Loadsa "independents" on the Ballot Discussion (split from PP by-election)

[Colin Parkinson]

I like to see the rules change that any candidate on the ballot has to show effort in that riding prior to the vote, whether it's signage, doorknocking, campaigning, advertisements. That would allow Elections Canada to challenge this stuff, while letting legitimate independents still get onto the ballot. In fact it will protect legitimate independents from harm by this groups actions.

The group is free to do a formal protests near polling stations that does not impede voters and would be more effective than this crap.

 

[HavokFour]

I like to see the rules change that any candidate on the ballot has to show effort in that riding prior to the vote, whether it's signage, doorknocking, campaigning, advertisements. That would allow Elections Canada to challenge this stuff, while letting legitimate independents still get onto the ballot. In fact it will protect legitimate independents from harm by this groups actions.

The group is free to do a formal protests near polling stations that does not impede voters and would be more effective than this crap.

How about a requirement of living in said riding for 1-2 years full time, prior to putting your name in the hat.

 

[brihard]

I like to see the rules change that any candidate on the ballot has to show effort in that riding prior to the vote, whether it's signage, doorknocking, campaigning, advertisements. That would allow Elections Canada to challenge this stuff, while letting legitimate independents still get onto the ballot. In fact it will protect legitimate independents from harm by this groups actions.

The group is free to do a formal protests near polling stations that does not impede voters and would be more effective than this crap.

Forced acts of campaigning or expression after they’ve registered as a candidate, and with their candidacy potentially ruled revocable post-facto based on some arbitrary assessment of how hard they tried in the riding? Respectfully, that’s absurdly unworkable and would put unjustifiable limitations on the S.3 Charter right to candidacy.

 

[ArmyRick]

To be honest, I took some time last night on the elections Canada web site and looked through it. Candidacy requirements. If elections Canada were to follow up and investigate (or use whatever enforcement arm they have), I suspect a few of these "bogus" candidates would be in hot water.

 

[brihard]

To be honest, I took some time last night on the elections Canada web site and looked through it. Candidacy requirements. If elections Canada were to follow up and investigate (or use whatever enforcement arm they have), I suspect a few of these "bogus" candidates would be in hot water.

Can you elaborate?

The eligibility requirements are here: Step 1. Are You Eligible To Be a Candidate? - Becoming a Candidate

There aren’t a lot of restrictions. The overwhelming majority of citizens are eligible to run for candidacy in any riding.

 

[ArmyRick]

How about a requirement of living in said riding for 1-2 years full time, prior to putting your name in the hat.

That would have disqualified many liberals, Conservatives and NDP from running.

Leslie Church did not live in Toronto St Paul before being elected last April
Our own MP, Alex Ruff grew up in our riding and then went into the Armed Forces, retired six months before the 2019 election and first won the CPC candidacy and then won the riding in 2019.
Mark Carney wouldn't have been able to run in his riding.

I have no issue with someone coming from outside, I expect them to be serious about running for MP. Thats the main issue I have with the stupidest ooops, I mean longest ballot committee

 

[Blackadder1916]

I like to see the rules change that any candidate on the ballot has to show effort in that riding prior to the vote, whether it's signage, doorknocking, campaigning, advertisements. That would allow Elections Canada to challenge this stuff, while letting legitimate independents still get onto the ballot. In fact it will protect legitimate independents from harm by this groups actions.

The group is free to do a formal protests near polling stations that does not impede voters and would be more effective than this crap.

Can you connect the dots for me? If your proposition is that a potential candidate has to demonstrate that he/she was actively campaigning prior to the deadline for registering (and subsequently receiving confirmation) as a candidate, how does that square with the requirement to be a confirmed candidate before campaigning in public places.

---

8.2. Canvassing and Campaigning in Public Places and Residential Areas
Confirmed candidates and their representatives have the right to canvass door-to-door and campaign in many residential areas and public places, like multiple-residence buildings and shopping malls, including on election day.

Campaigns should contact the person in control of the premises that they wish to attend in advance to facilitate admission. We recommend that you carry a copy of Access to Public Places and Residential Dwellings by Candidates and Their Representatives (EC 21011) – a letter from the Chief Electoral Officer, explaining candidates' and their representatives' rights of access. The letter is available to confirmed candidates in PESC. It can also be obtained from the returning officer. It can be shown to the person in control of the premises to support the candidate's or their representatives' right to canvass or campaign there. A person in control who wishes to verify the status of a candidate may also consult the Elections Canada website, which lists all the confirmed candidates during an election period, or call the local returning officer. You may also carry a copy of your Notice of Confirmation of Nomination as further attestation to your status as a confirmed candidate.

