Boy Wonder Turdeau backs away from Electoral Reform Promises

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 73hunter

Yes I heard about this one the radio this morning, an asylum seeker gets a voter registration card, which the Liberals are proposing to be the only document required to vote......I thought these kind of tactics were reserved for the deep south.

They’re counting on voter apathy and stupidity. Worked in Ontario for a while.

---

The text of the bill seems to remove the current prohibition, that prevents the Chief Electoral Officer of Elections Canada from authorizing a voter registration card as a form of identification. It does not mean that it will automatically be a form of ID for voting, just that the CEO is not prohibited from considering it.

The CEO already has the power to authorize pretty much any document they want as voter ID, except the voter registration card (or notice of confirmation of registration, as they say in the Canada Elections Act).

So, is it a big deal to have that prohibition lifted? If so, then how big of a deal, considering the powers already granted the CEO?

.... not the way I read it .... seems more like they want attestation and voter cards as ID ... which coincidentally apparently alot of people are getting them that shouldn't. Foreign nationals as electors, voter ID cards as actual ID's .... purpose??? ... :confused:

https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/e.../first-reading

The enactment also amends the Act to modernize voting services, facilitate enforcement and improve various aspects of the administration of elections and of political financing. Among other things that it does in this regard, the enactment
(a) removes the assignment of specific responsibilities set out in the Act to specific election officers by creating a generic category of election officer to whom all those responsibilities may be assigned;
(b) limits election periods to a maximum of 50 days;
(c) removes administrative barriers in order to facilitate the hiring of election officers;
(d) authorizes the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with information about permanent residents and foreign nationals for the purpose of updating the Register of Electors;
(e) removes the prohibition on the Chief Electoral Officer authorizing the notice of confirmation of registration (commonly known as a “voter information card”) as identification;
(f) replaces, in the context of voter identification, the option of attestation for residence with an option of vouching for identity and residence;
(g) removes the requirement for electors’ signatures during advance polls, changes procedures for the closing of advance polls and allows for counting ballots from advance polls one hour before the regular polls close;
(h) replaces the right or obligation to take an oath with a right or obligation to make a solemn declaration, and streamlines the various declarations that electors may have the right or obligation to make under specific circumstances;
(i) relocates the Commissioner of Canada Elections to within the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, and provides that the Commissioner is to be appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer, after consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions, for a non-renewable term of 10 years;

Mooboy, I think voting is an important privilege that every Canadian should participate in, and that it’s a big deal when it’s not taken seriously.

What’s wrong with providing ID to vote ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mooboy76

The text of the bill seems to remove the current prohibition, that prevents the Chief Electoral Officer of Elections Canada from authorizing a voter registration card as a form of identification. It does not mean that it will automatically be a form of ID for voting, just that the CEO is not prohibited from considering it.

The CEO already has the power to authorize pretty much any document they want as voter ID, except the voter registration card (or notice of confirmation of registration, as they say in the Canada Elections Act).

So, is it a big deal to have that prohibition lifted? If so, then how big of a deal, considering the powers already granted the CEO?

---

It's exceedingly important in a free and democratic society that only bona fide Canadian citizens be able to vote. No politically correct BS "vouching" should be allowed. Any person circumventing or attempting to circumvent citizenship requirements to vote fraudulently should either be sent to prison and/or deported instantly. Let them argue the fact later from outside Canada.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 73hunter

Mooboy, I think voting is an important privilege that every Canadian should participate in, and that it’s a big deal when it’s not taken seriously.

What’s wrong with providing ID to vote ?

---

You are required to have a valid ID for so many things, even just picking up a package at the post office and Justlied wants to change it .. where 60% of the voters picked someone else .... nothing polite to say about the dictatorship lover...

and I always like Rex Murphy's take
https://www.facebook.com/Saskatchewa...6128622151085/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

.... not the way I read it .... seems more like they want attestation and voter cards as ID ... which coincidentally apparently alot of people are getting them that shouldn't. Foreign nationals as electors, voter ID cards as actual ID's .... purpose??? ... :confused:

https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/e.../first-reading

The enactment also amends the Act to modernize voting services, facilitate enforcement and improve various aspects of the administration of elections and of political financing. Among other things that it does in this regard, the enactment
(a) removes the assignment of specific responsibilities set out in the Act to specific election officers by creating a generic category of election officer to whom all those responsibilities may be assigned;
(b) limits election periods to a maximum of 50 days;
(c) removes administrative barriers in order to facilitate the hiring of election officers;
(d) authorizes the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with information about permanent residents and foreign nationals for the purpose of updating the Register of Electors;
(e) removes the prohibition on the Chief Electoral Officer authorizing the notice of confirmation of registration (commonly known as a “voter information card”) as identification;
(f) replaces, in the context of voter identification, the option of attestation for residence with an option of vouching for identity and residence;
(g) removes the requirement for electors’ signatures during advance polls, changes procedures for the closing of advance polls and allows for counting ballots from advance polls one hour before the regular polls close;
(h) replaces the right or obligation to take an oath with a right or obligation to make a solemn declaration, and streamlines the various declarations that electors may have the right or obligation to make under specific circumstances;
(i) relocates the Commissioner of Canada Elections to within the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, and provides that the Commissioner is to be appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer, after consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions, for a non-renewable term of 10 years;

---

From past reading, it seems there is an issue with quickly determining whether a person that has registered to vote may be a foreign national or permanent resident. Considering many government ministries operate as silos, and that privacy laws can preclude sharing of certain personal information between ministries, the bolded section d) would seem to enhance the ability of Elections Canada to weed out non eligible voters from their mailout lists. A positive change, I would think.

e) and f) reverses the change made by the Fair Elections Act 2014, and what kicked off the discussion.

