Federal Tories Attempt To Muzzle Elections Canada, Influence Future Elections

[kirant]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Do higher voter turnouts favour the Liberals? I recall during the US election, it was said by some people in the media that higher voter turnouts tend to historically favour the Democrats. I was just wondering if the same concept is true in Canada.

The party closest to the country's political centre is typically favoured.

In the US, the Democrats represent the US' centre, while Republicans are the right wing, going by the old left-right continuum. Republicans typically vote at higher percentages than Democrats, hence their representation as a party and support base which is organized and knows what they're doing.

In Canada, I've found the federal centre to swing back and forth between more conservative Liberals and more liberal Conservatives. Given the current mood of Canadians towards Harper, a more traditional Conservative in policy with a somewhat controversial record, a higher turnout would almost invariably support Trudeau. Whether or not it stays that way depends on Trudeau's actions.

[Devils'Advocate]

FlamesAddiction posed an interesting question, so I went looking for information. I didn't find anything completely on target, but I did find some very interesting reports here:
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx...t41&lang=e#p41

These are the kind of reports that Elections Canada will not be able to do under the new legislation.

[Brannigans Law]

How many cases of voted fraud have been proven and convicted in Canada? Federally? Ever?

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Said the pot to the kettle.

And yes, Trudeau says a lot of things. His words are meaningless given his party's history. In time, his actions will be far more important.

DA - If the Liberals and NDP won't put resources into trying to become a viable alternative, then nobody should complain when they don't get votes. (also, the most recent overt example of Liberal Party hostility was the Green Shift).

Sorry that whole Pot kettle retreat doesn't work here. You said a blatantly partisan statement with nothing to back it up. You then defended that statement because you know what Trudeau will do in the future, for no other reason than irrationally clinging to a 35 year old policy. That's so logically challenged that I can't believe you'd put it out there.

I've voted for every single major party. I'm not a partisan. I even supported early Harper with stuff like income trust and the innovation spending. But just because I loathe what this government has become does not make me a blind partisan of your ilk. I can vehemently oppose this government based on a calm and cooly arrived to conclusion that they are bad at governing and bad at making policy. That doesn't make me partisan. What makes someone like you the problem is that in the face of all evidence, you're convinced that somehow someone else will be WORSE because of a 35 year old policy and your crystal ball. Weak.

[Resolute 14]

Whatever, Tinordi. Rule one of identifying partisanship: the more time one spends screaming that they are objective, the less objective they really are. But I do have to say I am impressed at your freakout here. I knew you love Trudeau already, but I never realized to what extent. (And to forestall another tedious whinefest from you, no, I am not making any arguments about my own objectivity. Unlike you, I'm not playing at pretense.)

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

1) Without discussing the merits of the "Green Shift", please explain how it is anti-Calgary.

I think a Liberal MP himself said it best:

"Liberal MP Ken Boshcoff admitted that Green Shift was not an environmental proposal, but rather 'the most aggressive anti-poverty program in 40 years,' designed to 'transfer wealth from the oil patch to the rest of the country.'"

Which, of course, was obvious from the alignment of the taxes. The majority of the carbon taxes Dion planned to collect - primarily from the prairie oil and gas industries - were going to be funneled into social programs that were going to primarily benefit central and eastern Canada.

Fortunately, most Canadians - especially in the west - saw through the plan as it would have had devastating impact across the country.

2) The example that the CEO gave in his interview was that Elections Canada help with a program in the schools where students not of age to vote can participate in mock elections where they get to know the process of voting and the importance of voting. I support them 100% getting the next generation interested in politics and wanting to participate in democracy.

First off, the CEO of Elections Canada is about as neutral a source here as the CEO of Enbridge talking about the environmental impact of Keystone would be.

However, fair enough. I'm not defending this bill per se. I came involved in the thread more to respond to the shrill arguments that voting Conservative makes us look bad in the view of the ROC. My response to that, of course, is that I don't give a flying F what the rest of Canada thinks. Especially given the lack of any other real alternative.

But to your point, I am trying to read the bill itself rather than the highly charged rhetoric from the stories you are posting. The bill seems to focus on the Chief Electoral Officer role. From the perspective of that one role alone, your point is valid. But I do wonder if there isn't an overreaction since I don't think the bill restricts Elections Canada itself from participating or encouraging things like mock elections at schools. If it does, or if the ultimate interpretation is that it does, then I would agree that it is a poorly considered change in this respect.

