Troubleshooting the Fair Elections Act

More questions as second-reading debate ends

by Aaron Wherry

Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand spoke to both the CBC and CTV this weekend to explain his perspective on (and concerns about) the Fair Elections Act and NDP critic Craig Scott offers 2,700 words of concerns.

Meanwhile, Justin Ling challenges Pierre Poilievre’s numbers on vouching and Adam Goldenberg wonders if the Fair Elections’ elimination of vouching might be unconstitutional, and on that point a former senior counsel says Goldenberg might be right. Steven Shrybman suggests amendments that would fight voter fraud. Brent Rathgeber and Bill Casey argue that independent candidates remain disadvantaged. And, from the right, Gerry Nicholls laments that the Fair Elections Act doesn’t repeal the ban on third-party advertising.

The bill was debated WednesdayThursday and Friday and will receive its final hours of debate at second reading today, starting at noon, with a vote this evening. It will then proceed to the Procedure and House Affairs committee, which could conceivably decide how to proceed at its next scheduled meeting on Tuesday (the New Democrats have already tabled their opening bid on committee hearings).

On that note, the Globe’s editorial board suggests the Conservatives give the Fair Elections Act time.

The government needs to slow down and allow more consultation on this bill. Elections are the foundation of democracy. There’s too much at stake.

There’s a longer conversation to be had here about how and how quickly legislation moves through the House, but on Thursday I threw out two comparison points: the Conservative government’s Accountability Act in 2006 and the Liberal government’s election-financing reforms in 2003. Both took longer to go from tabling to passing at second reading. The Conservative bill was 72 days old when it passed the House, while the Liberal bill was 134 days old when it passed.

See previously: What might be problematic about the Fair Elections Act?




Browse

Troubleshooting the Fair Elections Act

  1. If legislation is good for Canada then it should have no problem surviving a thorough debate in the HoC. Isn’t that why we elect MPs?
    The very fact that it is being rushed through Parliament should be raising flags everywhere.

    • I wrote my MP about this (he’s CPC). He assures me that it will receive full and proper treatment in committee. Which begs the question of why we bother to debate bills in the HOC at all. But, hey, if the most democratic democratizing democraters to ever hold power say everything is fine…

      • Perhaps you should write him back and ask him why it is we continue to pay his salary rather than just that of the committee’s?

        • I’m still trying to recover from the combination of stupidity and arrogance distilled into one message. When I do, I’ll take another swing.

          • I read this as “…I’ll take another swig.”

            Seems strangely appropriate. For me – bourbon.

      • Hmmm, there remains the possibility [ rumour has it] that the committee might go in camera. Now if that isn’t the death of Canadian irony, i don’t know what is. A Fair Elections Act unfairly and secretively pushed through, debated and or amended. Neither is right

        • Of course it will go in camera… guaranteed.

          • I feared as much. Oddly enough PP was swearing it would all be cool at committee to Rex yesterday.

      • I spoke to that MP also. He wanted ME to give HIM the section numbers. Which I did, in spite of having a F/T job, a P/T business, a very busy ‘hobby’ and his salary being well over 3x mine. And, reading bills being his job.

    • Last election, 200+ Ridings across Canada – Liberal and NDP voters
      misdirected to fake, or incorrect polling booths by Conservatives
      pretending to be Elections Canada Officials. (Illegal, voter
      fraud) How about we finish that investigation first instead?

      These same people want to re-write the Election rules? Insanity!

  2. The reason for the speed on moving this is , as I understand it, the PMO has established control over the election wrongdoing investigation process.

    • Voter fraud concerns in east Toronto widespread

      CBC News

      Posted: Mar 14, 2012 9:30 PM ET
      Last Updated: Mar 15, 2012 2:03 PM ET

      Mano Kanagamany, who has worked on Liberal Party campaigns in
      east Toronto for 25 years, says he and former Scarborough Southwest
      candidate Michelle Simson filed a complaint with Elections Canada after
      the last federal election. (CBC)

      Allegations of widespread voting irregularities in an east Toronto
      federal riding are similar to complaints from a neighbouring riding
      and a municipal byelection held nearby, two people closely involved say.

      “This
      should have come out a long time ago,” Muttukumaru Chandrakumaran, who
      ran in a municipal byelection in Ajax, Ont., said Wednesday.

      Chandrakumaran was responding to a CBC News investigation on
      Tuesday that uncovered allegations of electoral fraud concentrated in
      the Tamil community in the riding of Scarborough-Rouge River. Those
      allegations, which span both the federal and provincial ridings, centre
      largely on what appears to be a lack of oversight surrounding
      election-day additions to the official voters list.

      Chandrakumaran
      said he remembers groups of people from his Tamil community who were
      not on the voters list showing up at polling stations during the 2008
      vote and claiming to live at the same address.

      “Up to 26 people were voting from one house,” he said.

      ‘Elections Canada, it’s like talking to a wall’

      Chandrakumaran said he complained to police and Elections Canada with no response.

      “Elections Canada, it’s like talking to a wall,” he said.

      CBC
      reported Tuesday that Marlene Gallyot, the federal Conservative
      candidate who lost to the NDP’s Rathika Sitsabaiesan in
      Scarborough-Rouge River has complained to Elections Canada, alleging
      ineligible voters “by the dozens” turned up on voting day and filed
      ballots illegally. She also said scrutineers — party volunteers who
      oversee voting on behalf of candidates — were approaching voters at
      polling stations, speaking to them in Tamil and coaching them on who to
      vote for.

      Mano Kanagamany, who has worked on Liberal Party
      campaigns in east Toronto for 25 years, said Wednesday that he and
      former Scarborough Southwest candidate Michelle Simson filed a complaint
      with Elections Canada after the last federal election over
      concerns about illegal voters.