It's a bit confusing, especially since the Sun confused two different documents when they first published their article.
Reading a few more sources this is what I've gleaned:

The asylum seeker received something that some other foreign nationals and permanent residents also sometimes get in the mail - an invitation to register to vote. Those are not the same as 'Voter ID cards', i.e., voter information cards, or confirmation of registration cards. The document these non-eligible voters receive is a notice from Elections Canada that they've gotten the recipient's name and address from a list (from provincial driver's licensing or a tax return with the authorization to disclose to Elections Canada checked), and based on their appearance on one of those lists, the recipient may be an eligible voter that has not registered. The recipient can return the card saying they are not a Canadian citizen, and therefore ineligible, or they reply in the affirmative to start the registration process. Reporting on the issue is muddy at best.

As for allowing for vouching; as far as I can tell, we've only had one election in the past 20 years where vouching for someone's identity was not allowed. I don't know about elections from 1985-1999, since I can't find the text of the Canada Elections Act R.S.E. 1985 anywhere. If you know how to find that, then we could check.

The rules look similar to pre-Fair Elections Act:
If you are vouching for someone's identity and residence, then you must be on the registered voter list, and show up with either your government issued photo ID, or two of the 'other' authorized pieces of ID proving your identity and residence.

Then you have to listen to, and read, the preamble that lays out the fact that vouching for more than one person, vouching for someone falsely, coercing someone to vote fraudulently, knowing the elector has been vouched for already, and a couple of other things, could get you up to a $50,000 fine and/or 1 year in prison per offence.

The elector getting vouched for gets the same spiel, because the consequences are the same for them if they are ineligible to vote and try to circumvent the system. I would think a conviction for offences under the Elections Act would look bad during someone's PR, or citizenship, application process.

Then both parties fill out their specific, prescribed, solemn declarations, and if the election officer is satisfied then the elector will get a ballot. All solemn declarations are sealed in an envelope for CEO use, and a list is made by the returning officer of every person that made a solemn declaration.

Has there been an issue with vouching related fraud in past elections?

Interviews I've read has the Chief Electoral Officer suggesting voter fraud in general is not an issue affecting Federal elections, so I don't know how much of an effect a subset of voter fraud could have in that case. I don't see any sort of analysis published anywhere that shows the estimated % of the vote that may be fraudulent. I've read legal proceedings about the opposite phenomenon - where candidates were arguing that 'informal' vouching, that was tossed out as ineligible, should have counted (that candidate lost by 26 votes or something similar). It would seem that our election process worked fine in that instance anyway, even if the original election officer let something slide that they shouldn't have.

So, coupled with the fact that the CEO could approve a new set of authorized IDs from any document they choose, to make it easier to go through the 'regular' elector process, I don't see adding the voter confirmation of registration card (voter ID card) to be detrimental to the system.

The vouching process seems onerous, and there's a paper trail connected to registered, identified voters from each riding with some potentially hefty penalties for telling lies for any party involved, compounded by the number offences. It's not perfect, but unless there's some evidence from previous elections that shows vouching is a threat, then for me, I think the risk of inadvertently disenfranchising electors is greater than the risk that any fraudulent vouching could have any appreciable impact on a riding's election results.

That's how I see it anyways, if you feel otherwise, then that's great.

Variety is the spice of life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 73hunter

Mooboy, I think voting is an important privilege that every Canadian should participate in, and that it’s a big deal when it’s not taken seriously.

What’s wrong with providing ID to vote ?

---

I also think it is an important right, that every Canadian citizen should exercise.

Nothing wrong with providing ID. As long as there is also a mechanism in place to balance the right to vote for those citizens that may not have the approved ID with them.

I am lucky to never have been homeless, so I cannot comment on the experiences of those persons that live on the street, nor can I attest to what identification they may have available to them. If they are Canadian citizens though, then they need access to the Federal voting process regardless. It's not as if someone can round up a bunch of people and vouch for the crowd - one voucher per elector, per election.