The one part that does bother me is having the "Director of Public Prosecutions" report to government rather than Parliament. As the Calgary Herald story in the OP notes, that opens up increasing concerns about the party in power - whomever they may be - wielding undue influence. Especially since it stands to reason that other investigative commissions will eventually move into this role.

[Tinordi]

Whatever, Tinordi. Rule one of identifying partisanship: the more time one spends screaming that they are objective, the less objective they really are. But I do have to say I am impressed at your freakout here. I knew you love Trudeau already, but I never realized to what extent. (And to forestall another tedious whinefest from you, no, I am not making any arguments about my own objectivity. Unlike you, I'm not playing at pretense.)

Oh that's the first rule eh? Says who? You?

How about this for the first rule of identifying partisanship according to the book of Tinordi: In the face of criticism, change the conversation around to those other guys that we know would be even worse!

Second rule, put words in people's mouths when they call you out. I love Trudeau? Truly fanciful, I certainly will not be voting for him next election. Continue on creating the world of Resolute_14 where the Conservatives do no wrong in the face of a tidal wave of evidence.

And at least you admit to being the problem with our state of politics. Acceptance is the first step to recovery.

[Brannigans Law]

Now that's an amazing debating technique. Call someone partisan then pointing out their denials as further evidence of their partisanship.

[Tinordi]

Fortunately, most Canadians - especially in the west - saw through the plan as it would have had devastating impact across the country.

Ah yes devastating impact more smoke signals from world of Resolute. Lets look at a research and modelling effort that tried to evaluate how "devastating" this impact would be.

http://www.td.com/document/PDF/econo...09-climate.pdf

Page 4:

If Canada was super ambitious on carbon pricing (way more than Dion's $30 per tonne) by 2020 its GDP would have been estimated to be 3.2% lower than without a carbon tax.

Alberta would have been the hardest hit with a GDP 12% lower than doing nothing. BUt would STILL lead all provinces in GDP growth at a cumulative 57% total GDP growth out to 2020.

Now answer me this. How have Harper's policies helped the oil patch? Their staunch anti-carbon agenda has led them to loads of trouble down in the U.S. where the once "no brainer" of a pipeline is now almost certain to be denied. Further, the escape plan, Northern Gateway will be mired in at least 10 years of aboriginal legal battles from the government's heavy handedness in conducting the Joint Review. The real problem is that the oil patch is under significant strain, not entirely to do with the Conservatives' terrible policy toward the sector, but certainly a part of it.

And meanwhile you seem to believe that a carbon tax would have been worse. I can pretty much guarantee you that if we had the tax now, keystone would be half laid by this point.

But continue with the self serving justifications and blind partisanship that surely will benefit dear Alberta.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Brannigans Law

Now that's an amazing debating technique. Call someone partisan then pointing out their denials as further evidence of their partisanship.

We're allowing Tinordi's crying and moaning to push this even further off topic, but yes, in my experience, the people who spend the most time arguing their objectivity tend to be the most biased. In this case, he chose to attack me as being a partisan because I do not believe the Liberals or NDP are worthy of my vote. It is an opinion widely shared in this province, but his aim was clear: He chose to make things personal in an effort to frame the argument as one where he is reasonable and his opponent is not simply because they disagree with him. This is, in fact, SOP for Tinordi and it is evident in a great many debates/arguments he gets into in all areas of this forum. When in doubt, cast aspersions.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I can pretty much guarantee you that if we had the tax now, keystone would be half laid by this point.

I can pretty much guarantee you that if it were not for politicians, bureaucrats and special interest groups, keystone would have been built and pumping oil...

... long ago.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I support Elections Canada getting as many people out to vote as possible, so if this changes that then bad.

The turnout has being going down over the past 20 years. Doesn't sound like Elections Canada was doing a good job. It should be up to the parties to get out the vote.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Fire

It should be up to the parties to get out the vote.

Why?

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Fire

The turnout has being going down over the past 20 years. Doesn't sound like Elections Canada was doing a good job. It should be up to the parties to get out the vote.