      “We are only asking Elections
      Canada to investigate it,” Kanagamany said. “Cross-check with
      [Citizenship and Immigration Canada] that they are real citizens who
      live in the riding.”

      Most of the complaints involve members of the Tamil community.

      Gary
      Anandasangaree, a spokesman for the Canadian Tamil Congress, said the
      community works to get out the vote but has never heard of anyone taking
      part in fraud.

      “We’re not in any way, advertently or
      inadvertently, suggesting people go out and vote when they’re not
      eligible to vote,” he said.

      • Saturday, April 23, 2011

        Vote Early, Vote Often

        Just a reminder that advance polls are open yesterday, today, and Monday. Elections.ca will gladly point you where you need to go.

        I just got back from voting for Christine Innes,
        a fine candidate in Trinity Spadina who I’ve had the honour of door
        knocking for this campaign. Christine, as you may know, is running
        against Olivia Chow since, after all, I’m just incapable of ever living
        in a Liberal riding.

        posted by calgarygrit at
        7:37 PM

        • Later Loser Leftists……….got to go load 250,000 barrels of refined petroleum product.

          • “Civil debate” is wine for the soul
            Let’s all raise a glass and drink ‘er!
            But not you, Billy Bob, cause you’re a fouling hole
            surrounded by a sphincter

          • Got your finger up your ass again?

          • Are you guys driving it across the border now?

          • Are you as dumb as a sack of rocks?

        • Later Leftie Losers……..got to go load 250,000 barrels of refined petroleum product.

          The Left…….do as I say, don’t do as I do (censorship)

    • And I believe all current investigations will slide over,basically wiping the slate clean before the next election. How is this not a conflict of interest?

      • Not quite Jan….
        You see, Marc’s plan was to hold on to any “dirt” real or imagined that he has on the Conservatives……until a month or two before the next election. This way, while the media continues to fawn over the Messiah running the Liberal party……they could also attack the Conservatives.
        that’s Election Canada’s MO.

        • What’s wrong with the lefts thinking on vouching…………not
          one shred of common sense to be found.

          If a person is too lazy to acquire proper ID before the next
          election they obviously aren’t too interested in democracy and/or are
          part of the few who vote multiple times at several different polling
          stations, a trait of those afflicted with Leftist Mental Disorder.

          As for speed of legislation passing through the House, the
          official opposition and “da turd pardi” have plenty enough
          time for discussion in committee.

          The bill will pass, because unlike the Lieberals under Martin, the
          Conservatives have the majority.

          Suck it up Leftards.

        • Andrew Prescott’s immunity deal really has you guys freaked – wonder what the boy knows?

  3. This comment was deleted.

    • So eloquently stated. A virtual Disraeli in our midst.

      • Actually Benjamin said bugger a lot more often.:)

    • Party above country forever and always, CPC supporters.

    • and people ask what’s wrong with this country……..

    • Oh what the hell, I’ll attempt to speak for the leftards.

      Looking over the past 3 elections, there were widespread, organized attempts at voter suppression but instead of addressing that, this bill seeks to – guess what – suppress voting!

      How? By eliminating vouching, by eliminating non-partisan promotion of elections and voting in schools, on reserves and in newcomer communities, and by advantaging existing parties that already have a fund raising base over new parties or independents that start fund raising during an election.

      • Nice attempt…but you left a few points out.
        The Widespread voter suppression of which you speak didn’t happen. There were some issues restricted to Guelph, but there is no evidence any “robocalls” changed the election results.
        vouching: We need to get rid of that….as many in the Tamil community have the privlege of voting multiple times, whereas most Canadians only get ONE vote. By the way…what party do Tamils most often vote for? (hint: it ain’t Conservative)
        First Nations and Reserves. The ability to “vouch” for someone relies upon the premise that both the person voting…and the person vouching, are honest. On many first nations reserves….they have over 100% voter turn out. If that doesn’t make sense…try this. Reserve with 1000 people provide various political parties (again: Not conservative) with upwards of 1300 votes.
        the new bill is required. It will finally put an end to this type of fraud, and provide for actual fairness. That is why the NDP and Libs are so ticked.
        Now NDP and Liberal voters will be restricted to just ONE vote….just like Conservative voters.
        And they don’t like it.
        As for the fund raising…….too bad. If the Libs or NDP want to raise money from Canadians….tell them to stand for something Canadians want to see. You can’t just raise money be promising to take money from other people and spread it around…..and you can’t raise money just by choosing a leader who had a famous dad and has nice hair.

          • I don’t care what words a single judge used….I’m referring to the impact. the calls were centered around Guelph…and I suspect any others’ were meant to throw the hounds off the trail….but it is clear, that it had NO effect on the final outcome of the election.

          • So what other way do we decide legal issues in Canada if not by the rulings of a judge who hears the matter? Why should anyone ever show up for a jail sentences if the conviction is based on the “words a single judge used?”

          • The offence is the attempt to suppress the vote – the success of it is immaterial.

    • And if a person is mugged the day before election day and has their ID stolen? Are they still not interested in democracy? Or is that just you who’s not interested in it?

      • Then they bring any 2 other pieces of ID that they have at their home. Unless you think the mugger is going to pay their utility bill?

        • It may be foolish of me, but I keep my IDs in my wallet. You know, in case I need them.

          • So do I.

            But I don’t bring my gas bill with me. Or my bank/credit card statements.

          • What about homeless people, or even poor people who live in shelters or other subsizided housing?
            Identification costs money. You might be surprised how many people cannot afford it.

