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

[brihard]

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.

If accurate, that should be easily proven then. Did you include those interview clips in your complaint?

 

[ArmyRick]

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.

If that rule had existed, Mark Carney would not have been able to run in Nepean.

 

[ArmyRick]

If accurate, that should be easily proven then. Did you include those interview clips in your complaint?

Nope, but I am able to follow it up.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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

It`s nuanced as far as I can tell

Prohibited to use a loudspeaker near a polling station


282.2 No person shall, in a polling station or in any place where voting at an election is taking place, influence or attempt to influence electors to vote or refrain from voting, or to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate or registered party, at the election.

So if you are advocating for a different electoral system and not trying to prevent people from voting or singling out any candidate, then by my read they could have orderly protests with information handouts comparing election systems.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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.

It could easily be done via a form, with spaces, categories to show dates, types of campaigning, costs involved. You can amend the Act to make it a offence to knowingly falsify the information on the form. The forms only get scrutiny at when they is a complaint about the candidate being real. This sort of thing is already a big part of government in it`s day to day work.

 

[brihard]

It could easily be done via a form, with spaces, categories to show dates, types of campaigning, costs involved. You can amend the Act to make it a offence to knowingly falsify the information on the form. The forms only get scrutiny at when they is a complaint about the candidate being real. This sort of thing is already a big part of government in it`s day to day work.

My issue's not the way you would account for it, but rather that the lawful candidacy of an individual would depend on whether they in fact go out and knock on doors, advertise, or what have you. Like I said it would basically be compulsory acts of political expression. Legally that doesn't work; it would be a S. 3 Charter breach. If someone wants to be a candidate and just passively sit there til voting day, they're allowed to.

 

[Blackadder1916]

It`s nuanced as far as I can tell

Prohibited to use a loudspeaker near a polling station


282.2 No person shall, in a polling station or in any place where voting at an election is taking place, influence or attempt to influence electors to vote or refrain from voting, or to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate or registered party, at the election.

So if you are advocating for a different electoral system and not trying to prevent people from voting or singling out any candidate, then by my read they could have orderly protests with information handouts comparing election systems.

From a poll supervisor point of view it's not as "nuanced" as you may think. It's very clear that political campaigning including material that identifies candidates, parties, or political positions are not permitted at the polling place. "Place" does not mean just the room in which you find the ballot boxes et al, it extends to the exterior of the building (while that may be vague, show me the place and I'll show you the perimeter at which I won't object to your demonstration). Any activity that inhibits the process of voting or access to the polling place, inside the polling place or outside is not permitted even if that numpty's position has nothing to do with a particular party or candidate who is running.

 

[quadrapiper]

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?

Wouldn't mind a restriction on candidacy, outside of their initial riding, for a politically inconvenient period, for anyone who has lost their riding; possibly even for someone who has run and failed to win a seat.

 

[lenaitch]

It could easily be done via a form, with spaces, categories to show dates, types of campaigning, costs involved. You can amend the Act to make it a offence to knowingly falsify the information on the form. The forms only get scrutiny at when they is a complaint about the candidate being real. This sort of thing is already a big part of government in it`s day to day work.

In addition to the Constitutional issue, what benchmark would EC use? It can't be subjective. In compact urban riding, a candidate can hits lots of stops on a pocket full of transit tickets. In a large remote riding, a candidate can maybe do one or two per day, often at the significant cost of airfare. Then there all the ridings in between.

What if a candidate put in comparatively little effort, and won?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

My issue's not the way you would account for it, but rather that the lawful candidacy of an individual would depend on whether they in fact go out and knock on doors, advertise, or what have you. Like I said it would basically be compulsory acts of political expression. Legally that doesn't work; it would be a S. 3 Charter breach. If someone wants to be a candidate and just passively sit there til voting day, they're allowed to.

I think a charter proof definition of a candidate can be had to deal with this issue. Exemption for people that are mobility impaired would strengthen the definition.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

In addition to the Constitutional issue, what benchmark would EC use? It can't be subjective. In compact urban riding, a candidate can hits lots of stops on a pocket full of transit tickets. In a large remote riding, a candidate can maybe do one or two per day, often at the significant cost of airfare. Then there all the ridings in between.

