Federal Tories Attempt To Muzzle Elections Canada, Influence Future Elections

[Nehkara]

Conservatives’ election bill is too important to be rammed through without changes

• The Tories have their hearts set on moving the office of the commissioner — where investigators work — away from Elections Canada, apparently to separate the regulatory and investigative functions.

But the Director of Public Prosecutions — who will appoint future commissioners — isn’t responsible for any other investigative agencies. Also, he reports to the government, not to Parliament. It’s hard to see how the move would allow for political interference, which is the really scary prospect, but it also poses problems.

The act limits the authority of [chief electoral officer] Mayrand in several ways. I like the idea of requiring him to post interpretations of rules, but the act appears designed to muzzle him, forbidding him from speaking to the public about anything except the location of voting booths.

This is either a drafting error or an unacceptably authoritarian move. It must be reversed.

• The same clause that forbids Mayrand from speaking would stop Elections Canada’s efforts to promote turnout. No more ad campaigns to encourage voting among groups with low turnout — like young people and aboriginals — groups that — what a coincidence! — don’t vote Tory.

Parties are no longer able to field the armies of volunteers like they once did, though, which causes Elections Canada big staffing headaches. The act gives the agency an extra week to staff up, but it also allows the incumbent party in each riding to appoint the central poll supervisor, which seems like a terrible idea.

On Wednesday, the day after they tabled the bill, after only a few hours of debate, the Conservatives moved to cut short debate before sending it to committee, which suggests the government plans to treat the legislative process for this bill as a ritual that must be endured, as is its habit.

But the legitimacy of our political system depends entirely on public faith in the electoral process, so the government has excellent reasons to allow this bill to be properly debated and amended as necessary.

[Ace]

I actually like the cutting advertising to encourage people to vote. Why waste the money, does it even make a difference among those groups where turnout is low.

[Slava]

Haha, the irony of them ramming through an elections/democracy bill shouldn't be lost!

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Ace

I actually like the cutting advertising to encourage people to vote. Why waste the money, does it even make a difference among those groups where turnout is low.

That would seem to be an important question to answer, with actual data, before actually cutting the funding, no?

Anyway, I'm curious to see if this thread makes it past page 1 (unlike most threads critical of the federal conservatives.)

[Ace]

Does it really though, everyone knows we live in a democracy that has elections. It seems kind of pointless to convince people to show up?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Ace

Does it really though, everyone knows we live in a democracy that has elections. It seams kind of pointless to convince people to show up?

Everyone knows that Coca-cola makes cola, and everyone knows what it tastes like, but Coca-cola still spends billions of dollars on marketing every year for a reason.

[Aeneas]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Everyone knows that Coca-cola makes cola, and everyone knows what it tastes like, but Coca-cola still spends billions of dollars on marketing every year for a reason.

Is there another election for federal government competing with Elections Canada? Odd example.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Aeneas

Is there another election for federal government competing with Elections Canada? Odd example.

Fair point. Perhaps a better example would be quit smoking marketing then.

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by Ace

Does it really though, everyone knows we live in a democracy that has elections. It seams kind of pointless to convince people to show up?

While it pains me to say this, but I don't think its safe to say that everyone in Canada knows how to vote, where to vote or to find information to vote. New immigrants, lower educated citizens and young people who have never voted, may not know what to do.

[Ace]

Fair point, I think there is clearly a good reason to send out info on where and when to vote...but targeted campaigns towards apathetic groups...maybe not worth it.

[Devils'Advocate]

It is hard to know if PSAs help to get out the vote. However, whether effective or not, I think it is the DUTY of elections Canada to inform young voters on the importance to vote. There seem to be no studies to show whether these ads contribute to increased voter turnout and it is easy to say "we spend $x on these ads and yet the numbers are still abysmal". Well, it's possible that they would be worse than abysmal without the ads. We just don't know. What we do know is that youth vote typically doesn't go to the Conservatives, so yeah, this is politically motivated not fiscally prudent. And one thing that they have done a study on is that *IF* we get a youth voter out to the ballot box, that person is likely to become a life-long voter.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Of all the abhorrent things that this bill does, that is the one we are discussing? This is like saying poutine is good for your health because the cheese has calcium in it. This is a brutally antidemocratic bill that like similar moves in the United States is meant to aid the right while hurting democracy. Think I am overstating things? Check out what the Chief Elections Officer has to say:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Co...383/story.html

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Makarov

That would seem to be an important question to answer, with actual data, before actually cutting the funding, no?

Wouldn't we need to cut the funding to get the data?

[GGG]

The big problem I have with this bill is the voter identification requirements being made more stringent. Voter fraud is not a real issue and increasing id requirements makes voting more difficult.

I think their are good and bad with this bill but I dont believe that this bill is being done to be partisan. I think the conservatives believe this is the best course of action for canadian elections. Disappointed with the ramming it through.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

It is hard to know if PSAs help to get out the vote. However, whether effective or not, I think it is the DUTY of elections Canada to inform young voters on the importance to vote. There seem to be no studies to show whether these ads contribute to increased voter turnout and it is easy to say "we spend $x on these ads and yet the numbers are still abysmal". Well, it's possible that they would be worse than abysmal without the ads. We just don't know. What we do know is that youth vote typically doesn't go to the Conservatives, so yeah, this is politically motivated not fiscally prudent. And one thing that they have done a study on is that *IF* we get a youth voter out to the ballot box, that person is likely to become a life-long voter.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Of all the abhorrent things that this bill does, that is the one we are discussing? This is like saying poutine is good for your health because the cheese has calcium in it. This is a brutally antidemocratic bill that like similar moves in the United States is meant to aid the right while hurting democracy. Think I am overstating things? Check out what the Chief Elections Officer has to say:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Co...383/story.html

I think you are completely exagerating the election officers comments. His main concern is the changes to voter access and changes the bill doesnt make. A lot different than the "abhorent bill" you refer to it as.