          • Obviously those people are layabouts who don’t deserve a say in how this country is governed. After all, democracy doesn’t mean everybody gets the vote.. just the productive people, right John?

          • One of the following, issued by the responsible authority of a shelter,
            soup kitchen, student/senior residence, or long-term care facility:
            Attestation of Residence, Letter of Stay, Admission Form or Statement of
            Benefits

          • Great. So that gets them half-way there.
            Half-way to having a vote is still not having a vote.

          • I know you are being facetious Thwin…but you raise a good point.
            Do you REALLY want someone with such poor judgement to have a say in how YOU are governed?
            Do you really want a Junkie or drunk having an impact upon how a Government spends your money?
            Sorry…..you can be the morally superior person; as we all know that’s what you want us to think….but I’ll stick with common sense. Face it…..a lot of folks out there really don’t just give a damn about who runs the country.
            A guy passed out on the street with a needle in his arm, and urine in his pants isn’t someone who really cares any more.

          • Well you have demonstrated that you suffer from paranoid delusions, and you still get to vote…

          • Sorry Gayle….
            I don’t inject or take substances into my body that cause delusions. BUt I do think you’ve mentioned you work extensively with folks who do.
            It would appear, osmosis is have an impact upon your views.

          • Wow, let’s just go back to the Peers, huh? I mean, what’s a feudal system worth if just *anybody* has the right to vote?

          • Jenn,
            If a Canadian cannot name the Prime Minister, or at least two of the Federal Parties….it is a fair bet they aren’t really concerned about much else….let alone voting.
            Face it….some people, or the “anybody’s” you refer to…are frankly, too stupid to consider their vote in any event. They’d be willing to vote for whomever offered them a free beer.

          • And you get the exclusive right to determine who those people are, and you shall do it by disenfranchising everyone below a certain financial capability.

          • 2Jenn…
            When people are in a “certain financial situation” because they are too dumb to budget their own money and instead prefer to shoot up heroin, or drink themselves into oblivion…..I don’t want them voting.
            When you get a busload on incompetents voting….you get the busload of incompetents as MP’s.
            Just look at the NDP.

          • More proof you want to discourage any voters who may not vote for you from voting. You’re not helping to erase the suspicion that there is a political bias to this reform bill.

          • JanBC……..No one will vote for me, as I am not running in any elections, but I know what you are trying to say.
            As for political bias being a part of this bill….on the contrary. The Bill is aimed specifically at ELIMINATING the chance of bias or fraud. The bill does nothing to take away anyone’s right to vote, but it does make it much harder for folks to vote twice, and it ensures that ONLY a Canadian citizen will have a say in the election.
            Folks have almost two years to get the required paperwork to vote. If I were in the Opposition, I wouldn’t spend the next two years whining or complaining about the vouching system…….I’d get my ass in gear and try to make sure that the folks who voted for my party, made the effort to get the appropriate ID.
            Of course, given the folks who tend to vote NDP………they have their work cut out for them.

          • Thanks.

            I always like it when bigots choose to expose their crap themselves.

          • And I like it when those folks, like you, Thwim……..cite the Charter and demand the right to vote be respected……turn around and complain about the Government currently in office.
            As for “exposing” myself…sorry…..I’ve always been open about it. No need to expose anything.
            If you cannot run your own life……you have no business trying to run mine.

          • Where does it end?

            Shall we allow anyone free health care if someone shows up at the doctor’s office to vouch for them if they don’t have their own health card?

            Health care’s important too right? Probably more important than voting in an election. So?

          • We don’t require two pieces of ID for health care. We don’t require the production of that ID on a specific day. And that’s ignoring the fact that no, health care is NOT in fact more important to our society’s well-being than a functioning democracy. Perhaps more important to us personally, but it’s apples and organs.

          • What the heck are you talking about?

            Here in Ontario, you need 3 pieces of ID to get a health card. Shall we replace that with vouching too?

            And you have to supply that health card on every visit. How about just getting someone to vouch for you every time you go to the doctor?

          • I’m sorry, you were talking about going to get medical care before, not your health care card. Seeing as how that’s demolished, you’ve decided to move the goal-posts, now? Sure. As long as you acknowledge that your first analogy was crap.

            As for this one one, it’s still apples and oranges.. unless you’re saying there’s only a single day every few years that you can apply for your health card, and that that application has effects that can cause significant change to your entire riding? No? Then perhaps try getting an analogy that isn’t a total piece of crap, because this one is.

          • If the loopy scenario john g proposes were truly comparable, you could apply for your health card any time, but only go to the hospital in one 12 hour period every four years.

            if that was the case, DARN STRAIGHT we’d want vouching.

          • unless you’re saying there’s only a single day every few years that you can apply for your health card

            Of course there isn’t. But what if you’re the guy who doesn’t have a health card, because you don’t have the 3 pieces of ID you need to get one, and you get sick? You have at least 5 weeks (and usually more) warning of an election. You don’t know when you wake up in the morning that you’re going to need a doctor that day.

            What could be more important than vouching for that guy?

          • I can’t speak for other provinces, but in Alberta you do not NEED a health care card to get health care. I work with street kids, and many do not have a health care card. There are medical centres we can take them.

            While I am at it, homeless people – the ones who do not live in a shelter, do not fall within your exceptions. There is an entire community of people who do not receive benefits of any kind from the government. They live in tents in the river valley and scrounge the garbage cans for food.

            The right to vote is in the Charter.

        • You think renters have utility bills?

          • Bank statements, credit card statements, correspondence from the government. And yes, many many renters do have utility bills.

          • Many, many do, I agree. And for those that don’t?

