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 4)
5 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 
on Oct 16, 2008

I am afraid I am going to have to contradict you. Technically, you are -sort- of correct.

Wow! That showed me.

Except that I am fully correct (nor "sort of"). The language used by Canadian (and British) government sites reflects that fact.

As I said, it's the same in Germany, except with a president rather than a monarch. It takes time to understand why it is important to differentiate between power and the source of power.

 

on Oct 16, 2008

Going to fight for the very empire that conquered us?

Vous etes Francais aussi?

 

Je suis Cajun.

on Oct 16, 2008

Except that I am fully correct (nor "sort of"). The language used by Canadian (and British) government sites reflects that fact.

No, it shows that you are ignorant. If you talk to or know anyone in Canada, you would know that the British crown has about as much influence and control over our country (politically and culturally) insomuch as a time honoured tradition is respected that has very little actual meaning beyond window dressing. We do it to maintain the traditions of our past, but the British crown, and the United Kingdom in general has about as much control and influence in our political system as they do in the U.S.

If you actually knew anything about how Canada worked, beyond reading a Canadian Heritage Site, you'd know this!

on Oct 17, 2008

No, it shows that you are ignorant.

Sorry. Still completely right. And if you read your own government Web sites, you will see that.

 

If you talk to or know anyone in Canada, you would know that the British crown has about as much influence and control over our country (politically and culturally) insomuch as a time honoured tradition is respected that has very little actual meaning beyond window dressing.

And if you had read what I wrote, you would realise that I spoke of a Canadian Crown, not a British Crown. They just happen to be the same person at the moment.

If you think that the Canadian political system, which is similar to the British and German systems, is window dressing, you need to study some political history.

 

We do it to maintain the traditions of our past, but the British crown, and the United Kingdom in general has about as much control and influence in our political system as they do in the U.S.

Well, first of all that is not true. But more relevantly, I didn't say that the United Kingdom had control or influence in your political system.

Could you at least be bothered to read what I wrote, please?

 

If you actually knew anything about how Canada worked, beyond reading a Canadian Heritage Site, you'd know this!

Problem is, I DO know how Canada works. It is you who has a problem understand the system. Again, it is the same system as the UK and Germany use. You have a head of state (Queen of Canada, Queen of the United Kingdom, President of Germany) and a parliament (Canadian House of Commons, House of Commons, Deutscher Bundestag) and a prime minister appointed by the head of state (Canadian Prime Minister, British Prime Minister, German Bundeskanzler).

The head of state (Queen/Queen/President) appoints the Prime Minister on the advise of parliament and then executes policy on the advise of the Prime Minister.

A difference is that while in the UK and Germany the head of state is actually physically present, in Canada the head of state is represented by a Governor General (because you share the head of state with another country). Also, Germany is a republic where the people are souvereign while Canada and the UK are monarchies where the monarch is souvereign.

This system is in contrast to the presidential system used in the US, where the head of state is also head of government; and in contrast to the system used in France and Russia where the head of state and head of government are two positions that share power.

In case you are still interested, here's a list of countries that use a head of state <> head of government system as employed in Canada. Some are monarchies, some are republics. One is divided between a monarchy and a republic.

United Kingdom

Germany

Israel

Netherlands

Spain

Jordan

Austria

Ireland

I cannot think of many countries that employ the American system, but I am sure some south-American countries do. (In the American system the head of state is also the head of government.) Nazi Germany combined the positions of head of state and head of government.

But several countries employ the mixed system where there are separate positions for head of state and head of government but where government powers are divided between them.

France

Russia

Poland

And then there are oddities like Switzerland and various dictatorships that have heads of state that don't exist any more and heads of government have all the power. You can find them yourself.

I like the Westminster system specifically and the head of government <> head of state system in general.

But don't try to tell me that Canada doesn't practice it, because that is bogus.

You DO have a head of state and you DO have a head of government. And the head of state APPOINTS the head of government, not vice versa.