[driveway]

I seriously don't understand how anyone votes Tory in Canada. Don't get it at all.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think you are completely exagerating the election officers comments. His main concern is the changes to voter access and changes the bill doesnt make. A lot different than the "abhorent bill" you refer to it as.

That's all you got from Maynard's comments?

How about the whole part about being muzzled? (second to last paragraph) There is more detail in the associated article that I'll quote here:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/fi...263/story.html

"My understanding is that I will be able to speak only on three aspects ... how, where and when to vote. That's basically it," he said following a committee meeting on Parliament Hill.

"My reading, given how restrictive the provision reads, suggests that not only will I not be able to speak, I understand I cannot call Canadians unsolicited. That certainly ends any survey of Canadians about our services."

That suggests Mayrand, and his successors, could be prevented from revealing election complaints — such as misleading robocalls, ballot-box stuffing or other misdeeds — until such time as individuals had been charged for the crime.

"Telling people there's an investigation underway, I'm not sure what public service that actually performs," said Tom Lukiwski, Poilievre's parliamentary secretary.

So, yeah, this bill that was supposed to give them the power to investigate wrongdoings like the robocalls does NOT have the tools that he would require to do his job properly, BUT it does stop him from talking about any wrongdoings.

Furthermore, his concern is that this bill was written solely by the Conservatives, not in consultation with his office, not in consultation with the opposition parties, not even in consultation with the general public at large. This is their bill, their bill alone, and they are going to ram it through.

From the current chief electoral officer:

Election reforms in Canada have typically come about through all-party consensus "and after extensive public consultation," Mayrand noted. "It's fundamental as to the legitimacy of those who govern us."

From the past chief electoral officer:

Former elections watchdog Jean-Pierre Kingsley also bemoaned the lack of multi-party consensus in the approach to electoral reforms. In an interview, the former chief electoral officer said at one time, reforms used to pass through Parliament relatively smoothly because the government consulted in advance with opposition parties and Elections Canada to ensure legislation was perceived as non-partisan.

Kingsley said that process has been gradually breaking down for years, but today it is "entirely of another order." "It's so hyper-partisan that even the good that's in the bill, people are just not willing to accept that there could be some good," he said. "They're just saying, 'There must be something that we don't understand. What is it that they're trying to do?'"

Mayrand said he hopes Canadians actively take part in the debate. "I think it's absolutely essential that the public pay attention and get involved in expressing their view."

[Devils'Advocate]

[Rathji]

I haven't had time to actually read the bill, but if the stuff listed in this article is true it means that as a lifelong PC/reform/conservative voter, it makes me sick to my stomach.

I hope it is just poorly written, but I am not going to hold my breath...

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

That's all you got from Maynard's comments?

How about the whole part about being muzzled? (second to last paragraph) There is more detail in the associated article that I'll quote here:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/fi...263/story.html


So, yeah, this bill that was supposed to give them the power to investigate wrongdoings like the robocalls does NOT have the tools that he would require to do his job properly, BUT it does stop him from talking about any wrongdoings.

Furthermore, his concern is that this bill was written solely by the Conservatives, not in consultation with his office, not in consultation with the opposition parties, not even in consultation with the general public at large. This is their bill, their bill alone, and they are going to ram it through.

From the current chief electoral officer:

From the past chief electoral officer:

Maynard himself says he's not concerned with moving the investigative portion of the office. Also the investigators should not talk about co plaints and ongoing investigations. The investigations shoukd be completed then the information delivered to Canadians. Before the conclusion of investigations are completed its just allegatioms and noise

I agree that this bill does not address some of the robocall issues but it is not worse than the status quo.

The first bubble is the fear mongering point and again Maynard is no concerned by the loss of independance so that is clearly misleading.

[GP_Matt]

re. Voter fraud
I am really of two minds on voter fraud. I don't like the idea of anything that has the potential of preventing someone from voting but on the other hand voter fraud seems equally offensive to me.
In the last election I forget the Ontario riding that was challenged but there were hundreds of declarations and a large number of them were missing information. The form is supposed to be filled out with the info of the voter and then signed by the voter and the polling officer to verify that he has seen sufficient proof. In the Ontario riding many of the forms weren't signed by either party. They just had some chicken scratch on them and then they were given a ballot.
The other issue with no identification is the bus load scam. It is rumoured to happen in some elections where a bus load of people show up at a polling station and all head inside with no id and make the declaration to get a ballot. Afterwards they pile back on the bus and head to the next polling station. No idea if it has happened in modern times but the system is currently set up so that it can happen.

In my mind though the solution is to give more power to the electoral officer and more training to the staff. This bill seems to give more training to the staff with earlier hiring but then turns around and takes investigative powers away from the EO.