            I mean really, those who wish to defraud the vote can do so. Voucher or no, it’s not at all difficult to create a fake rental agreement or credit card statement. Hell, you can buy blank rental agreements at the local registries office.

            Those who want to fake themselves and vote multiple times will do so. This will only prevent the honest people who are in unfortunate circumstance from voting.

            Is that what we really want?

          • Because people with no money have bank accounts and credit cards.

          • If somebody has so little money that they don’t have a bank account, perhaps they should be spending their time remedying that problem instead of voting.

          • So what is the minimum dollar limit you must have in order to get the right to vote, Rick? Or perhaps we should just restrict it to land-holders and the gentry?

          • I think you once again miss his point, Thwim.
            It is not the minimum dollar about being referred to here….it is the minimum competency level.

      • If people want to keep muggers off the street…….vote Conservative.

    • “If a person is too lazy to acquire proper ID before the next election
      they obviously aren’t too interested in democracy and/or are part of the
      few who vote multiple times at several different polling stations, a
      trait of those afflicted with Leftist Mental Disorder”

      There are worse things than being lazy…being a moron is one. How is it someone who is too lazy to vote properly finds the gumption to vote multiple times, and at the same time care nothing about the effect on Democracy? {no doubt for anyone other then your slimy party]

      Really a guy who can’t make a point without calling others who vote differently childish names has nothing to say in the first place.[ oops...did i break my own rule? I'll make an exception for you]

    • It bewilders me how, with such eloquent, articulate supporters to advance its positions, the current government continues to sink in the polls.

      • You believe in polls?

        Paul Martin was to win the largest majority in Canadian history according to the polls until just days before the election.

        Dion was to win a slim majority, or strong minority according to the polls

        Iggy, Iffy, whatever, what a joke.

        Oh ya, you lefties live in a land of lollipops, fairy tales and unicorns.

        Enjoy your polls.

        • If Cons didn’t believe in them, they wouldn’t spend so much $$ conducting their own. But I urge you to ignore them if you want.

          • The Conservative Party does not release it’s research to the media……try again mongrel.

            The media pays for and publishes push polls which are only suitable for the lining of bird cages.

          • You have a comprehension problem. Where did I say the Cons did release their own?

            As for those commissioned by others, I’ve already urged you to ignore them.

          • If they don’t release their research you have no clue as to what they spend.

          • You’re right. I have no clue what they spend. And I have no doubt it’s considerably more than any opposition party.

          • Hint: Releasing the research != providing financial documents indicating how much is spent on research.

          • If clue were shoes all you lefties would be barefoot.

          • But at least we’d be more sensitive to what’s happening on the ground.

          • Ad hominem attacks all you got left, eh?

          • And they are trying very hard to make sure we never do.

  4. Anyone…

    Please describe a scenario where a person is reasonably unable to obtain a legitimate piece of identification. Tell me how you can reasonably get through life without this.

    Where else in this life is it acceptable for someone to “vouch” for you to overcome your inability to identify yourself officially?

    Vouching apparently “affects” 100,000 people. If the “effect” of this change is to make those people get off their asses and get a valid piece of ID, how on earth can that be a bad thing?

    • Regardless of the validity of the argument, you’re approaching it from the wrong side. We should be looking at ways to kep the franchise as broad as possible, not looking for ways to cut off people from participating in the most basic act of democracy.

      • But what about the integrity of the vote? That’s important too right?

        You cannot possibly tell me that 100,000 voters in this country actually don’t have the necessary ID to cast a vote. That’s ridiculous. You saw the list of what’s acceptable. It’s an extreme circumstance not to be able to produce 1 or 2 official pieces of paper with your name & address on them. The number of people that cannot produce 2 valid pieces of ID from the list of what is permissible is *tiny*, and in almost all cases, the situation is correctable.

        If that’s the only cost of removing a serious breach in the integrity of the election process, so be it. That’s a trivial cost to pay to significantly improve the integrity of an election.

        • it’s well within the realm of possibility and we can’t rule out there are just a considerable number of people without that ID. And your reversing it again. The potential harm in allowing vouching is a trivial cost to pay to ensure everyone gets to vote.

          • Folks have almost two years to get an appropriate ID.
            If they are too dumb to figure that out…….do you really think they should have an impact on how you live YOUR life?

        • Is there any evidence that it will “significantly improve the integrity of an election”? Is there any suggestion that the integrity of an election is significantly *harmed* by the practice of vouching?

          Because, personally, I think not allowing parties the freedom to transfer expenses between one riding and another to avoid election spending limits would be a far more significant improvement to the integrity of elections.

          • If you’re that confident, how about extending it to health care?

          • Jesus, learn to read. Try the last sentence.

          • dude, sometimes it is best to admit you have no argument. If hospitals were open once every four years for 12 hours YES vouching would be appropriate. Since you can go to a hospital any time we don’t need to.

          • You know, we could probably eliminate vote fraud completely if Mr. Harper was the only person we allowed to vote. Is that worth it to you then?

          • I have no idea what you’re trying to say here.

          • Christ, so now you don’t even understand the concepts you’re advocating?

            Let me spell it out for you then:
            You’re advocating disenfranchising some legitimate Canadian voters because of the occurrence of some voter fraud in some ridings. Is this not true? You feel it is worth it to lose however many people are not able to vote without vouching because there are some instances of voter fraud with vouching. yes?

            If that is your position, that it is worth disenfranchising some people to prevent fraud, I’m pointing out a way in which we could totally *eliminate* voter fraud.. surely that appeals to you yes?

          • You’re being obtuse.

            No system is perfect. Everything involves tradeoffs.