---

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I like to see the rules change that any candidate on the ballot has to show effort in that riding prior to the vote, whether it's signage, doorknocking, campaigning, advertisements. That would allow Elections Canada to challenge this stuff, while letting legitimate independents still get onto the ballot. In fact it will protect legitimate independents from harm by this groups actions.

The group is free to do a formal protests near polling stations that does not impede voters and would be more effective than this crap.

Protesting or campaigning near a polling station is illegal under the Canada Elections Act.

 

[The Bread Guy]

That would have disqualified many liberals, Conservatives and NDP from running.

Leslie Church did not live in Toronto St Paul before being elected last April
Our own MP, Alex Ruff grew up in our riding and then went into the Armed Forces, retired six months before the 2019 election and first won the CPC candidacy and then won the riding in 2019.
Mark Carney wouldn't have been able to run in his riding.

All within the rules:

You may run as a federal candidate in only one electoral district at a time; however, you do not have to live in the electoral district where you are running

I have no issue with someone coming from outside, I expect them to be serious about running for MP. Thats the main issue I have with the stupidest ooops, I mean longest ballot committee

I hear ya re: wanting people to be serious, but since it's kinda hard to read people's hearts, that would be tough to come up with hard-and-fast rules for.

If you use campaigning activities as a rule, well, how many people go to church and go through the motions while not GAF? Same with people running for office.

If we wanted people to be serious in wanting to RUN for office, wouldn't it also make sense to make sure people are serious about VOTING for politicians? And how easy would that be to measure & enforce? Kinda similar problem.

No answers for ya, I'm afraid, just trying to get my head around the right question(s) needing to be asked, and if there's a reasonable and consistent way of answering it/them.

Like someone smarter than me & active around here has said more than once, democracy can be messy.

 

[ArmyRick]

Can you elaborate?

The eligibility requirements are here: Step 1. Are You Eligible To Be a Candidate? - Becoming a Candidate

There aren’t a lot of restrictions. The overwhelming majority of citizens are eligible to run for candidacy in any riding.

You are supposed to swear a solemn declaration
"To complete the nomination package, the candidate must make a solemn declaration before an authorized person, as required by sections 66(1)(a) and 549(1) of the Act.

Under the Act, the following people are authorized to receive such a declaration:

• an election officer (including any returning officer, assistant returning officer, or additional assistant returning officer);
• a judge;
• a unit election officer (an elector appointed by a commanding officer to administer an election on a military base);
• a notary public;
• a provincial court judge;
• a justice of the peace; or
• a commissioner for taking oaths in the province."

Step 4. Completing and Submitting the Nomination Package - Becoming a Candidate

Tools for Nomination Contestants.

www.elections.ca

Now, I would like to see what the solemn declaration is, the wording. IF and I don't know, but if it says anything about making a honest or real attempt about running for MP and all you did was submit your name and sit on your couch and laugh, well, you should be held to account.

Nopw, a real concern. Bonnie Critchley is a legitimate independent candidate, she has nothing to do with the longest ballot. She is door knocking, doing TV interviews, she lives in the riding (a bonus), she is self promoting hard. She has expressed concerns that she will be drowned out by the 100 some odd bogus names. And easily get overlooked.

I said it before and I will keep on saying, the truth doesn't change, PERIOD.

Want to be an MP in a riding? Then you run as an MP candidate and no other reason.

Want to attempt to effect change on our electoral system? Get a PETITION going and get an MP to sponsor it. If its a valid enough concern, you should easily get over 100,000 signatures easily.

Can not get that many people to go along with a campaign to change the electoral system? TFB, its called democracy.

None of the basic point I have brought up has been refuted, not once. Running as an MP in order to protest the electoral system is an illegitimate reason to run, maybe when you swear your solemn declaration, you should tell the judge that is why your running.

My OPINION, is the only reason many of you are ok with the longest ballot or do not give a shit, is simply because its affecting Pierre run at MP in Battle River Crowfoot.

 

[ArmyRick]

All within the rules:


I hear ya re: wanting people to be serious, but since it's kinda hard to read people's hearts, that would be tough to come up with hard-and-fast rules for.

If you use campaigning activities as a rule, well, how many people go to church and go through the motions while not GAF? Same with people running for office.