The fact that your head of state is also the head of state of the United Kingdom and is represented by a Governor General (who is also APPOINTED by the head of state, not the head of government), is immaterial and doesn't change the basic system.

It is sad that you have so little pride in your country that you don't even acknowledge its political system and the relevance of the souvereign, but that doesn't make you more right.

I am from Germany and certainly don't like the country. But I have enough respect for Germany to acknowledge that its people are souvereign and that the president (head of state) matters and that the prime minister ("Bundeskanzler") is appointed by him on the advise of parliament.

If Canada ever has to face the situation Germany and the Netherlands (and other European countries) faced before and during World War II, you will realise how damn important these things are.

In fact, during the American revolution, Canada DID face such a situation. And it WAS important.

 

on Oct 17, 2008

In fact, during the American revolution, Canada DID face such a situation. And it WAS important.

Yes.  America tried to drag Canada into the fray.  But were defeated (it was actually Benedict Arnold that was defeated - a household name in the US).

on Oct 17, 2008

Benedict Arnold

Hehe.

Eggs Benedict Arnold, a dish that consists of a half an American general and half an English muffin.

You think they are by your ham's side, but they are not.

on Oct 17, 2008

Yes. America tried to drag Canada into the fray. But were defeated (it was actually Benedict Arnold that was defeated - a household name in the US).

At the battle of Quebec!! Yi-haa!!

The guy had the brillant idea of attacking us during a snowstorm, while the garnison was partying. When the alarm was ringing, the whatever non-drunken defender that could go to their post went. They didn't found a cannonball, so they simply loaded with whatever metal item they could find..

1 ((very) lucky) shot wiped out the american senior staff, and after a few ambush in the middle of the snow, the american army was routed.

nd a prime minister appointed by the head of state

NO. He is "officially" appointed by the GG, which is the head of state. The GG is the official head of state, in service of the Queen of England.

Look, Heritage Canada is full of propagandist rubbish made to convince FC not to separate from canada.

Vous etes Francais aussi?



Je suis Cajun.

Je ne suis pas francais.

Je suis Quebecois. Un Francais vis en France, je vis a Dubai.. oops... err.. Ma nation est le Quebec.

on Oct 17, 2008

NO. He is "officially" appointed by the GG, which is the head of state. The GG is the official head of state, in service of the Queen of England.

Look, Heritage Canada is full of propagandist rubbish made to convince FC not to separate from canada.

I don't know what "Heritage Canada" has to do with it.

But the homepage of the Governor General says the following:

"Our system of government is a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy. Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and Head of State. Sworn in on September 27, 2005, the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, 27th Governor General since Confederation, represents the Crown in Canada and carries out the duties of head of State."

http://www.gg.ca/gg/rr/index_e.asp

And the homepage of the Canadian parliament says this:

"In the Senate Foyer and the Salon de la Francophonie hang the portraits of the kings and queens in whose names our laws have been, and continue to be, enacted."

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/senate//Monarchy/SenMonarchy_00-e.htm

As for the Department of Canadian Heritage, whose Web site I also referenced, they are a government department responsible for language, women (for some reason), and government structure (explaining it, apparently).

If you simply don't like the fact that your government supports my statements in such a strong way that you feel inclined to refer to them as a source of propagandist rubbish, that's your problem.

Perhaps we can agree that while YOU are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT and I am WRONG about the structure of the Canadian government, the Canadian government itself happens to BELIEVE that I am right and spreads the appropriate propaganda to spread that lie to ordinary Canadians.

It reminds me of American "libertarians", who also sometimes have very different opinions on what the structure of the US government is and also refer to any attempt by the US government to explain how it works as propaganda. I didn't know they had nutters like that in Canada.

 

on Oct 17, 2008

Je ne suis pas francais.

Je suis Quebecois. Un Francais vis en France, je vis a Dubai.. oops... err.. Ma nation est le Quebec.

Dubai?

on Oct 17, 2008

Dubai?

Yup. Why, do you think I get up from midnight to 6 O'clock just to answer on the forum?

