Quebec Election

[bcholmes]

First: boo to Quebec about that whole veil thing.

Second: bizarre election. First minority in a century, and (Premier) Jean Charest has lost his seat. (I love results like this: electorate says, "we'll grudgingly give your party a small win, but your leader has to go.")

Third: a CBC commentator suggested that someone could just "give" Charest their seat. I think people should know how parliament works before they get to be CBC commentators.

Edit: CBC is now reporting that they found more Jean Charest ballots. I guess they were in a box, somewhere. So Charest keeps his seat.

Comments

[boywhocantsayno.livejournal.com]

If I had to pick one moment out of the campaign to point at and say, "Charest, this is where you blew it," I'd say his announcement that he was taking the transfer from the feds and using it to reduce taxes.

Quebecois may not be as left-leaning as their reputation (just look at the brouhaha over Muslims recently), but I think they still like their government to pay for stuff. And that's the whole purpose of those federal transfers. (If I were Stephen Harper, after Charest made that announcement I would have made a subsequent one about taking the money back. ;) )

[redbird]

The Gazette also suggests that by doing that, Charest reminded voters that he'd promised tax cuts four years ago and not delivered, which didn't play well even with the people who want tax cuts.

What I'm now wondering (and doubt anyone knows, though many will say) is whether people actually back Dumont and the ADQ, or if they're getting votes as "none of the above," people who don't like Charest's government but don't want another sovereignty referendum.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

I've been wondering much the same thing: is this like Quebec's equivalent to the Rae government?

[(Anonymous)]

1) Why boo Quebec about the 'veil thing'? If you want to vote, you must prove your identity. Seems like common sense to me.

2) When a commentator said a candidate could "give" his riding to Charest, he meant that someone in a safe Liberal riding (can you spell Westmount? That's where Charest lives anyway) could just resign. Then Charest would run in a partial election and win easily.

[redbird]

Where I live (yes, different jurisdiction) it is illegal for a poll worker to demand that I show any sort of ID, photographic or otherwise. I prove who I am by signing my name; they have a record of my signature from when I registered. (Frankly, this involves a certain amount of trust, as my signature is not nearly so clear as when I was 18, but there's always trust involved, somewhere in the identification chain.) If I showed up in a veil, well, Len would probably ask why, but that's social, not official. (One of the poll-workers at my polling place is an old acquaintance from the neo-pagan community.)

[(Anonymous)]

I voted today. To vote in a Quebec election you must present a valid ID card with photo (medicare card or "carte soleil", driver license or army card).

If you are aware of this fact then it should makes sense than the voting staff must look at your face to identify you. For veiled women it can be done by a female employee on request.

Fortunately some Canadians share my POV:
http://canadianbluelemons.blogspot.com/2007/03/if-photo-id-is-okay-for-bob-rae-why-not.html

[redbird]

It makes sense, if that's how Quebec does it. My thought was only that there are other ways of handling voter identification.

And yes, I think Quebec's accommodation is reasonable.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

First up, who are you?

Second, I'm unconvinced that there's a runaway problem with people who have proper identification (but who are wearing veils) trying to defraud the elections process. Given that that's the case, and that the veil has religious significance, it looks to me like general anti-Muslim attitudes more than anything else.

Third, I heard the commentator. It really didn't sound like she knew what she was talking about.

[(Anonymous)]

I am a Quebec City voter. If you speak about Quebec elections then you shouldn't be surprised that some Quebecers (it's our election after all) may want to comment. I just made a blog search in Google using the term "quebec".

Secondly, Quebec is more concerned about election integrity than bashing Muslims. It only makes more sense in this election: You cannot tolerate ANY fraud when some candidates may be elected with razor-thin margins. Can you provide arguments (please do not cite Toronto Star, it WON'T do it) to back up your statement that Quebec is anti-Muslim?

Phil

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

So, let's imagine that I'm trying to defraud the elections. I need:

1) Someone's id (or a really good fake). (Actually, scratch the really good fake, because if it's a really good fake, I'd probably put my own picture on it).