If we wanted people to be serious in wanting to RUN for office, wouldn't it also make sense to make sure people are serious about VOTING for politicians? And how easy would that be to measure & enforce? Kinda similar problem.

No answers for ya, I'm afraid, just trying to get my head around the right question(s) needing to be asked, and if there's a reasonable and consistent way of answering it/them.

Like someone smarter than me & active around here has said more than once, democracy can be messy.

At this point, Tomas Szuchewycz had done this so many times now, he should be disqualified as an agent for people running.

His older brother Kieran started this horseshit way, way back in early 2010s, he was the one that got the Supreme court to strike down the $100 or $1000 (can't remember off the top of my head). All the other things he challanged at the same time, he lost. Kieran wants to ditch the 100 signatures required, I have to go back and re-read the brief, but there was a few other things he wanted and did not get.

Kieran was attempting to run against Stephen Harper.

 

[Blackadder1916]

While we contend with generally anonymous individuals whose contribution to the electoral process is to add another name to a single ballot, the mothership of parliamentary politics have these legitimate candidates:

Count Binface


AI Steve

 

[brihard]

You are supposed to swear a solemn declaration
"To complete the nomination package, the candidate must make a solemn declaration before an authorized person, as required by sections 66(1)(a) and 549(1) of the Act.

Under the Act, the following people are authorized to receive such a declaration:

• an election officer (including any returning officer, assistant returning officer, or additional assistant returning officer);
• a judge;
• a unit election officer (an elector appointed by a commanding officer to administer an election on a military base);
• a notary public;
• a provincial court judge;
• a justice of the peace; or
• a commissioner for taking oaths in the province."

Step 4. Completing and Submitting the Nomination Package - Becoming a Candidate

Tools for Nomination Contestants.

www.elections.ca

Now, I would like to see what the solemn declaration is, the wording. IF and I don't know, but if it says anything about making a honest or real attempt about running for MP and all you did was submit your name and sit on your couch and laugh, well, you should be held to account.

Here you go. It was in the Elections Act at the sections you quoted. There’s no such requirement as what you hypothesized.

Manner of nomination

• 66 (1) A nomination paper shall be in the prescribed form and include
  
  • (a) a solemn declaration, in the prescribed form, made by the prospective candidate of
    
    • (i) his or her name, address and occupation,
    • (i.1) any other name by which he or she is commonly known — other than a name that could be confused with the name of a political party — and that he or she wishes to appear on the ballot instead of the name referred to in subparagraph (i),
    • (ii) the address designated by the prospective candidate for service of documents under this Act,
    • (iii) the name and address of the prospective candidate’s official agent,
    • (iv) the auditor’s name, address and occupation, if the prospective candidate has appointed an auditor under subsection 477.1(2),
    • (v) the name of the political party that has endorsed the prospective candidate or, if none, the prospective candidate’s choice to either have the word “independent” or no designation of political affiliation under his or her name in election documents, and
    • (vi) if the prospective candidate’s statement includes the name of a political party that has endorsed him or her but the returning officer is unable to verify, under paragraph 71(2)(c), that the party has done so, the prospective candidate’s choice of either one of the two options referred to in subparagraph (v) or the withdrawal of his or her nomination paper;

Administration of solemn declarations and affidavits

• 549 (1) Solemn declarations and affidavits referred to in this Act are to be received by the person who by this Act is expressly required to receive them and, if there is no such person, then by the Chief Electoral Officer or a person designated by him or her in writing, a judge, an election officer, a unit election officer as defined in section 177, a notary public, a provincial court judge, a justice of the peace or a commissioner for taking oaths in the province.

 

[ArmyRick]

Now, how do we deal with Tomas Szuchewycz representing himself as an agent while running under the name Mark Moutter?

I filed a complaint to Elections Canada that they are the same person.

 

[brihard]

Now, how do we deal with Tomas Szuchewycz representing himself as an agent while running under the name Mark Moutter?

I filed a complaint to Elections Canada that they are the same person.

Out of curiosity what's your evidence that they're the same person? There's plenty of media available of Moutter from prior iterations of this stunt where he's given interviews. Separately, Tomas Szuchewycz's name shows up in previous election related court records. He'd be 31 or 32 based on that.

There seems to be evidence of each of those individuals existing. I'm wondering what I've missed? By all means if there's evidence run it down, and if there's an offence, investigate and prosecute. I just haven't seen anything painting that picture yet.

