tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883551996126668365.post3634656136547244090..comments2024-01-11T21:24:44.379-07:00Comments on A Blog of Tom: When "Reasonable" Isn't.Tom Cantinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06234109728445439457noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883551996126668365.post-68954972627778786642014-05-11T16:04:22.827-06:002014-05-11T16:04:22.827-06:00Thanks, Ted. That's certainly a problem, but i...Thanks, Ted. That's certainly a problem, but it's not the problem the government claims to be addressing. They claim to be worried about people vouching for people who shouldn't be voting at all. Of course, it's only coincidence that the people they think shouldn't be voting are likelier to vote for other parties.<br />Tom Cantinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06234109728445439457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883551996126668365.post-18650258336360147042014-05-11T13:43:38.957-06:002014-05-11T13:43:38.957-06:00A clarification on vouching, based on my experienc...A clarification on vouching, based on my experience as a DRO.<br /><br />Vouching is a relatively small number of votes, but it's highly concentrated. There's a tendency for busloads of people to come in from a nearby reserve, and have one person vouch for every other person there, one affidavit at a time. It takes a huge amount of time and can bog down the system to the point that people cannot vote in a timely enough fashion and lose their window of opportunity. That's a legitimate impediment to democracy.<br /><br />I'd like to see that problem go away, but I'm not sure this is the best way to do it. Maybe if we had already made access to government ID free and readily available, but we need to jump that hurdle before changing voting laws as opposed to doing it later.Ted Stewarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00010217875722442834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883551996126668365.post-20441250289917409642014-04-13T16:00:12.335-06:002014-04-13T16:00:12.335-06:00Nice to know, as I mentioned before this is an are...Nice to know, as I mentioned before this is an area I really don't know much about as I've never really looked into it. Frankly while I was never really comfortable with the idea of vouching, I also don't think it's a problem that needs to be fixed as unless the final results were so close that number of vouched votes could shift the results it would be a non issue. Don't see why it needed to be changed especially if they kept the records and had the ability to confirm the vouched votes at a later date should it be a very tight result.<br /><br />David BushcAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883551996126668365.post-5491100861195910772014-04-13T12:11:39.303-06:002014-04-13T12:11:39.303-06:00Such a mechanism already exists, David. I worked t...Such a mechanism already exists, David. I worked the last municipal and provincial elections; there is an enormous pile of paperwork that is kept to document who voted and how they identified themselves. I don't think they automatically go through these records after every election, but they do keep them for a while so that if there are any concerns, a thorough investigation may be carried out. And most of the time, there really isn't any problem. <br />Tom Cantinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06234109728445439457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883551996126668365.post-76027890097960093422014-04-13T10:56:33.316-06:002014-04-13T10:56:33.316-06:00For the record Tom I agree with all you've put...For the record Tom I agree with all you've put up, those last couple anonymous posts were not from me. Personally I think keeping the current system but perhaps have someone go through after the fact and confirm the vouched votes live in the riding.<br /><br />Cheers<br />David buschAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883551996126668365.post-61489491556424519582014-04-13T08:55:58.574-06:002014-04-13T08:55:58.574-06:00I shall devote the next post to that very task.I shall devote the next post to that very task.Tom Cantinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06234109728445439457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883551996126668365.post-44818997441739278862014-04-12T19:56:59.027-06:002014-04-12T19:56:59.027-06:00how?how?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883551996126668365.post-76566716195758916522014-04-12T19:08:02.953-06:002014-04-12T19:08:02.953-06:00It IS a waste of time, in a perversely and perfect...It IS a waste of time, in a perversely and perfectly democratic way, if enough people agree it's a waste of time. You ARE voting with your apathy: you are voting against democracy. I hope to change your mind.Tom Cantinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06234109728445439457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883551996126668365.post-41344539653712652572014-04-12T18:51:54.013-06:002014-04-12T18:51:54.013-06:00You assume that there is integrity in the democrat...You assume that there is integrity in the democratic process and that everyone's voice being heard makes any difference at all. Fighting so hard to defend a chimera seems, at the end of the day, a colossal waste of time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883551996126668365.post-88118049497090397152014-04-11T23:02:07.262-06:002014-04-11T23:02:07.262-06:00Vouching doesn't happen all THAT often. I'...Vouching doesn't happen all THAT often. I've heard it's maybe around 50 to 100 thousand voters each time. But the important thing to remember is that vouching is NOT just some guy saying, "It's cool, he's with me!" The voucher actually has to swear out an affidavit, and has to be someone who DOES satisfy the other ID requirements. So vouching is just a way of creating the supporting documentation on the spot. There is a record, and a paper trail so that someone's on the hook for legal consequences if the affidavit is false.