Federal Tories Attempt To Muzzle Elections Canada, Influence Future Elections

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

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.

I view his comments as a blend of content and partisanship - the latter reflecting his personal self-interest rather than a specific party's rhetoric. His comments are certainly fair, but as I said above, can be viewed as being about as neutral as the CEO of Enbridge talking about Keystone.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I view his comments as a blend of content and partisanship - the latter reflecting his personal self-interest rather than a specific party's rhetoric. His comments are certainly fair, but as I said above, can be viewed as being about as neutral as the CEO of Enbridge talking about Keystone.

... except that the CEO of Enbridge, when he supports the Keystone pipeline project, has a clear personal stake in the outcome. He has a professional reputation, stock options, and an annual bonus that will surely increase in value if the pipeline is approved. On the other hand, the Chief Electoral Officer has none of these things. Indeed, his personal interests may well be prejudiced by his decision to speak out against this proposed legislation (i.e., the stability of his employment and his reputation with his employer, the Canadian government.)

[GGG]

Originally Posted by 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.
.

This is much better stated then I did. I would also think he wants to make clear that he doesn't agree with the bill. Saying you consulted with someone can often be misinterpreted as an endorsement.

[Slava]

I didn't read the entire bill (and at 242 pages I probably won't), but there are some aspects that are totally fine. Raising the donation limit to $1500 seems fine and the registry for calls is something I agree with. I am against muzzling the CEO though and I also want them to be able to do research.

I'm ambivalent about the GOTV campaigning, mainly because what I would really like to see is a law that you have to vote like they have in Australia. Then it keeps the onus on the citizen and costs next to nothing.

I also think that the elimination of the vouching is fine. How many people can this really effect? Requiring ID these days isn't exactly a high standard, and again an extreme minority of people would be affected. Frankly I've been shocked that I've been able to vote without ID in the past as I can see how that would potentially cause issues.

[Devils'Advocate]

http://www.cbc.ca/mercerreport/video...-elections-act

And:
http://this.org/blog/2014/02/26/wtf-...-election-act/

This combined with the almost strong-arm tactics used by the conservative government to introduce the bill, refusing to consult the Chief Electoral Officer, the top expert on election laws, and shutting down debate after only an hour after the Minister introduced it, and many Canadians are wondering who this “fair”act is really aimed at.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

http://www.cbc.ca/mercerreport/video...-elections-act

And:
http://this.org/blog/2014/02/26/wtf-...-election-act/

There must be pieces of the legislation that you're in favour of though? I get that you support the NDP but not everything here is bad news.

[Devils'Advocate]

As was stated earlier in this thread, typically election act changes are done in consultation with all opposition parties and have historically passed unanimously. There are so many things wrong with the legislation, that the good is eclipsed.

If there had more consultation and collaboration, I think we would have seen far more good than bad. But apparently that's not how government is working today in Ottawa.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

There must be pieces of the legislation that you're in favour of though? I get that you support the NDP but not everything here is bad news.

There's probably good and bad but I don't have enough information to know. I rely on Parliament to do proper due diligence. As Devil's Advocate says the election process is fundamental to the health of our democracy and changes should not be rammed through in a partisan way.

[Incogneto]

Personally, I think we should go the route of Australia: Voting is mandatory. If you do not vote in a federal election, you are fined $20. That would cure the problem pretty quick.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by edslunch

There's probably good and bad but I don't have enough information to know. I rely on Parliament to do proper due diligence. As Devil's Advocate says the election process is fundamental to the health of our democracy and changes should not be rammed through in a partisan way.

1e9 x this

Ridiculous what this government is turning into

[Fire]

Originally Posted by InCoGnEtO

Personally, I think we should go the route of Australia: Voting is mandatory. If you do not vote in a federal election, you are fined $20. That would cure the problem pretty quick.

I don't see how this can be a good idea. You want a bunch of people that don't care or follow Canadian politics voting for some random individual? You might say they can just spoil their ballot, but we are just wasting time and resources forcing people to do that. I rather have the government not treat us like children.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fire

I don't see how this can be a good idea. You want a bunch of people that don't care or follow Canadian politics voting for some random individual? You might say they can just spoil their ballot, but we are just wasting time and resources forcing people to do that. I rather have the government not treat us like children.

Well thats a slippery slope. Eventually you get back to a point of saying this group isn't capable of making good decisions and we know whats best for them, so they don't get to vote.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well thats a slippery slope. Eventually you get back to a point of saying this group isn't capable of making good decisions and we know whats best for them, so they don't get to vote.

Not sure how giving people the freedom to decide if they want to vote or not will be a slippery slope that leads to the government telling certain people they can't vote. Unless I misunderstood you.

[Brannigans Law]

If people dont want to vote for someone, let them check off an "abstain" box.

Democracy in its various shapes and forms only works if people are involved and participate. Giving them freedom to become non participants isn't the same to me as giving people freedom to make other choices. Our whole method of politics and culture and society is predicated on an informed, active electorate. Anything that encourages more of that is a good thing.

[Incogneto]

Originally Posted by Fire

I don't see how this can be a good idea. You want a bunch of people that don't care or follow Canadian politics voting for some random individual? You might say they can just spoil their ballot, but we are just wasting time and resources forcing people to do that. I rather have the government not treat us like children.

In Australia, it actually means more people care about politics and elections. It ends up with a more educated voter.

Seems like a win-win to me.

[GP_Matt]

I would love to see a non of the above option on every ballot.
If none of the above wins then a new election is held with all new candidates.

That might eliminate things like Rob Anders winning by a huge margin despite his seeming lack of popularity.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by InCoGnEtO

In Australia, it actually means more people care about politics and elections. It ends up with a more educated voter.

Seems like a win-win to me.

Sounds like a lot of assumptions. They might care more about not getting fined by an overbearing government.

[octothorp]

Yeah, it would be interesting to see a study about if random Australians know more about their elected officials than a) random citizens in other democracies, and b) random voters in other democracies.

It might be that Australians are more informed than average in both counts, but it's also possible that they're more informed than average citizens in other countries, but less informed than average voters in other countries.