters hadn't already "spoken" during the last election and can't speak to their parliamentary representatives now.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today, Maynard goes before the Parliament committee and gives his view on the "Election Act" there's no doubt this will has in the House, but at least, voters will know how stacked the Act is for one party. I'm just wondering what damage the Tories could do to themselves by this Act, when voters find out how one-sided it is and Tory MP's on their own riding will have to explain why this isn't one-sided. http://globalnews.ca/news/1190899/mayrand-takes-the-stand-5-things-to-know-about-the-conservative-election-reforms/

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Conservatives truly wanted to pass a fair elections act they would have first consulted widely with Canadians, political parties, election officials, and non-governmental pro-democracy groups, and sought broad consensus. Bill C-23 is not a "fair" elections act. It is an act intended facilitate voter suppression, fraud, and enhance the monies available to the Conservative Party during elections. It is intended, too, to make it easier to commit crimes against the Elections Act and not get caught.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill C-23 is not a "fair" elections act. It is an act intended facilitate voter suppression, fraud, and enhance the monies available to the Conservative Party during elections. It is intended, too, to make it easier to commit crimes against the Elections Act and not get caught.

exactly! And now we have the author of the report 'into problems stemming from the 2011 election', stating Pierre Poilievre, Harper Conservative Minister of State for Democratic Reform, is selective reading from his report, misinterpreting parts of it and drawing improper conclusions:

Pierre Poilievre 'selectively' reading election report

I think any fair-minded person who reads that report would come to the conclusion that he has not been fair in his assessment of my findings

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets face it, the opposition parties will drum up opposition to anything that the Conservatives do.....and Mark Mayrand is simply proving that he has lost all perspective on the Fair Elections Act. Jean Pierre Kingsley, the former Elections Commissioner who preceded Mayrand rated the Act an A minus when being grilled by Evan Solomon on Power & Politics. Another mountain out of a molehill.

Jean-Pierre Kingsley, the former head of Elections Canada, calls the government's proposed fair elections act "overall, a good bill" and gives it a solid grade of "A–."

Link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/election-reform-bill-gets-an-a-minus-from-ex-election-chief-1.2523345

Edited by Keepitsimple
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets face it, the opposition parties will drum up opposition to anything that the Conservatives do.....and Mark Mayrand is simply proving that he has lost all perspective on the Fair Elections Act. Jean Pierre Kingsley, the former Elections Commissioner who preceded Mayrand rated the Act an A minus when being grilled by Evan Solomon on Power & Politics. Another mountain out of a molehill.

Wow that was a cookie cutter response straight from the Poilievre talking points. Were yours signed?

1) The subject was Harry Neufeld, the author of the report Poilievre commissioned and quotes from incorrectly and hasn't been consulted again about. Thats usually how soundbite propoganda works. Seems they didn't want anymore of that fact stuff getting in the way.

2) I like how before an Act has been enacted, ie open to change, there's no interest from the soundbiters what made it a (-) for the guy they like to quote. I guess getting things right are not that important for legislation, the courts are always there to back them up huh?

I would more aptly call this making a mountain, calling it a molehill, then tripping over it trying to run away from it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow that was a cookie cutter response straight from the Poilievre talking points. Were yours signed?

I would more aptly call this making a mountain, calling it a molehill, then tripping over it trying to run away from it.

Pretty good talking point when the former Elections Canada Commissioner says its a good Act - worthy of an A minus. I didn't think any legislation could get an A minus. Personally, I'll admit it's not perfect but it's certainly not an affront to democracy. That seems to be the phrase de jour lately. Remember the huge uproar over the changes to the National Census? Can you hear the silence now?

Edited by Keepitsimple
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty good talking point when the former Elections Canada Commissioner says its a good Act - worthy of an A minus. I didn't think any legislation could get an A minus. Personally, I'll admit it's not perfect but it's certainly not an affront to democracy. That seems to be the phrase de jour lately. Remember the huge uproar over the changes to the National Census? Can you hear the silence now?

Why have such low expectations? This isn't like its an SAT that Poilievre is sitting for, ask him what he'd change, unless the things he'd change are the exact and only things you were looking to slip through with none being the wiser (ie. making investigations more restrictive and the money grubbing part). No future gov't of any stripe will repeal those once they get entrenched no matter the promise. (a la GST, NAFTA, etc.)

The uproar over the census has dimmed as the reprecussions from that error require more than a 10 minute voter attention span, unfortunately (or fortunately) for the affected parties, there's always a new bauble to be dazzled by. The trends and data that could be used for planning will take half a generation to be felt, we'll do more haphazardness like our friends to the south (eg. drug courts in Texas after millions on SuperMax prisons). We were an OECD envy for the census (Jedi religion counting and all), now we're like our cousin...hooray.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maynard certainly didn't give it an A- It seems quite apparent to me that what thew cons are after here is vouching because they have it figured that those people who might use that system don't vote for them. Yet they have failed to provide any solid proof of multiple votes or improper votes. Last time it was robocalls, this time it's unfair elections act.

Edited by On Guard for Thee
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maynard certainly didn't give it an A- It seems quite apparent to me that what thew cons are after here is vouching because they have it figured that those people who might use that system don't vote for them. Yet they have failed to provide any solid proof of multiple votes or improper votes. Last time it was robocalls, this time it's unfair elections act.

Would you believe it was the Liberals who first complained about vouching - and took it all the way to the Supreme Court? But I think I see your point - when the Liberals make an issue of it - it's noble. <_<

Vouching errors subject of court case

Vouching errors were a major part of a case former Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj mounted to have the results of a close election thrown out. Wrzesnewskyj lost the riding of Etobicoke Centre by 26 votes in 2011. His application to overturn the result and force a byelection went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The top court rejected his arguments.

Wrzesnewskyj's lawyer, Stephen Thiele, reached Tuesday in Toronto, said the new bill is a step in the right direction in restoring the integrity of the system, and a vindication of Wrzesnewskyj.

"In Borys's case there were a number of polls where vouching was the sole issue, and those were the votes that were being challenged. "

Link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/election-reform-bill-gets-an-a-minus-from-ex-election-chief-1.2523345

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something as important as changing the way we vote has to have the agreement of far more than a majority government. The current process allows a party with 40% of the vote to create 100% of the laws.

What if the new law required that all voters had to pass a literacy test, had to be white, votes in Alberta and Saskatchewan would count for double and people would be jailed if they didn't vote? While that scenario is far fetched just how “partisan” can any new legislation be?

The role of the opposition is NOT to automatically oppose anything the government does but to make sure that any changes have been duly discussed and any flaws be amended. Not only was this legislation handled poorly but I doubt that it will pass in its present form.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now