<br /><br />You're right that it's important to prevent double-voting, and to ensure that people are only voting where they're supposed to. Obviously it wouldn't do for a populous country like China to send over a couple million tourists to elect us a government more responsive to China's interests; the laws should be made by people elected by the actually governed.<br /><br />However, the counter scenario is not EQUALLY as unappealing. Preventing one legitimate vote is, mathematically, more damaging to the integrity of the system than allowing one additional illegitimate one. Say there are 10 legitimate voters. Prohibiting one of them arbitrarily from voting makes the ballot only 90% representative of the "actual" will of the legitimate voters. But adding one illegitimate voter dilutes the voice of the voters to 10/11, or 90.91%. Purely mathematically, then, it's actually slightly better to err on the side of allowing a suspect voter than to exclude one.<br /><br />In fact, I'd go beyond the raw math to say that in the real world, people who are trying to vote are going to be people who care about the outcome of the election for some reason, which usually means they live in the riding. Very rarely will they vote in two ridings, because you can actually get caught and punished for that, so usually it's people who maybe aren't TECHNICALLY eligible because they've only been there 5 months, but who are for all moral and practical purposes actual members of the community whose interests ought to be represented in some way. So to some extent, letting them vote isn't such a terrible thing.<br /><br />Obviously we need rules to ensure that ballot stuffing and other corruptions of the system don't happen, but the PURPOSE of those rules is to preserve the integrity of the democratic process by ensuring everyone is heard; the rules should serve that purpose, not replace it.<br />Tom Cantinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06234109728445439457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883551996126668365.post-26114328132387615972014-04-11T15:20:57.513-06:002014-04-11T15:20:57.513-06:00It may be simply a matter of semantics Tom, but I ...It may be simply a matter of semantics Tom, but I would have to start by saying I don’t see voting so much as a right, but as a responsibility. While your tongue in cheek argument about charging people $5 to vote is interesting, I prefer (at least in theory as I’ve never studied it) the Australian model where if you don’t vote you are fined. I have no problems with people spoiling their ballots if they so choose, but they should still show up to show it is a conscious decision. With advance polls and mail in ballots, there is no reason due to timing at least why a person should not be able to vote. <br />On the issue of Bill C-23 I suppose I should start by asking how many instances there are of vouching in an election. I would assume it is not that frequent, which to me begs the question if it isn’t broke why fix it. That said I do not think having to show ID in order to vote is asking too much of people. Proof of living in a riding I agree can be tricky for the homeless, but that is something I’m sure could have been figured out if they had put their minds to it. <br />While I don’t disagree with, I do perceive a big flaw in, your argument with regards to your example where Candidate B is elected in a landslide with 90% of the votes as a reason to disallow vouching. There is a counter scenario that is equally as unappealing to ban vouching. In a close race, if there are a large number of people from out of the riding who are “vouched for” and thus allowed to vote in the riding for Candidate B, even though the majority of the votes cast by those who live in the riding would have elected Candidate A, they would end up being represented by Candidate B whom the legitimate votes would have rejected. Another possible argument is they vote in their riding then head across town to vote in a friend’s riding by having the friend vouch for them.<br />It’s not just about having your vote, and everyone else’s vote count, it’s making sure the vote is cast in the correct riding for someone to represent you. It’s not just about voting. Without safeguards to ensure that the other person voted in their riding (and not in mine), and to make sure they only voted once, the legitimacy of the outcome is also in question. <br /><br />David A. Busch<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com