2) I'd need to know that the person in question isn't going to vote, because (if Quebec's anything like Ontario), they keep track of whether or not someone has voted. If the person I'm pretending to be shows up to vote after me, then my fraud is going to be found out.

Seriously: how many times could you run that fraud? It just doesn't scale.

I didn't say that I thought that Quebec is anti-Muslim, but I think it goes without saying that intolerance toward Muslims is at an all-time high.

But perhaps I should just point out this poll from two months ago that reported that 50% of Quebecers identified themselves as having a bad opinion about Muslims.

To be clear: I suspect that the same would be true of any other Canadian province at the moment. I'm not singling out Quebec. I think that says something about us as a society that's very unfortunate, and when bad decisions (like this one) happen, I say "boo"!

[caspervonb.livejournal.com]

"But perhaps I should just point out this poll from two months ago that reported that 50% of Quebecers identified themselves as having a bad opinion about Muslims.

To be clear: I suspect that the same would be true of any other Canadian province at the moment. I'm not singling out Quebec. I think that says something about us as a society that's very unfortunate, and when bad decisions (like this one) happen, I say "boo"!"

From the article:

"Quebecers were asked if they consider themselves very racist, moderately racist, slightly racist or not racist at all.

Jedwab said in three out of four answers, respondents end up labelling themselves racist."

Though I'm sure that tension is at a high, I think this mostly once again proves that bit about lies, damn lies and statistics.

[caspervonb.livejournal.com]

"Seriously: how many times could you run that fraud? It just doesn't scale."

Obviously, it is electoral paranoia.

I rather doubt that likelihood or feasibility has anything to do with it though. Governmental bureaucracies regularly do really stupid things. Likely some idiot got the idea and no committee thought of a valid reason to shut it down. Until now it was too late and everybody was stuck having to defend a political landmine of an idea.

[kat-chan.livejournal.com]

It may not be the case in Canada, since you do have photo ID health cards, but here in the US, where there is a big photo ID to vote push (Ohio just adopted this last year), any state-issued photo ID requires that you pay for it. This disenfranchises people who can't afford the money for a state ID (same basic ID as a driver's license, but without conferring driving privileges). But it's all about proving you are who you say you are! That's more important than avoiding discrimination based on class or religion. After all, if it's a busy day at the polls, how many times can one person vote? Especially if they have a job?

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

In Ontario, for provincial elections, if you're on the voter's list, then you walk up to the elections table and state your name and address (there are usually five or six tables, based on addresses). The elections officer will have a list, and they'll cross your name off. I've often done this without showing any identification.

Sometimes, if the riding looks like it'll be tight, there'll be representatives of the parties who are really close. They'll have their own lists of names, and they'll also cross the name off of their lists.

If I am not on the voter's list, I can declare that I should be on the list, fill out a form, and show a piece of identification that has my name, address and signature. Photo ID is not required. I could do it with a credit card and a phone bill. (The credit card has the signature and the phone bill has the address).

[kat-chan.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's how it used to be here. But then, after 203 years of being just fine with declaring your name and address (and signing next to your name in the roll book), all of a sudden potential fraud is such a problem that we have to require photo IDs. And this after we've had a copy of our signature that we had to sign next to for the last 5 years or so. I swear, the elections officials put more thought into voter fraud than most people I know would ever put into it. Paranoia or something.

[(Anonymous)]

Since you say you live in the US, the same thing could be said of your government now requiring passports for Canadian citizens wishing to cross the border. It has worked for 203 years, why change now? Paranoia or something.... and please don't say it is because of 9/11.

The truth is, many voters are losing faith in the electoral process. Cynicism is rampant. I think that the voting process should be made as transparent as possible. People must trust it like they trust, say, the court of laws. It is not a matter of how much fraud is going on, but much more of a stance that each vote is important. Really, is showing a photo ID that much to ask?

Just my 2 cents...

[kat-chan.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm not sure that you could move freely across that border without a passport prior to the Transcontinental Treaty. But even if you could for the entire 224 years since the Treaty of Paris, that doesn't mean one should be required now. In fact, I don't agree with that change in policy in the least. Why? Because a passport application in the US requires a $185 processing fee, plus a $15 photo, these days. I don't have the $200 to spend to get a passport, and I used to go across the border all of the time.

