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 3)
5 Pages1 2 3 4 5 
on Oct 15, 2008

I thought Canada entered the war automatically once Britain was under attack.

I know what the Statute of Westminster is. But I disagree that the Queen is "symbolic". The fact that it seems as if the monarchy is symbolic means only that the system works.

 

on Oct 15, 2008

Artysim
Here's a whacky idea:



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.

We aren't using Diebold in my county. I've been selected to be a machine operator for this election and have been through several hours of training (but to be honest, I think they should require more, just in case. I understood the machine well enough, but I don't know that everyone did). Apparently, each area down here got to choose which machine they wanted to use. Ours is using the Microvote infinity. At the beginning of the day, we print out a readout showing that there are no votes registered on the machine to start with. We are required to keep a running tally of the votes registered on the machine, and at the end of the day, we print out the ballot tally. After this election, we will not be using these machines anymore. Nice use of taxpayer dollars, huh? They've only been in service since 2006 and cost $3500, plus the $400 tally and zero vote printer.

They were very stern towards us, because during the primary and local elections here in Feb. and Aug., there were a few machine operators that were arrested for "assisting" voters to the benefit of a particular candidate. I am not permitted to give any advice outside of machine operation (as it should be). I enthusiastically support John McCain, but I will give you my word, if he is to win, I want him to win the proper way. If you come to my machine and vote for Obama, I will still be happy that you voted at all. It is not my right to interfere with anyone's duties as a voter. If they have made it to my station, they have been declared a legal voter and it is my job to facilitate the voting process, not someone's campaign.

I do agree that practices should be standardized. It would make a lot more sense, and if problems were to arise, they could be sorted out more quickly. I don't think it is the best idea to allow people to register on Election Day and be allowed to vote. This is just begging for voter fraud. I used DeclareYourself.com to re-register when I moved to this county. If anyone has any trouble getting where they need to go to register prior to the election, let me know, and I'll be happy bring over my old faithful laptop and assist them through the process regardless of who you're going to vote for. But once the deadline has passed, you've missed your chance. You have at least 11 months before the election to register. Why wait? I'm unarguably one of the world's worst procrastinators. When did I register? The end of August. I've lived in this county for about a year and a half now.

I stand firm by the idea of the Electoral college. I think it was a brilliant idea then, and continues to be today.

on Oct 15, 2008

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

We weren't founded on self-mistrust but there was a healthy dose of paranoia in there.  Our founding fathers didn't trust mob-mentality which is why we are a democratic Republic rather than a full on Democracy.  Our founding fathers were also concerned about any one person (or group) gaining too much power which is why they built in the checks and balances into how our government works.  So healthy paranoia yes, self-mistrust no.

on Oct 15, 2008

So healthy paranoia yes, self-mistrust no.

Exactly!  Thanks for explaining it better than I.

on Oct 16, 2008

I thought Canada entered the war automatically once Britain was under attack.

Yhea, but that's called the NATO treaty. You are bound to the same obligation.

on Oct 16, 2008

I thought Canada entered the war automatically once Britain was under attack.

Cikomyr
Yhea, but that's called the NATO treaty. You are bound to the same obligation.

There was no NATO before WWII it a post-WWII treaty.

on Oct 16, 2008

There was no NATO before WWII it a post-WWII treaty.

Oh, damn. He talked about WW2, sorry.. hehe..

We were still allied with Great Britain at the time. I think it was a commonwealth-thing. But we had the choice of breaking the alliance, if we had wanted to.

But since many Canadians were still seeing themselves as part of "The Empire", eh.

on Oct 16, 2008

But since many Canadians were still seeing themselves as part of "The Empire", eh.

Except in Quebec.

on Oct 16, 2008

We were still allied with Great Britain at the time. I think it was a commonwealth-thing. But we had the choice of breaking the alliance, if we had wanted to.

The Statute of Westminster defined legislative equality between the dominions and the United Kingdom. It did NOT end all other obligations of the dominions to each other or to the United Kingdom. One dominion "breaking the alliance" with another country in the empire wouldn't have been a legal choice but open rebellion. Back then there was still one Crown in right of the United Kingdom and all other dominions.

It wasn't possible for Germany or any country to declare war on the United Kingdom but not Canada, because they still shared the same government (as opposed to sharing the same individuals in different government positions).

Today there is a Queen of Canada and a Queen of England and while they happen to be the same person, they are two different offices and both of them have their own prime ministers.

Back then there was only one Queen of Canada and England and she just happened to appoint discrete prime ministers for each of her lands.

In fact, even today the dominions and the United Kingdom are linked in ways that deny the idea that they are completely separate independent countries.

The prime minister of New-Zealand is still a member of the Privcy Council of the United Kingdom.

New-Zealand's and Australia's currencies are used in territories that are still British and not New-Zealandian or Australian colonies.

New-Zealand's judiciary legally resides over cases concernining British colonies in the Pacific Ocean.

There exists a legal framework for making British territories into parts of states or provinces of dominions (as in the case of Carribean islands and Canada).


There are other such examples, mostly concerning judiciary and land claims. For example for Canada and New-Zealand to keep their territory without acknowledging the Monarch of Britain as their own could be difficult as their respective aboriginal populations are souvereign nations who ceded territorial rights to Britain, not new countries founded by former Britons. (That's why the US had to make new treaties with Indian tribes after the revolution. The tribes are still souvereign.)