You are an interesting bunch, but not *that* much.

on Oct 17, 2008

Sorry. Still completely right. And if you read your own government Web sites, you will see that.

Oh Leauki, I do enjoy these discussions and how quickly you presume to know in-depth details of a topic with such little actual background or understanding! One of my friends father's was a member of Parliament for the last 15 years, whom I would have to say would disagree with you. Nevermind that I also have several years of education in the history of my own political system. Again, this is why I said you are -sort- of correct. Yes, we ARE a constitutional monarchy, but that is purely on a symbolic level. Again, if you understood anything deeper of our country you would know this. But apparently you are smarter on this topic than a former member of our own parliament! My hat is off to you sir and your inate ability to read a website and suddenly have an indepth understanding that surpasses all others!

the Canadian government itself happens to BELIEVE that I am right and spreads the appropriate propaganda to spread that lie to ordinary Canadians.

What you have done is take a minor technicality and amplified it far beyond it's actual place in the scheme of things. Again, yes, as I stated the GG is the Queen's representative, but the GG is chosen and appointed by the prime minister, and if the GG were to refuse to sign a piece of legislation then they would be replaced, again, by the prime minister.

Back in 1885, the British Crown told Canada that we were going to help out in their Imperial adventure to kill poor people in Sudan. We refused, and Britain basically went "waaah!" but was unable to do much else.

WW1 was a different matter because at the time Britain still technically had the ability to control our external affairs and it was a "with us or against us" moment. However, during that conflict Canada basically established itself as a sovereign nation, alongside with sacrificing thousands of our sons and daughters, as well as managing to take Vimy ridge which other nation's armies had been unable to do.

Not long after WW1, Canada's ties to the system of constiutional monarchy were largely cut. They remain in symbolic form, again, as a tribute to our past traditions and good relations with Great Britain.

WW2, we chose to join right from the start. We could have chosen to sit back and do nothing, as I believe Ireland did in choosing to stay out of the war.

We chose to go to Afghanistan as part of the NATO contingent and currently have about 2500 troops there.

On Iraq, however, we decided we would stay out of the illegal, imoral invasion while GB decided to go in with the "coalition of the willing" (ha!)

on Oct 17, 2008

Oh Leauki, I do enjoy these discussions and how quickly you presume to know in-depth details of a topic with such little actual background or understanding! One of my friends father's was a member of Parliament for the last 15 years, whom I would have to say would disagree with you.

You assume that I have little actual background or understand in the subject because I happen to disagree with you.

That's one mistake.

You are trying to make an argument based on an appeal to authority (an MP for the last 15 years). That's a fallacy. While a government Web site is a _source_, there is no evidence at all that a given MP would be a legitimate authority on this question. If he says what contradicts the official source, he is wrong, regardless of time served in the Commons.

That's two mistakes.

Plus you keep talking about links to Britain, as if my point about your head of state had anything to do with links to Britain. In fact I compared the Canadian system to both Britain and Germany. That's a strawman you are setting up, by trying to "prove" wrong what I say about the Queen of Canada by pointing to evidence for Canada being an independent country. However, the two are separate subjects. Canada's ties to Britain may have been cut, buy Canada's ties to its own monarchy have not been.

That's three mistakes.

I suggest you read your own government's Web sites and look up the two fallacies.

 

on Oct 17, 2008

You assume that I have little actual background or understand in the subject because I happen to disagree with you.

No, my friend, I have not assumed anything. You have illustrated a lack of understanding of the subject with your assertions based on a mis-interpretation of information from a website.

Canada's ties to Britain may have been cut, buy Canada's ties to its own monarchy have not been.

Again, further illustrating my point that you don't understand. But it is your right and prerogitave to continue doing so!

 

on Oct 17, 2008

You are an interesting bunch, but not *that* much.

I am crushed.

on Oct 19, 2008

I am crushed.

As you should be. I tend to leave that impression on girls...

Oh, wait...

5 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5