Artysim Artysim

Voter Registration!?!?

Voter Registration!?!?

 

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???

 

 

26,213 views 62 replies
Reply #26 Top

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

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.

Reply #27 Top

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.
End of quote

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.

Reply #28 Top

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.
End of quote

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.

Reply #29 Top

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

End of quote

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.)

 

Reply #30 Top

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.
End of quote

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.

Reply #31 Top

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.

 

Reply #32 Top

Quoting Artysim, reply 20
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.
End of Artysim's quote

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.

Reply #33 Top

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

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.

Reply #34 Top

So healthy paranoia yes, self-mistrust no.
End of quote

Exactly!  Thanks for explaining it better than I.

Reply #35 Top

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

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

Reply #36 Top

Quoting Leauki, reply 31
I thought Canada entered the war automatically once Britain was under attack.
End of Leauki's quote

Quoting Cikomyr, reply 35
Yhea, but that's called the NATO treaty. You are bound to the same obligation.
End of Cikomyr's quote

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

Reply #37 Top

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

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.

Reply #38 Top

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

Except in Quebec. ;)

Reply #39 Top

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.

End of quote

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.)

 

Reply #40 Top

Except in Quebec.
End of quote

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.
End of quote

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.

 

Reply #41 Top

Wrong.

End of quote

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.

 

 

Reply #42 Top

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..

End of quote

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.

 

Reply #43 Top

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

End of quote

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

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

Reply #44 Top

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.
End of quote

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

Reply #45 Top

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

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.
End of quote

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!

Reply #46 Top

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

End of quote

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.

 

Reply #47 Top

Going to fight for the very empire that conquered us?
End of quote

Vous etes Francais aussi? ;)

 

Je suis Cajun.

Reply #48 Top

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

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!

Reply #49 Top

No, it shows that you are ignorant.

End of quote

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.

End of quote

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.

End of quote

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!

End of quote

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.

 

Reply #50 Top

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

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).