Electoral Reform (Senate, Commons, & Gov Gen)

[Underway]

Electronic voting just creates more opportunities for fraud.  At this particular point in time, no-one should be living under the illusion that e-anything is secure.  Stick to traditional paper ballots.

Mandatory voting creates more uninformed and under-informed votes - even with an "out" (spoiled ballot or none-of-above option) a compelled voter might suddenly be tempted to check off some name for no admirable reason.  I would rather people disinclined to vote continue to exercise that freedom instead of polluting the results.

Alternatives to FPTP look attractive to Teams Red and Orange right now because of the disarray on the left/centre-left and relative unity on the right/centre-right.  Abolishing the Senate looks good when you have no likelihood of appointing senators to block the other teams' governments and a very real likelihood of being faced with senatorial pushback on the rare occasion you do form government.  In brief, no high principle needs to be attached to these positions - sheer political opportunism will do, and political opportunism is a poor reason to change.

In someways fraud is reduced.  You can now go to three different polling stations and vote.  Now you would be recorded as having voted.  If using current banking or protected b level security should be pretty solid.  Denial of service attack like what happened today would still be possible though I think.

 

[PuckChaser]

Denial of service attack like what happened today would still be possible though I think.

You mean like this? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/hackers-attack-ndp-delaying-electronic-leadership-vote/article535684/

Anonymous yesterday took down numerous government servers. Anyone with enough time on their hands will get through your security, especially when you have to allow so many untrusted connections into your server to cast the ballots. DOS/DDOSing a vote is one small step away from pumping in hundreds of illegitimate ballots.

 

[George Wallace]

The senators are chosen like jury duty.  It's essentially a random lottery.  This wouldn't require anyone at all to know your senators or to vote for them.  Leaving regional seat numbers as they are and then have the seats filled by random appointment.

Not quite what you alluded to in your original post about planet Mars protocols.  >

 

[George Wallace]

Besides electronic voting being an easy target for hackers of all ilks, there are so many flaws in the proposals being put forward by the Liberals.  The idea of having voters make three choices, their first choice, whom they would like next if that person doesn't make it, and a third in case neither of their first two choices garnered enough votes; just makes a mockery of Democracy.  In fact it isn't even democratic. 

 

[Rocky Mountains]

(cough, PEI, cough, does Mr Duffy actually live there?)

Absolutely.

33. If any Question arises respecting the Qualification of a Senator or a Vacancy in the Senate the same shall be heard and determined by the Senate.

You notice it doesn't say the courts.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Now you would be recorded as having voted.

It may record that someone voted in your name - not the same thing.

 

[George Wallace]

Time to have Elections Canada purchase large quantities of indelible ink.  Everyone who voted gets to stick their thumb into the bottle.  Those without a black thumb can be fined by Mr Trudeau.  >

 

[Underway]

>Now you would be recorded as having voted.

It may record that someone voted in your name - not the same thing.

Its no different than dead people voting, voting in place of your brother, voting in multiple ridings (very very easy to do), or someone using a fake ID.  I think the real risk is that you can do more efficient ballot box stuffing with electronic systems from sitting on you chesterfield.  Its not any easier to hack a computer system with decent security than it is to fake a bunch of ID's, miscount or drive to multiple voting booths and vote multiple times.  The current paper system has many flaws as well.  I suppose its better than hanging chads though.

 

[George Wallace]

Its no different than dead people voting, voting in place of your brother, voting in multiple ridings (very very easy to do), or someone using a fake ID.  I think the real risk is that you can do more efficient ballot box stuffing with electronic systems from sitting on you chesterfield.  Its not any easier to hack a computer system with decent security than it is to fake a bunch of ID's, miscount or drive to multiple voting booths and vote multiple times.  The current paper system has many flaws as well.  I suppose its better than hanging chads though.

Just another reason to tell the Civil Rights activists to cease and desist, and enforce security measures by introducing Bio-metric IDs.

Someone coming to vote with a thumb in a plastic bag on ice, or an eyeball on ice, would raise an eyebrow or two.

 

[Underway]

Just another reason to tell the Civil Rights activists to cease and desist, and enforce security measures by introducing Bio-metric IDs.

Someone coming to vote with a thumb in a plastic bag on ice, or an eyeball on ice, would raise an eyebrow or two.

I disagree (with the non-eyeball comment...ew... ;D).  The more laws the less freedom in many respects.  I expect and accept a certain amount of chaos, friction and noise with my freedom.  Price of doing business.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Time to have Elections Canada purchase large quantities of indelible ink.  Everyone who voted gets to stick their thumb into the bottle. 