            I’m saying that the number of people who legitimately need vouching because they don’t have the required docs or last minute circumstances make them unavailable that day is freaking tiny. Of course you can dream up a crazy extreme scenario where someone is impacted. In reality though, it’s freakishly rare.

            I’m also saying that the practice of vouching has obvious problems for ensuring the integrity of elections. This should not need explaining to anybody. Anybody who wants to cheat can just bring a non-eligible buddy to a polling station and vouch for him. If we have over 100,000 people voting with no documentation whatsoever, that is a serious concern.

            I don’t care about disenfranchising the people who through their own negligence or laziness refuse to document themselves. You can’t go through life that way. The required documentation to get a ballot is plentiful and not onerus. Anyone who wants this documentation can get it. Anyone. You want to participate in elections, bring a piece of paper.

            For the legitimate victims of last minute circumstance…maybe there is something you can do that is more secure than vouching. I don’t know. If they add that in committee I’ll support it. But if the choice is between them and closing this gaping security hole that up to 100,000 people are abusing? No contest. Close the hole.

            Clear?

          • Do you have any evidence, any whatsoever, that 100,000 are “abusing” the vouching?

            If you do, have you reported it to Elections Canada? Or are you simply talking out your ass?

          • Thwim…..the folks who tend to vote multiple times, or engage in voter fraud also tend to support the Liberal Party.
            This means that Elections Canada; with its current leadership is not concerned.

          • Got any proof? Or are you simply engaging in libel?

          • I don’t care about disenfranchising the people

            Perfectly clear. And that seems a prime objective of the bill.

          • You could at least have the courtesy to cut and paste the entire sentence. That’s a cut worthy of a journalist.

          • Once you decide it is OK to disenfranchise people, the rest of the reasoning doesn’t matter.

          • The bill is meant to “disenfranchise” those folks who have shown a tendency to vote multiple times during a single election.
            No wonder the Libs are ticked.

          • No; it’s intended to disenfranchise the poor, aboriginals, and other groups who seldom vote Tory. The percentage of those casting “vouched” ballots would almost certainly be only a small fraction of the total number of vouched votes cast.

          • “I’m saying that the number of people who legitimately need vouching because they don’t have the required docs or last minute circumstances make them unavailable that day is freaking tiny.”

            Kinda like the number of Canadians who need barrier-free access to polling stations. That could be described as “freaking tiny” but there’s a general consensus that those Canadians deserve to be accommodated.

            This week I’ve heard a number of testimonials by Canadians who’ve struggled to vote because of their Rural Route address. Vouching was a critical solution that allowed them to vote.

            Tell me – which population do you think is bigger? The number of Canadians who choose to abuse the vouching option, or the number of Canadians on rural routes who have been helped by it?

          • I’m not saying all of the 100,000 are fraudulent. Most probably aren’t. I’m saying it’s an unacceptable loophole that is too easy to exploit. Just because it hasn’t been yet doesn’t mean it won’t. We haven’t had a terrorist attack here yet; shall we cancel all airport security?

          • Well, if the consequences of exploiting the vouching process were as severe as a terrorist attack, you would have a point.

            Again – 100,000 Canadians were able to vote thanks to the vouching process. Not one example of abuse of the process has been revealed. Would you really trade off those votes to address fraud based on zero evidence that it’s even happening?

          • If exploiting the vouching process were to result in a compromised election result, then the those consequences quite arguably would be as severe as a terrorist attack. Both would undermine our democracy, which is a key goal of most terrorists.

          • Terrorism is a tactic, not a strategy. It’s a means, not an end.

            By your logic, half of the Conservative Party of Canada would be in Guantanamo Bay by now.

            There is exactly zero evidence of a single vote being swindled as a result of this policy. But 100,000 Canadians were able to vote because of it. This stupid bullsh*t about illegitimate voting has been pushed by the Republican party for years. Its appearance north of the border is just another sign of Canada’s conservative “movement” making our country worse.

          • TJ……whatever the reasons for terrorism…..the end result is never pretty…doens’t matter what “tactic” they use.
            As for your “zero” evidence of a single vote being swindled because of it…..read a newspaper once in a while. Story just recently about busloads of Tamils being vouched for….and pretty sure they voted more than once, and chances are, many of them were not even Canadian.
            It’s just the OBAMA voters down south who practice this “tactic”…but the results are just as ugly.

          • On terrorism… oh, just ask someone there to help you understand.

            For the rest of your comments, you should be able to provide some evidence. I’ll wait right here…

          • TJ, if you can’t be bothered to read Canadian newspapers, I’m not going to provide the links for you to ignore. Wait as long as you want…..your loss, not mine.

        • ID costs money. Many people cannot afford it. If they have outstanding fines for whatever reason, they cannot get ID until the fines are paid off. You need ID to get your SIN, and you usually need a SIN to get a job (if you want to work legally). I can easily believe there are a hundred thousand people in this country who are caught in that kind of catch 22.

          But then I work with that population – most people do not care about them and have no interest in understanding their reality.

          • Wasn’t I supposed to remind you of something?

          • Yes – not to try to reason with you because you are unreasonable.

            This is different. I am not trying to reason with you. I am just pointing out you are wrong.

            Thanks

        • A Harper supporter is worried about the integrity of the vote… how precious.

          • Yes, how ironic. Have we found out which Quebec ridings got the Adscam money yet?

          • You know that has a use by date and unlike Harper and the Senate corruption fiasco, Paul Martin actually set up and inquiry into what happened and let it report.

            So yeah Adscam was wrong, but it was addressed independently… I’m waiting for the same level of integrity from the Reform-a-Cons.

