Published on October 10, 2008 By Artysim In Politics

 

What's all this ruckus about voter registration and election fraud? I'm asking because in Canada, our elections are run a little differently from you fine folks in the U.S and quite frankly we don't go through the kind of ridiculousness I'm seeing in the news. In fact, we're having our own federal election on tuesday, the day after our thanksgiving and I can pretty much guarantee it's going to be a far milder event than the pomp and pageantry that CNN's been cooking up for your coming election.

Let me boil down how we do voter registration in Canada.

In a federal election, every single person in the country, who is registered to vote, gets a paper card in the mail. This card has your name and address on it and the location of where you go to vote, as well as your riding. Every one who is registered gets this one card, and can only use it at their designated station.

This is sent by a government organization called..... drumroll please.....

Elections Canada!!!

I know. Brilliant, isn't it?

This organization's purpose and goal is twofold:

1) To make sure that every single person in the country who's eligible to vote is registered, and knows where to go on election day.

2) To ensure that the election and ballotting and all the stuff is carried out in as impartial a manner as possible.

But what if you're not registered to vote?

Elections Canada sends out notices to every person in the country who they think is eligible but hasn't registered yet. They compile this list by going through

  • Provincial and Territorial motor vehicle registrars
  • Canada Revenue Agency (think IRS)
  • Citizenship and Immigration Canada
  • Provincial and Territorial vital statistics registrars
  • Proven electoral lists from other jurisdictions

An eligible voter is anyone who's over the age of 18 and a Canadian citizen. Pretty complicated huh?

And, of course you can register at the polling station on election day, but that does require you bring ID and something like a utility bill to proof your address.

Suffice it to say, Elections Canada tries pretty damn hard to get you registered, they actively go looking for you and if for some reason you've slipped through the cracks you're bound to catch one of the adds on TV, radio, or flyers passed out telling you how to register. Basically, you have to live under a rock and have no interest in politics to not be registered.

Even if you're homeless and not registered, you can still vote on election day provided an already registered voter vouches for you and the Officer in charge of the station gives it the okay.

Long story short: Elections Canada doesn't give two rips about what political party you might vote for, they just want to make sure you're going to be able to cast your f***#ng ballot.

There are no third party groups trying to flood the registrar with a bajillion names to be registered right before the election and there are no counter-third party advocacy groups screaming that those bajillion names are actually all frauds and terrorists.

Despite all this, are there attempts at election fraud? Sure there are, always will be. But with one national organization that has no political bias, with access to all the key sources of info a lot of that junk is minimized.

Now for part 2- the voting booth!!!!

Once you go to the voting station with your registered card, or, if you register cold turkey at the station on election day (provided you have right documentation) you're given a piece of paper.

No Diebold voting machines.

No hanging chads.

Just a piece of paper, probably with 5 names on it (maybe more or less depending on how many parties are running a person in your riding) and the political party next to each name.

With your pen....I think it was pen and not pencil the last time I voted.... you colour in/checkmark/scribble or make an X next to the name of the person you want to vote for. Then drop in the box.

I know, really complicated isn't it?

Who sets up and administers the voting stations?

Elections Canada!

Shocking, I know. And to boot, since one organization is setting up ALL of the voting stations across the country you have uniformity- everyone in the nation goes through pretty much the exact same thing, only with different names on the ballots depending on the riding.

Whichever political party wins the most seats becomes the government and the leader of that party becomes prime minister. Although, the prime minister has to win in his riding too, or else one of his party members will have to give up their seat which would be pretty embarassing right off the get-go.

So that's how it works up north. Now what's all this voter registration ruckus about down south???

 

 


Comments (Page 2)
5 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Oct 14, 2008

but wouldn't be 60? He said he visted 57 with one left to go and he wasn't allowed to vist Alaska and Hawaii!

61 actually since he was not counting DC in his statement, but they do vote for president.

Wait, you are counting different legislations? Or different population?

Legislations.