In other words, don't try and pull this "well why is it not okay to require photo ID to vote, but it is okay to require a passport to get into the US" on me. I don't agree with that policy, and I don't agree with photo ID requirements in our elections. And I'm far less concerned with people voting as someone other they aren't than I am about the machines being rigged by the proprietors of the machines, who are the ones who control how the machines are programmed to count the votes in each election. That's where the opportunity for fraud is. Not in four or five people managing to vote a second time.

So, in sum, YES showing a photo ID is too much to ask when it disenfranchises more people than the slight chance of fraud would.

[avt-tor.livejournal.com]

Quebecois are sensitive to electoral fraud because in 1995, the PQ stuffed ballots in the referendum.

[(Anonymous)]

Any facts to back up your ridiculous claims?

The federal government accelerated the immigration process in Quebec during the year prior to the referendum so more immigrants could vote No. That's a fact. And the statistics are coming directly from a federal agency.

"The statistics compiled by the analysts of Citizenship and Immigration Canada demonstrate that some 43 855 new Quebecers obtained their Canadian citizenship in the year of 1995. About one quarter of these (11429) were given during the month of October. It was the first time that Quebec residents received more citizenship certificates than Ontario residents. It has not occurred again since. Looking into the data for a longer period of time, we see that the increase in certificate attributions jumped by 87% between 1993 and 1995. The year of 1996 saw a drop of 39% in the attributions of citizenship certificates.[2]"

Also, have you ever heard of Option Canada? Google it out. It was a smoke screen organization set up by the No comitee to spend more money that it was legally possible. How do you think the big Unity Rally was funded?

Time to open your eyes and stop sprouting nonsense.

[shara.livejournal.com]

The federal government accelerated the immigration process in Quebec during the year prior to the referendum so more immigrants could vote No. That's a fact. And the statistics are coming directly from a federal agency.

This seems very unlikely to me. Canada has always had trouble making its immigration numbers - especially in Quebec, where the laguage requirements are harder to meet. If they managed to find a way to bring in more people that one year, they should apply that method every year and save themselves a lot of trouble.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/pub/facts2003.pdf

Doesn't indicate any significant rise in Quebec's immigrations levels - see p. 45 in particular.

Also, immigrants are notorious for not voting in the first few years after they arrive.

My understanding of Option Canada was that they were trying to get ex-Quebecers who had moved out of the province onto the voting list. I see no indication that they had anything to do with immigration.

Where is that quote from?

[caspervonb.livejournal.com]

"Time to open your eyes and stop sprouting nonsense."

Let's be honest here. There were widespread allegations of fraud on both sides of the vote.

Option Canada and the Unity Rally have been established as not being fraud. In large parts because provincial law does not apply to the federal government. If that seems somewhat unfair, welcome to the wretched world of politics.

On the other hand, the separatists we not playing any nicer. Ten years later, the PQ was still dodging accusations of tampering with the votes in half a dozen way, including rejecting ballots and screwing with the electoral lists.

I think it is safe to say that no one got out of there spotless.

[redbird]

I'll stipulate not only that you believe what you're saying, but that your data are valid.

For this purpose, it doesn't matter: people who believe there was fraud (or any other crime) react in the same way whether their beliefs are correct, partially correct (in this case, that could include minor ballot-stuffing, or both sides cheating in ways that cancelled each other out), or completely wrong. If significant numbers of people believe there was vote fraud, they're going to be pushing for things they think will reduce the chance of fraud.

[avt-tor.livejournal.com]

Well, the Directeur General of Elections Quebec was obliged to investigate unusually high volumes of rejected ballots in predominantly "No" districts in the 1995 referendum, and former PQ cabinet minister Richard Le Hir has stated there was a deliberate plan to harass voters in anglophone and allophone areas and to prevent similar scrutiny of what was going on in mainly francophone areas. Could be nonsense, but it's not original to me.

[kat-chan.livejournal.com]

FWIW, the most recent count I saw shows that Charest did manage to hold on to his seat. He's from Sherbrooke, no?