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

[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.