What is the problem with having a nation-wide standardization of voting process? I mean, different procedure for different state seems unfair to me.

Giving up power - no one does so willingly, so the states are not going to give it up - and the constitution says it is theirs and THEY have to vote to change it.

on Oct 14, 2008

Giving up power - no one does so willingly, so the states are not going to give it up - and the constitution says it is theirs and THEY have to vote to change it.

It's not "giving up power", it's "standardization". Everybody agree on the same process, some shared database, etc... In order to facilitate voter registrations, when somebody moves from one state to another, etc...

With such a mobile workforce, I think it should be quite important...

on Oct 14, 2008

Everybody agree

Arrg!  And there's the rub.  Everyone agrees on their own method, so to get to where you are proposing, they would have to agree on someone else's.  And as they say "everyone thinks their way is the best way".

Actually it is worse than the 51 mentioned as 5 of the states are commonwealths.  SO in those 5 states, the localities can tell the state to take a hike (the only influence the state has over the localities in non-criminal matters is with money).

on Oct 14, 2008

What is the problem with having a nation-wide standardization of voting process? I mean, different procedure for different state seems unfair to me.

We don't elect our President in a direct nation-wide popular vote.  Our Constitution is a little picky about that.

on Oct 14, 2008

Here's a whacky idea:

Create a standardized national organization for elections. This way, instead of 60 bureaucracies each with different ballots, some with voting machines, some with punch cards, you have 1 organization with access to all the pertinent information- all the DMV's, vital statistics, IRS, blah blah blah.

Having one single group with access to all the data would make it:

1) Much cheaper. Instead of dozens of redundant, differing individual bureaucracies you now have one that's consolidated.

2) Much more accurate. Hanky panky like registering dead people would be caught early on and those behind it subject to prosecution, since this organization would have access to all the info (including birth and death certs) could say "hey, you just tried to register 10 thousand dead guys, i'm calling the police!"

3) Much more fair. Hanky panky like having thousands of names knocked off rolls for dubious or obscure reasons would be minimized, as there would now be more oversight and someone would have to have a damn good reason, explainable and defendable to higher authority, as to why a member of a community who's lived at a fixed address for the last 20 years with no criminal record suddenly has their name disapear from the rolls!

4) Standardization of voting practices. Having soft-touch Diebold voting machines may be the way to go, but  the notion that these machines use "proprietary" software that the government isn't allowed to see is complete and utter BS. I'm a complete moron, by my own admission, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out what a complete farce, and potential disaster is in the making when voting machines are created that have no oversight of the software and have been proven to be able to be hacked and have the votes changed electronically, with no permanent way of tracking the votes via hard copy.

on Oct 14, 2008

Create a standardized national organization for elections. This way, instead of 60 bureaucracies each with different ballots, some with voting machines, some with punch cards, you have 1 organization with access to all the pertinent information- all the DMV's, vital statistics, IRS, blah blah blah.

See my previous responses.  It wont happen unless the states agree to it.  And they will not because that is ceding power to the feds again.

Try demanding that all the UK Commonwealth cede power over all elections to GB.  Then you can understand a little about what you are saying.

on Oct 14, 2008

Try demanding that all the UK Commonwealth cede power over all elections to GB. Then you can understand a little about what you are saying.

It is a good argument Dr. Guy, and I credit you with the novel approach!

However, comparing the British Commonwealth to the Union is a tad too far of a stretch I'm afraid.

For example, the commonwealth has no control over individual armed forces, yet your president has the ability to call up individual state's national guards and send them overseas, in addition to the regular forces (army, marines and air force) spread across the Union. Throw in taxes, which are collected also on a federal level across the nation for which there is no equivalent in the commonwealth.

Basically, the commonwealth is more like a very loose club of countries with mutual interests and past associations- not in any way shape or form a government resembling the U.S setup... if, for example, the commonwealth decides to pass a resolution, in no way is it binding on the individual members, unless they choose to adopt it. And, a member can leave at any time and the others can't do a darn thing about it.....