The same thought went through my head too.  If it works in the sandbox it would work here too.  :nod:

 

[a_majoor]

My daughter wanted to know "why should I vote?" when she turned 18

I taught my daughter the importance of voting through the simple lesson:

"These candidates want to raise our taxes to pay for things that only benefit a very small number of people, while neglecting issues which affect large numbers of people. We could lose our house as a result since the tax increase will push payments outside of our budget."

Sadly, not enough people know this lesson, so we are looking to sell our house in the near future. At least we tried.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>I think the real risk is that you can do more efficient ballot box stuffing with electronic systems

Exactly so.  Any practical system of collecting votes from large populations presents opportunities for fraud, but ultimately all countermeasures amount to increasing (or not decreasing) one thing: the difficulty of casting a vote.

When you have twelve hours on one day, to show up in person, with photo identification, which you are required to present while showing your face, to make a non-stylized mark on a paper ballot, which is physically retained, the opportunities to cast multiple votes are limited.

None of those requirements is onerous*.  Attempts to make voting easier also make voting fraud easier.

*Except for people for whom voting on election day would be markedly inconvenient or impossible, in which case there should be limited advance voting for people who can demonstrate need (mere convenience should not be entertained).

 

[Rocky Mountains]

Chong's Reform Act

Apparently this is supposed to be a great democratic step forward but it looks to me that professional politicians are seizing power from party membership that selects or deselects the leader.  I think this could take a while to cross the Governor General's desk - like never.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/contentious-reform-act-lives-senate-votes-reject-proposed-220139260.html

 

[Underway]

Takes a lot of the power away from the party whip.  Anything that does that is good for democracy in Canada.  UK MPs break party ranks all the time to represent their constituants.  Canadian MPs should be allowed to do the same.  Remember parliament chooses the government.  Canadians choose parliament.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

The Governor General chooses the government normally based on election results, Parliament can only fire it.  What about party constitutions?  A party that doesn't stick together and make their compromises in caucus will soon be toast.  Whatever the law says will be totally ignored, of necessity.

The part I didn't notice - "He also agreed to subject all elements of the bill to a vote by each party's caucus after each election. They could choose to adopt the rules, modify them, or go with the status quo."

So it's bulltweet.  If I was a leader I might be tempted to force the point.  All parties are coalitions, with disparate interests.  Who wants to waste efforts fighting within your party?

 

[Brad Sallows]

When it comes to policy lockstep and holding members to the party line, the LPC and CPC have nothing on the NDP.  Don't expect meaningful reform from Team Orange.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This (from the Ottawa Citizen) ~ PM Harper slaps moratorium on Senate appointments ahead of election ~ is an interesting development. It, a "death by a thousand cuts," is one of the strategies the Supremes specifically ruled out, as a non-starter.

Once again, in my opinion, good politics and poor policy.

It's good politics because it will, most likely appease about half, maybe more, of Canadians, and it takes an arrow out of Thomas Mulcair's quiver and it may make M Trudeau into the one and only "defender" of the Senate of Canada, as currently configured.

It's poor policy because we are a federal state and we need a bicameral legislature: one chambre representing Canadians, in their communities, on a (roughly) equal basis and the other representing the "partners" in Confederation, the provinces which have, Constitutionally their own sovereign status.

There is a right answer: but it requires a Constitutional Conference and it may need unanimous (not 7/50) approval ~ disband the current Senate and replace it with a "Council of the Federation" with some form of democratically elected, by and within provinces, provincial representation and powers very like those of the current Senate.

 

[Remius]

Two problems I can see with the approach.

1) I believe the senate has a quorum rule.  Not sure what the threshold is but if the senate cannot achieve quorum then I am guessing no legislation can be passed. At all.

2) The PM, should he lose the election is giving up 20+ seats in the senate to the incoming government.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Exactly ~ the Supremes told him he couldn't sentence the Senate to a slow death. But: he only "gives away" 20 senators IF Justin Trudeau is elected. Doing this would put Thomas Mulcair, should he become PM, in a bind. He has promised abolition, the last thing he wants to do is to appoint senators: this move would force the next CPC or NDP PM to take some action quickly. (It would take quite a few minutes for me to guesstimate when, through age related resignations, the quorum disappears, but my WAG (wild assed guess) is that it's within less than 10 years.)