            Yeah right like the right wing idiots who preach law and order will ever think that the law ever applies to them… sometimes I crack me up.

          • If you want the ADSCAM scandal to go away, Harebell…simple. Tell the Liberals who were involved in STEALING it…..to give it back.
            That would shut us up.

          • It won’t go away and it never has, because the police are still arresting people for it; and that is as it should be. But that is the operative point isn’t it? It’s being dealt with.
            So your constant bringing it up while seeking to excuse the criminal excesses of your side fails to respect two things:
            1: It’s being dealt with
            2: your boys haven’t even started addressing their own versions of AdScam yet.

            The only thing that shuts you up about criminal activity is if you find out your side did it.

          • Oh goodness.. we are scraping the bottom of the barrel if you’re back to the quacking of “ADSCAM!” Got anything more recent than a decade ago?

      • OK, then why not just allow everyone to vote? Who cares if they’re a Canadian citizen or not, if the goal, in your view is to “kep (sic) the franchise as broad as possible”? I know my cat’ll vote Conservative.

        • it will be better for us both if you don’t participate in this discussion further until you realize how foolish waht you said is.

          • Um, foolish? Perhaps look at what you’re advocating. If you’re suggesting that nobody should be required to provide any proof of citizenship or identification, then there’s nothing stopping the Liberals from bringing in buses full of Americans to come vote Liberal. Every Canadian citizen will be able to vote, as you desire. So will anybody else. You can’t put a restriction on who can and can’t vote unless there’s some way to enforce and verify that restriction.

      • GFMD……one of the goals of this act, is to stop people who have the propensity from “participating” MORE than once per election. (See: Tamils, or First Nations for example)
        That is what the Bill is meant to address.

    • You asked for a scenario.

      I lost my wallet a few years back. it took almost a month to assemble all the assorted necessaries to get it all replaced. Birth cert first, followed by SIN, health and drivers. A month. Imagine this happening a week before an election. There’s your not-too-remarkable scenario.

      And wouldn’t it be better if we could have this debate…in the House of Commons?

      • That brings to mind an ugly thought.. targeted muggings a day or two before election day.

        Not that I’m suggesting anybody should do such to, say, Pierre Polliviere, but without vouching it does cause some interesting scenarios that I hadn’t thought of before.

        • A day or two before elections day?

          You mean i have to wait?

        • Yes, Harper is as we speak formulating a left leaning voter mugging program. This will ensure he gets his majority again. This will hopefully fall under the “unreported crimes” list!

          • Please. That’s Jenni’s job.

        • You people are trying to be as unrealistic as possible.

          No wonder this Bill won’t be debated forever. Who needs to listen to unrealistic invented scenarios for ever. LOL

          • You mean it’s unrealistic that people get mugged?

            Well.. now we know why you hold most of your opinions.. you’re clearly living in a fantasy world.

          • The number of people mugged and losing their chance to vote, is far less than the number of people who vote more than once.
            the first case is a bummer….the last case, is blatant fraud.

          • Losing your wallet is an unrealistic scenario.

            Wow.

          • You don’t need your wallet to vote. You need to be a registered voter, or provide proof of residence, neither of which has to be carried in you wallet. Utility bills, bank statements, credit card statements, government correspondence all provide proof of residency. You keep all that in your wallet?

          • My daughter is in university. She doesn’t have a driver’s license (like many of her generation, actually). She lives in residence so she doesn’t have utility bills. Her bank statements are sent to our home address. The election will likely be held in the fall when she will be away at school. Many of the accepted ID (as listed elsewhere) doesn’t include addresses, such as passports, birth certificates, health care cards.

          • Well now that you’re aware of the situation, you can advise her to change the address on her bank account. Hurry up, there’s only a year and a half before the next election. Does she not have a cell phone bill that gets delivered to her? That counts as a utility bill. She can also have her resident adviser sign a document to verify her current address.

            Or is all of that too much work to ask of someone who wants to vote and have a say in how our country is run?

          • Stacey,
            If you daughter is smart enough to attend University….I’m sure she’s smart enough to figure out how to get an appropriate ID.
            If voting day rolls around and she doesn’t have one…….then she has only herself to blame.
            Better hurry though….she only has about two years to sort it out.

          • The government has just been telling us that nobody is using the mail these days – what with internet banking, direct deposit of government payments etc. and you’re telling us that everybody has a fistful of paper to bring in to vote. You can’t have it both ways.

          • You know you can print a document that’s been e-mailed to you, right? I know, technology is hard for Liberals.

          • You still get your bills by mail?

          • Thank heavens the wise guidance of Stephen Harper will save this legislation from the shame of too much democracy.

      • And there’s the fact that a good number of people really don’t have it together. I once drove a good buddy out to the airport in Edmonton in a panic to make a flight to the US. The night before we’d partied mightily [ and moved most of the contents of his apartment into the dumpster - end of the month] next day he says he can’ find his DL or any of his ID[ very little of which i'll guarantee was current or up to date] It looked like we’d thrown it all in the dumpster when we finally cleared up. Scene switches to moronic drunks rooting through dumpster at midnight….moral of the story, don’t move out the night before an international flight, and don’t do it in a alcoholic haze.
        We drove him to the airport with one piece of ID – a parking ticket that bore the legend…you have been convicted of the following parking offenses, and an unused sparkler firework, which we confiscated. We never expected to see him again.
        Ah…those were the days eh.

        Just another bum i hear grumps like BB sneering. Nope, good workng class guy all his life…just couldn’t organize a p*ss up at a brewery.
        An extreme example, but there are thousands of guys n gals out there like this; why should we pass a law that only rewards the clerically responsible when stats show the vast majority of them pay no attention to politics either until it comes time to vote? One man one vote is sacrosanct in all contexts – i’m shocked to hear Conservatives of all people claiming otherwise.