What if a candidate put in comparatively little effort, and won?

I think any effort and being able to attest to that, will remove the nuisance candidates, while allowing the lazy or ill prepared to still take part. A number of Acts have some sort of minimum requirement towards doing/completing something in order to qualify. The bar does not have to be high and only used to deal with such protests. Generally most people who sign up take it seriously. Hell even Count Binface puts quite the effort in, talkshows, debates. I remember the Rhino party, they would show up for debates, they were stoned but they were there.

 

[brihard]

I think a charter proof definition of a candidate can be had to deal with this issue. Exemption for people that are mobility impaired would strengthen the definition.

The language of the Charter is very blunt and definitive. It doesn’t seem to allow for any such criteria of ‘putting in the work’ or ‘deserving’ candidacy. It’s a plain and almost absolute statement of eligibility for citizens. I struggle to imagine how what you want to see could be enacted as a ‘reasonable limitation’ protected by Section 1.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

From a poll supervisor point of view it's not as "nuanced" as you may think. It's very clear that political campaigning including material that identifies candidates, parties, or political positions are not permitted at the polling place. "Place" does not mean just the room in which you find the ballot boxes et al, it extends to the exterior of the building (while that may be vague, show me the place and I'll show you the perimeter at which I won't object to your demonstration). Any activity that inhibits the process of voting or access to the polling place, inside the polling place or outside is not permitted even if that numpty's position has nothing to do with a particular party or candidate who is running.

The Act is pretty specific, if they are across the street and handing out pamphlets on why we should change voting systems and not using a microphone. Then there is little they can do.

 

[McG]

I am thrilled to see so many people who believe more government regulation is necessary because of an insignificant nuisance.

If demonstrating that you campaigned in your riding were an obligation to be on the ballot, Poilievre would have been punted during the general election as he made no effort in the riding itself.

 

[Good2Golf]

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

Cannot get enough people to go along with a campaign to change the electoral system to delegalize the longest ballot? TFB, its called democracy.

…see how democracy works?

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.

My opinion was that I was okay with actually filling out the longest ballot in the last election because it wasn’t onerous…at all…

If demonstrating that you campaigned in your riding were an obligation to be on the ballot, Poilievre would have been punted during the general election as he made no effort in the riding itself.

This.

I live two streets over from his house (he still owns it, or did anyway at election time, even though he lived in Stornaway), and the lack of demonstrable engagement by him or any CPC canvassers was palpable. Neighbourly talk was that he seemed to not be interested in his own constituency.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I am thrilled to see so many people who believe more government regulation is necessary because of an insignificant nuisance.

If demonstrating that you campaigned in your riding were an obligation to be on the ballot, Poilievre would have been punted during the general election as he made no effort in the riding itself.

But you have a party mechanism doing it on his behalf that can easily show signage, door knocking, etc.

 

[Good2Golf]

But you have a party mechanism doing it on his behalf that can easily show signage, door knocking, etc.

If only he had actually done that effectively for the election…

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If only he had actually done that effectively for the election…

I reminded our candidate that it was not the party that gets you elected, it's the people in your riding and not to be just a trained seal. Being that is what cost the CPC North and West Vancouver.

 

[vonGarvin]

If only he had actually done that effectively for the election…

I'm quite confident that the re-drawing of his riding was the decisive factor in his losing to the LPC candidate.

That said, who knows what a serious effort by his team could have done.

Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda doesn't win elections, though.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The language of the Charter is very blunt and definitive. It doesn’t seem to allow for any such criteria of ‘putting in the work’ or ‘deserving’ candidacy. It’s a plain and almost absolute statement of eligibility for citizens. I struggle to imagine how what you want to see could be enacted as a ‘reasonable limitation’ protected by Section 1.

A quick dive into the case mentioned earlier, leads me to believe that the ruling does not prevent Election's Canada from blocking frivolous candidates, but the means and test, must be reasonable and connected to act of being a serious candidate.

Szuchewycz v. Attorney General • Page 15 • Election Judgments - IFES

Uwazi docs

electionjudgments.org