 

[dapaterson]

While we contend with generally anonymous individuals whose contribution to the electoral process is to add another name to a single ballot, the mothership of parliamentary politics have these legitimate candidates:

Count Binface
View attachment 94723

AI Steve
View attachment 94724

Blackadder's third series has an episode titled "Dish and Dishonesty" that should be mandatory watching.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Now, how do we deal with Tomas Szuchewycz representing himself as an agent while running under the name Mark Moutter?

I filed a complaint to Elections Canada that they are the same person.

There is some social media evidence out there that they're not the same person:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1946675929012429276

Keep us posted re: how the Elections Canada process goes - never knew anyone who dealt with the system, so curious to see how they deal with this.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... I would like to see what the solemn declaration is, the wording. IF and I don't know, but if it says anything about making a honest or real attempt about running for MP and all you did was submit your name and sit on your couch and laugh, well, you should be held to account.

Here it is - it's part of the paperwork candidates fill out (full form attached).

The bottom box seems to be where one of these folks sign:

• an election officer (including any returning officer, assistant returning officer, or additional assistant returning officer);
• a judge;
• a unit election officer (an elector appointed by a commanding officer to administer an election on a military base);
• a notary public;
• a provincial court judge;
• a justice of the peace; or
• a commissioner for taking oaths in the province

Blackadder's third series has an episode titled "Dish and Dishonesty" that should be mandatory watching.

Here ya go - thanks for the tip!

Black Adder 3 1 Dish And Dishonesty : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Black Adder

archive.org

 

[ArmyRick]

Out of curiosity what's your evidence that they're the same person? There's plenty of media available of Moutter from prior iterations of this stunt where he's given interviews. Separately, Tomas Szuchewycz's name shows up in previous election related court records. He'd be 31 or 32 based on that.

There seems to be evidence of each of those individuals existing. I'm wondering what I've missed? By all means if there's evidence run it down, and if there's an offence, investigate and prosecute. I just haven't seen anything painting that picture yet.

I would have to dig up TV interviews, but its clearly the same guy. Mark Moutter appeared on CBC, then if you look up Tomas Szuchewycz, its the same guy.

 

[Eaglelord17]

100% disagree. Elections Canada asked last year for this nonsense to stop. It pisses people off. One of my 1,001 Liberal voting aunts (who lives in Pierre's old riding) was furious about the ridiculous ballet. As were many other people.

This is making a mockery of democracy and it hinders ALL parties involved. I think you will see a change to this.

As for the snot nosed marxist that organizes this horse shit, he needs to grow the fuck up and accept the way our electoral system works. If it was a much higher priority than Canadians would be demanding it. They aren't. FPTP system works, with its limited flaws.

Almost like holding a bi-election immediately after having a general election to get a specific MP elected who failed to secure a seat isn’t making a mockery of democracy? What do we keep getting to redo things until they get the result they want?

And that is due to what, exactly? That there were more candidates than a Blue one and Red one like in the U.S.?

Under our laws we can have multiple independent candidates who are valid options, but also, this can be used to flood the ballot. How do you differentiate the two? Who gets to decide? The Canada Elections Act prescribes who can become a candidate and as far as I am aware, all 50 in this by-election were legal and vetted by the Chief Electoral Officer.

If Elections Canada wants it to stop, it is Parliament that must amend the Act to forbid it. Which brings me to your secind point...



This is exactly what democracy is. Using the system in place to try and bring about changes to it that people feel are in need of changing.

Eliminating this kind of protest would require revisions to the Canada Elections Act. No one in their right mind wants to do that, especially in a minority parliament. Why? Amendments.

Additionally, me things that may be the end goal. This group wants to move away from FPTP and they are using the system as written to at least bring awareness to their cause.


Works for whom? It works great for Toronto, Montreal, Quebec, and Ontario, but not so much for the rest of Canada. It works for staunch Conservatives and Liberals, but makes Dippers and other party followers have to either vote with their heart or vote strategically.

FPTP worked when our electorate was small and centralized to a few ridings. It has outlived its suitability due to our population growth and regional disparity.

Proportional Representation and Ranked Balloting work in other social democracies around the world; perhaps we at least look at it as an option?

Those other systems you propose would strengthen party apparatuses not balance out power. If anything regions would have less representation as a party could say be based 100% out of Toronto and have all their representatives come from Toronto. It also kills a MPs loyalty to a region, and makes them 100% loyal to a party.

Those other countries tend to have much less of a rural/urban divide simply due to much less land to begin with.

I would modify the current FPTP system though to make living in a area for 2-3 years a requirement to run in the area though. Make the MP actually a representative of the area not just a parachute candidate.