        • Yes, let MP’s debate how NOT being responsible as voters is a good thing. LOL You people really are priceless. A National Treasure is what you people are. Too funny.

          • FV you ought to leave your brain to science. Really it would be a public service.

          • See, there goes kmc2 again. He has nothing of substance to offer and so he starts spewing nonsense.

            Have a good day, kcm2.

            (btw: I am enjoying the New Zealand sun for a few months.) :) )) Working on my tan does wonders for that brain.

          • Remember to leave your hat off then.:)

          • Well, some of us think voting CPC is totally irresponsible ;-)

          • Yes…….if you’re on the dole.

          • Not in over two decades, James. Solidly middle-class and gainfully employed – sorry to disappoint you.

          • I’m not disappointed Keith….
            Everyone who can hold a job and pay taxes, is someone I don’t have to support. Keep it up.

      • That one’s only marginally tougher. Your wallet has most/all of your identity cards, but show up with 2 of these and you can vote. You’ll have most of these at your home.

        Original documents
        (with name and address)

        Utility Bill (telephone, TV, public utilities commission, hydro, gas or water)
        Bank/Credit Card Statement
        Vehicle Ownership/Insurance
        Correspondence issued by a school, college or university
        Statement of Government Benefits (employment
        insurance, old age security, social assistance, disability support or
        child tax benefit)
        Attestation of Residence issued by the responsible authority of a First Nations band or reserve
        Government Cheque or Cheque Stub
        Pension Plan Statement of Benefits, Contributions or Participation
        Residential Lease/Mortgage Statement
        Income/Property Tax Assessment Notice
        Insurance Policy
        Letter from a public curator, public guardian or public trustee
        One of the following, issued by the responsible
        authority of a shelter, soup kitchen, student/senior residence, or
        long-term care facility: Attestation of Residence, Letter of Stay,
        Admission Form or Statement of Benefits

        • And if your house burned down? Or if you are 18 and living at home, not going to school and have yet to find work? Lose your wallet then and you may not have any of this.

          Face it john, there are scenarios where this law will disenfranchise people. And it seems a deliberate choice.

          • And if you get a stroke just before entering the voting booth?

            And what if you get a car accident on the way to the voting station?

            And what if, on the morning of election day, you ate peanut butter and forgot you were allergic to peanuts.

            And what if you mother dies on election day and you will decide not to partake in voting that go around.

            And so forth.

            Yes, MP’s could debate this forever. I can see that.

          • Obviously some things are uncontrollable, but there is a question of balance here. How many people must lose the right to vote because we feel slightly leery about other people trying to vote illegally through the vouching program?

          • If the government is the servant of the people, as is allegedly the case in Canada, then the primary function of the government is to protect the rights of the people they serve. There is no right more fundamental in a democracy than the right to vote. So the burden of proof rests with the government to explain why they are taking that right away from the 75% of legitimate vouched voters who will be denied their most basic right.

            This government can’t be trusted to fck around with things they are too stupid to value.

            Their supporters, here and elsewhere, are determined to prove this stupidity over and over and over again.

          • In all your scenarios, none of the individuals showed up at the polling booth to be told “Sorry; no voting for you!!!” That’s what we are talking about, FV – refusing someone who actually showed up and requested to vote their right to do so, when there is another person standing right there with the proper ID who can vouch for the fact that the person without ID is who s/he says s/he is.

            It’s not rocket science; surely you can wrap your brain around the concept.

          • If your house burns down, you’d better have the insurance policy.

            If you’re 18, living at home, not going to school, and not working, you have plenty of time on your hands to go get ID, if you want to vote. It’s not the governments responsibility to make sure that a complete and utter layabout can vote with absolutely zero effort on his part.

          • Apparently, this government thinks it is their responsibility to make damn sure them “layabouts” can’t.

            Guess their polling shows that such individuals don’t tend to vote CPC.

          • Yes, obviously asking someone who wants to have a say in how our country is run to be able to prove that their a citizen is asking far too much. Everybody should just be able to call themself a Canadian and vote whenever and wherever they want. Who cares about “fair” elections, just let everybody do whatever they want.

          • That’s right Keith…..
            Folks who vote multiple times, are too lazy to get an ID (or a job) tend not to vote Conservative.
            folks who go from poll to poll on election day and vote repeatedly through “vouching” from a “family ” member……tend not to vote Conservative.
            Indian reserves that provide over 100% (??) of voter turnout on election day…..tend not to vote Conservative.
            so yeah….I guess the Conservatives are targeting those folks who for the main part vote Liberal.
            No wonder the Libs are ticked.

          • Think you are overly exaggerating the numbers who abuse this system, James. Got any hard stats to back up those claims of voter fraud?

            Among other things, the person doing the vouching must have proper ID – correct? So (a) how many are willing to put their own neck on the line to help someone else commit voter fraud? (b) If hey have to have someone with valid ID vouch for them, it’s a little hard to go from poll to poll, as the one doing the vouching would only have their name on the ballot at one poll.

          • It’s not the government’s responsibility to deny any legitimate person the vote. In fact, it is diametrically OPPOSED to the government’s responsibility.

          • For christsake, it’s a balancing act. The government needs to allow legitimate voters to vote, and stop illegitimate voters from voting. You seem concerned with only one side of the coin, I’m not surprised.

            By your logic the government should just allow anybody to vote, anywhere, any time and never question anyone. Why am I not surprised to hear such an argument from a Liberal, who’s party is famous for having dead people voting for it’s candidates?