 

on Oct 16, 2008

Except in Quebec.

Try to find information about the riots that happened when the English-Canadians wanted to join in the Boer War, but the French-Canadians didn't.

The thing is, the FC were the cannon fodder of the Canadian Army. Cannon fodder for a country that kep them under a language-based economical heel. Going to fight for the very empire that conquered us? no way..

Today there is a Queen of Canada and a Queen of England and while they happen to be the same person, they are two different offices and both of them have their own prime ministers.

Wrong. There is a Queen of England, and there is the General Governor of Canada, who is appointed by our Prime Minister, but represent the authority of the Queen.

 

on Oct 16, 2008

Wrong.

Sorry, but there definitely and absolutely is a Queen of Canada.

http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/special/jubilee/e-biography.htm

The Governor General is merely her representative. And he/she is NOT "appointed" by the Prime Minister. The title "Prime Minister" ("first servant") already gives you a hint. He is a servant of her Majesty, not someone who can "appoint" her Majesty's representatives.

Perhaps you meant the Prime Minister _advises_ her Majesty as to whom she should best appoint?

The Governor General outranks the Prime Minister.

This is similar to other parliamentarian systems, including Germany or Israel. Except they are republics, not monarchies.

 

 

on Oct 16, 2008

Cannon fodder for a country that kep them under a language-based economical heel. Going to fight for the very empire that conquered us? no way..

I understand non-English-speaking Americans had a similar problem in the US until they learned English.

Being a minority can be hard, but languages can be learned and if willing the problem would be solved within a generation or two.

 

on Oct 16, 2008

Being a minority can be hard, but languages can be learned and if willing the problem would be solved within a generation or two.

Except that we WANT to remain french-speaking. That's our heritage, our culture.

We have been since 1763, the day you conquered us.

on Oct 16, 2008

The Governor General is merely her representative. And he/she is NOT "appointed" by the Prime Minister. The title "Prime Minister" ("first servant") already gives you a hint. He is a servant of her Majesty, not someone who can "appoint" her Majesty's representatives.

Perhaps you meant the Prime Minister _advises_ her Majesty as to whom she should best appoint?

The Governor General outranks the Prime Minister.

This is similar to other parliamentarian systems, including Germany or Israel. Except they are republics, not monarchies.

Lol. Yhea, I guess in the form, that's how it is. But that's not how it works mate

on Oct 16, 2008

Sorry, but there definitely and absolutely is a Queen of Canada.

Yes, and she is a figurehead, no more. Relations with GB are cordial but they have no sway over Canada's policy and decisions and haven't since shortly after WW1. It is a historical fact that Canada chose of our free will to voluntarily join the fight in WW2. We could have thumbed our noses at them (which wouldn't have made any sense) and they wouldn't have been able to do anything about it. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the crown. In fact, my family has several acres in Newfoundland that were given to us by the crown because my ancestors stayed loyal during the American Revolution. But that was several hundred years ago. In fact before the war of 1812 (technically 1813) in which some of my ancestors ALSO were part of the british force that marched into Washington and set fire to White House. Technically we weren't "Canadians" at the time as we were still a British colony, but you get my drift.

The Governor General is merely her representative. And he/she is NOT "appointed" by the Prime Minister. The title "Prime Minister" ("first servant") already gives you a hint. He is a servant of her Majesty, not someone who can "appoint" her Majesty's representatives.

As someone who has spent several years studying Canadian history I am afraid I am going to have to contradict you. Technically, you are -sort- of correct. Yes, the Governor General must get royal approval in order to be the governor general, and yes, the GG must sign off on any laws passed by parliament and the senate as the representative of the British Crown. This however is purely symbolic and carries no actual weight in Canadian politics. The Prime Minister basically chooses the governor general, then the royals sign off on it. If for some reason the GG were to refuse to sign a law that had been passed by the parliament and senate, the Prime Minister would probably appoint someone else to be GG. Or, we could simply change the law negating the need for a GG.

IF the royals were to not sign off on the appointed GG, parliament could very easily decide to change the law so that royal assent is not necessary. It's simply a holdover from the old ways of keeping some of our established traditions (more pageantry and show than actual substance)

The Prime Minister is elected by the Canadian people when we elect a party that holds the most seats in parliament. If for some reason the royals were to object to our selection (which has never happened) then we would again, simply change the laws so that royal assent is not necessary, or possibly even ignore the royals. However, the Brits after several centuries of empire building do seem to possess the art of statesmanship which means that they will be quite happy to sign off on any decisions we make so that we will retain this quaint, albeit toothless law.

But, much of this has very little to do with Canada and much to do with all of the bloody internal struggles and purges that the British Monarchy subjected it's own citizens to hundreds of years ago. If you study British history, you will find that although there still is indeed a deep allegiance on a popular level to the monarchy, legislatively they have been neutered by their own political system. The British Royal family are more akin to celebrities and cultural icons than they are to political powerhouses. This is not by accident, but was crafted in such a way that never again will British citizens have to worry about being embroiled in bloodshed just because one of the royals passed away and the heirs are vying for the throne and all that nonsense!

5 Pages1 2 3 4 5