Well, if we are going to play that game, the Conservatives should be voted out of office because they said they would be fiscally prudent and yet we have deficit after deficit. Because it is not possible at all that there could be some other factor at play.

It should be up to the parties to get people to vote FOR THEM.

It should be in Elections Canada's mandate to get people to vote FOR SOMEONE.

Like the school program that was mentioned, it gets students talking about the issues, gets them interested in politics and when they are of age they are more likely to vote.

Damn. I've been suckered into playing the "poutine is good for you because the cheese has calcium" game.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think we need to wait until poilerve responds to the accusation they didnt meet.

The elections Canada spokesperson said that Mayrand was not "consulted on the contents of the bill". Poilerve is saying "I did meet with the CEO of Elections Canada some time ago and we had a terrific and a very long meeting, at which I listened carefully to all of his ideas,"

These two statements do not conflict with eachother. Mayrands spokesperson is saying they didnt review the bill, Poilerve is saying they discussed ideas about the bill some time ago.

Both quotes are slimey and reak of politics.

Here is the governments version of the bill, time to read the actual bill and see whats in there.

http://www.democraticreform.gc.ca/en...-elections-act

Why would the impartial, non-partisan electoral commissioner make political statements?

[nik-]

Why wouldn't he comment about changes to election processes?

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by nik-

Why wouldn't he comment about changes to election processes?

I understand why he would comment, the idea that Maynard, a Stephen Harper appointee would make politically motivated commentary against Harper, as was stated previously in this thread is laughable. Of course he would comment, it is kinda an issue that affects his sphere of influence, but I imagine it would be based on content and not partisanship.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Why?

People go out and vote because they believe in what a party stands for and not because Elections Canada tells them too.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Fire

People go out and vote because they believe in what a party stands for and not because Elections Canada tells them too.

That is a remarkably simplistic view of voter participation. There are clearly many more factors that motivate people to vote than simple allegiance to one party. For example:

In any large election the chance of any one vote determining the outcome is low. Some studies show that a single vote in a voting scheme such as the Electoral College in the United States has an even lower chance of determining the outcome.[4] Other studies claim that the Electoral College actually increases voting power.[5] Studies using game theory, which takes into account the ability of voters to interact, have also found that the expected turnout for any large election should be zero.[6]
The basic formula for determining whether someone will vote, on the questionable assumption that people act completely rationally, is[7]
where

• P is the probability that an individual's vote will affect the outcome of an election,
• B is the perceived benefit that would be received if that person's favored political party or candidate were elected,
• D originally stood for democracy or civic duty, but today represents any social or personal gratification an individual gets from voting, and
• C is the time, effort, and financial cost involved in voting.

Since P is virtually zero in most elections, PB is also near zero, and D is thus the most important element in motivating people to vote. For a person to vote, these factors must outweigh C.

Riker and Ordeshook developed the modern understanding of D. They listed five major forms of gratification that people receive for voting: complying with the social obligation to vote; affirming one's allegiance to the political system; affirming a partisan preference (also known as expressive voting, or voting for a candidate to express support, not to achieve any outcome); affirming one's importance to the political system; and, for those who find politics interesting and entertaining, researching and making a decision.[8] Other political scientists have since added other motivators and questioned some of Riker and Ordeshook's assumptions.[citation needed] All of these concepts are inherently imprecise, making it difficult to discover exactly why people choose to vote.

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout

Apparently, affirming a partisan preference is only one of several factors. Elections Canada would seemingly have a large role to play in encouraging people, especially disenfranchised people, to comply with the social obligation to vote, to affirm their own importance to the political system, and to find politics interesting and entertaining.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Why would the impartial, non-partisan electoral commissioner make political statements?

Because this bill truncates his power and he doesn't like it. Or because he is angry he didn't get to see the bill in advance.

[Devils'Advocate]

I don't think it is about power. I think is about being given a job, a job you feel is important, doing the best you can at fullfilling the duties of this important job and then being told the government doesn't want that job done anymore.

I am surprised that he hasn't been reprimanded. The Chief Statistician had to step down before he could (a) rip the government on the long-form census decision and (b) counterdict the claim that the Conservatives consulted with him and that he agreed to the changes.

The Conservatives seem to have a pattern of claiming that they consulted with the senior public servents when they really didn't.