What, praytel would happen if one day out of the blue california decided they wanted to seceede from the union and become a part of Mexico?

on Oct 14, 2008

Here's a whacky idea:

Got that right.  We're too close to 1984 as it is.

on Oct 14, 2008

However, comparing the British Commonwealth to the Union is a tad too far of a stretch I'm afraid.

Far stretched - yes.  But closer to reality than Canada is to the US.  You got the gist.  Conforming 50+ "governments" to a single standard where no one has the authority to do so - is like herding cats.  The US is tighter than the commonwealth (which after all is more like the EU than the US), but far looser than other countries and their "states".

What, praytel would happen if one day out of the blue california decided they wanted to seceede from the union and become a part of Mexico?

I think that was answered 147 years ago.

 

on Oct 15, 2008

Arrg! And there's the rub. Everyone agrees on their own method, so to get to where you are proposing, they would have to agree on someone else's. And as they say "everyone thinks their way is the best way".

Actually it is worse than the 51 mentioned as 5 of the states are commonwealths. SO in those 5 states, the localities can tell the state to take a hike (the only influence the state has over the localities in non-criminal matters is with money).

Don't take me wrong, but your country seems to have been built on self-mistrust and paranoia. If you cannot agree to things for the greater good of the nation, where does that leave you, small citizen?

on Oct 15, 2008

Don't take me wrong, but your country seems to have been built on self-mistrust and paranoia.

That is because you do not understand it.  After all it is not "self mistrust", it is the opposite.  You think you are right, or you would not be doing what you are doing.  So it is with the 50+ legislatures.  They trust themselves (as most people do) to be right.  Paranoia has nothing to do with it.

on Oct 15, 2008

That is because you do not understand it. After all it is not "self mistrust", it is the opposite. You think you are right, or you would not be doing what you are doing. So it is with the 50+ legislatures. They trust themselves (as most people do) to be right. Paranoia has nothing to do with it.

They value provincialism and absolute self-determinism over the greater good of an unified [put anything that could be better with an national unified standard]! Specially when it comes to federal matter - such as federal election.

on Oct 15, 2008

They value provincialism and absolute self-determinism over the greater good of an unified [put anything that could be better with an national unified standard]! Specially when it comes to federal matter - such as federal election.

They trust themselves over the feds.  That is American, and the foundation of the country.  It was built on the premise of mistrust of big government.

on Oct 15, 2008

For example, the commonwealth has no control over individual armed forces

Not any more, but just 60 years ago it did.

You still have one commander-in-chief over most important Commonwealth forces. She just listens to different parliaments when instructing her troops.

When it comes to number of troops under her command, the Queen is probably among the big-6. And when it comes to quality of troops under her command, she is arguably number 1. (And when you count usefulness, a function of quality and quanitity, she is certainly number 2.)

 

on Oct 15, 2008

Not any more, but just 60 years ago it did. You still have one commander-in-chief over most important Commonwealth forces. She just listens to different parliaments when instructing her troops.

Actually, it was 89 years ago for Canada, not 60. When I was in the reserves (same thing as U.S National Guard), yes, I did take an oath to protect the Queen as must all members of the forces.

However, it was symbolic, as are most things with the monarchy these days.

Speaking factually, Great Britain lost ALL control over Canada's military in 1919 with the Statute of Westminster. The Queen remained as the figurehead that we all take an oath to but she holds no real power.

What is the Statute of Westminster? It gave Canada complete control over our own armed forces free from Britain. Long story short, when WW1 broke out Britain still controlled our armed forces and said "you guys are going to fight!" which we did, and did pretty good for a bunch of backward colonials thank you very much.

However, after 1919 not even the queen could force us to do anything after the passing of westminster. When WW2 broke out, we got involved in it from the beginning, although this time we voluntarily joined our brothers overseas as opposed to being forced into it.

5 Pages1 2 3 4  Last