I'm sure there are other reasons that someone might legitimately not have the approved ID on them, so I'd rather not block eligible voters from validly participating in the Federal elections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

You are required to have a valid ID for so many things, even just picking up a package at the post office and Justlied wants to change it .. where 60% of the voters picked someone else .... nothing polite to say about the dictatorship lover...

and I always like Rex Murphy's take
https://www.facebook.com/Saskatchewa...6128622151085/

---

I agree with Rex, and the whole election reform committee was not even a decent charade. It was insulting, as was the response from the Minister. It was clear that the Liberals just wanted to drop the whole thing at the time, despite a pretty clear call for reform from the electorate. There's still a chance to get an electoral reform referendum on the ballot, but I don't trust the Trudeau government to frame the question in a non-biased way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mooboy76

I agree with Rex, and the whole election reform committee was not even a decent charade. It was insulting, as was the response from the Minister. It was clear that the Liberals just wanted to drop the whole thing at the time, despite a pretty clear call for reform from the electorate. There's still a chance to get an electoral reform referendum on the ballot, but I don't trust the Trudeau government to frame the question in a non-biased way.

---

I still think vouching is a bad idea, the search to find evidence of it would require a serious search and identification of the actual voters so it is hard to prove but if we need an ID to do so many other things like pick up a package at the post office etc. it seems like a hole that is not needed. A quick search found some examples:
https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...me-judge-rules
https://www.twincities.com/2018/03/1...igible-voters/


It didn't affect the outcome in 2011 .... but what if it did for some ridings or who rules??? If a person is serious about voting there are tons of options for ID, early voting etc.... vouching just seems like a way for a person to vote multiple times or when not even allowed to vote.... like the ones in the news that admit they aren't supposed to vote and reported getting voter cards.

After reading the referendum questions on firearms ... I can 99% guaranteee it will be biased .... an exaggerated (I hope) picture I saw had something like ( laughed and didn't pay it much attention) this poll question for the election:

Please make a choice:
Do you want:

1) a Trudeau dictatorship for life
or
2) you are a disgusting racist Nazi (might have had Neanderthal and a couple other names that the Libs have been using)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

I still think vouching is a bad idea, the search to find evidence of it would require a serious search and identification of the actual voters so it is hard to prove but if we need an ID to do so many other things like pick up a package at the post office etc. it seems like a hole that is not needed. A quick search found some examples:
https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...me-judge-rules
https://www.twincities.com/2018/03/1...igible-voters/


It didn't affect the outcome in 2011 .... but what if it did for some ridings or who rules??? If a person is serious about voting there are tons of options for ID, early voting etc.... vouching just seems like a way for a person to vote multiple times or when not even allowed to vote.... like the ones in the news that admit they aren't supposed to vote and reported getting voter cards.

After reading the referendum questions on firearms ... I can 99% guaranteee it will be biased .... an exaggerated (I hope) picture I saw had something like ( laughed and didn't pay it much attention) this poll question for the election:

Please make a choice:
Do you want:

1) a Trudeau dictatorship for life
or
2) you are a disgusting racist Nazi (might have had Neanderthal and a couple other names that the Libs have been using)

---

The easiest way to start investigating whether fraudulent vouching could have had an impact would be to compare the tally of vouched voters to the plurality of the riding win. If there is no chance that the total vouched votes cast could have impacted the riding election, then any fraudulently vouched votes also could not have had an impact.

If a candidate thinks there is a problem, then they can ask a judge to review all of the oaths and vouching info, and possibly overturn the election results.

Those two articles are interesting, but concern slightly different topics, like voter call-out manipulations and, in the case of Minnesota, some incarcerated individuals casting votes when that is not allowed in that state - I'm not sure the effects of the 22 verified-ineligible votes cast out of 2.97 million others, but I think it is marginal.

It does show the issues with having an incomplete registration list. Minnesota also had an issue where potentially eligible voters had their eligibility challenged by the state, and some of them may not have been able to clear up the State's error in time for voting, or elected not to fight the State on their records.

I don't think the CPC feels all that strongly on this. The information they want is probably just a couple of FOI requests away (# of vouched individual votes per riding, and the winning margin for the same riding). With those numbers in hand, they could raise a valid, evidence-based concern.

Unless, perhaps, Elections Canada archives are not available for FOI requests - I really don't know.

Until some numbers start coming up, we just have the spectre of the 'ineligible voter with no ID' and their identifiable accomplice, both flirting with hefty fines and prison time to cast one vote - or very hefty fines and longer prison times to cast multiple votes. I personally can't see what the payoff would be for that risk, but I'm sure there's at least one dumb fool that could be talked into losing their livelihood.

Also, those cards the ineligible voters receive don't give them a pass for a couple of reasons:

1) The Chief Electoral Officer has already told the papers that he has no plan to allow a 'voter ID' card to be used as a solitary piece of ID at this time.

2) All that I've read so far states that the card those ineligible voters receive is not a voter ID card - it's a voter registration card. It's a card sent to potential voters that are not on the voter registration list yet. If you have found an article that states otherwise, then I'd be interested in reading it - I'm sure it is possible, I just have not read about it so far.

So if those ineligible voters then went through the registration process successfully, and at some future date the CEO declares the voter ID card to be used as authorized identification, then there is a chance those individuals could cast an ineligible vote with possibly nobody the wiser. However, if the provisions in the bill that allow the offices of Elections Canada and Citizenship & Immigration to share the information of permanent residents, or foreign nationals, then the odds of those kinds of ineligible voters successfully getting registered should drop precipitously.

To get that safeguard, I guess we'll have to get the vouching at the same time, for now.