          • Rick, the distinction is that the government needs to permit every single eligible voter from voting, without any exceptions. It does have the responsibility to deny illegitimate votes also, but there’s no balance here – the former absolutely trumps the latter. We want the illegitimate voters excluded, but if a few skip through, this is not nearly is appalling as the government denying anyone their right to vote. And only the one is unconstitutional, to boot.
            Note I say “permit”, I don’t mean there’s an obligation to find some way to help people who have a stroke on the way into the polling station still vote, to quote one example up-thread. But the government must never say “no, you can’t vote” to even one eligible voter.

          • But it is the Government’s Job to ensure that any legitimate person only votes ONCE.
            Every vote cast illegally, cancels out an honest citizens vote.
            The only folks who complain about this Bill, are those who benefit from the voter fraud so common in some parts of Canada.

          • So you’re in favor of the government outlawing privately made lease agreements then? And of preventing people from photocopying government letters or credit card bills?

            At least vouching requires two people to be in on the scam, but if someone really wants to vote illegally, they don’t actually need someone to vouch for them.

            I suggest that stopping vouching won’t stop a single illegal voter.. but it may stop a lot of disadvantaged legitimate ones.

            But hey, preventing the disadvantaged from voting is cool with you, isn’t it?

        • “3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.”

          It doesn’t say that only home owners can vote
          It doesn’t say that only those who pay for utilities can vote.
          It doesn’t say only those who are employed can vote.

          It says every Citizen has the right to vote. This new law curtails that right

          • The Conservatives election bill:

            Doesn’t say that only home owners can vote
            Doesn’t say that only those who pay for utilities can vote.
            Doesn’t say only those who are employed can vote.

            It simply asks that someone be able to identify themselves. To Liberals, this might seem like an extremely onerous task. To the rest of us, it’s the kind of thing that’s expected of someone who lives in a civilized society.

          • So if a citizen vouches for another citizen why is that not acceptable? If we are talking civilised society that is?

          • Harebell…its not acceptable for a very well established reason. People lie.
            There are quite a few stats on this if you’re interested, but I think it’s already been mentioned a few times on this thread. Tamils, Indians on reserve…etc…
            If people were honest…vouching works. People are not…so it doesn’t.

          • So I hope you are going to argue that our current system of relying on eye witness testimony is also to be disposed of. If people lie how can we do anything relying on the word of anyone?
            Pure bunkum. The vast majority of people tell the truth most of the time. This is just a way to restrict the number of people who vote so that national decisions are made by those who make up a committed party base. It is just another in a long line of pro-party moves that seek to consolidate the power of corrupt parties and reduce competition by eliminating unknown factors and any chances that independent candidates might have of being elected.
            Democracy is circling the pan in Canada and being replaced by the political criminal corporations called parties.

          • The difference of course, is that most Judges have years of experience in determining if a witness is lying or not. Some dude or dudette at the polling station….not so much.
            And more to the point…..a witness lying to the court doesn’t affect how the country is governed.

          • “And more to the point…..a witness lying to the court doesn’t affect how the country is governed.”
            That depends on the witness and the case doesn’t it? It could have a massive effect on how the country is run, certainly more than 1, 10 or even 1,000 votes in a safe riding.

      • Oh, come on. How many people will loose their wallet the week or the day before the election? A few, perhaps. One voter per riding? No way.

        • And how many people will get vouched for when they shouldn’t? A few perhaps. One per riding? No way.

          • Thwim…..as has already been proven, in toronto, certain communities vote repeatedly, and it may be in the thousands.
            Nice try though.

          • In the thousands? really?
            Okay, let’s assume that statement is true, even though we know you’re just talking out your ass, for the sake of this argument, we’ll let it slide.

            So, we have thousands of people who choose to vote when they can’t. So to stop them, we remove the ability to vouch.

            Will we also remove the ability to purchase blank rental agreements? To purchase white-out and go to the local Staples to make blank copies of a letter from the gov’t which can have a name put on?

            The only people we’re going to stop from voting are those who legitimately require someone to vouch for them. Anybody who wants to vote illegally can, with an astonishing amount of ease.

            So for the sake of a 0% drop in fake voting, we will disenfranchise an unknown number of Canadians.

            Sieg Heil, James. Sieg Heil.

          • Thwim,
            Apparently, your views towards Israel and Jews are beginning to colour your commentary with regards to other topics.
            Time to Focus.

        • With only 300-odd ridings and how many million voters? I’m betting the odds are at least that high.

        • Yes – if only Charter rights did not apply to everyone and instead just to the people who do not have unfortunate things happen to them…

      • And you weren’t already registered as a voter via your tax returns?

        • What does that have to do with anything? Registered or not, you still need ID, right?

        • I’m sorry, I only respond to actual humans. You’re too perfect to debate.l

    • Then, let those we elected, some of those votes were vouched, let those elected to speak on behalf of the people of this nation stand up and debate the value of these decisions. Let the people debate the value of this bill, which changes by fiat, enforced by closure and conceived in secrecy the rules of the every process by which we choose.

    • You could have recently moved from a great distance where it could be very inconvenient to return to your old riding but all of your ID shows the old address.

      It’s certainly possible to go through life without a driver’s license and a birth certificate might not be Canadian. Health card is giving me more pause but it would be interesting to learn more on the topic.

      • Come to think of it that could easily apply to university students who have moved away from home and didn’t have the werewithal to advance vote in their home riding (call it irresponsible if you want, but it shouldn’t keep them from voting).

        • Not a problem … all of the thousands of Maritimers
          drifting back and forth to Alberta can stop off half
          way and vote in Tony Clement’s riding.
          I’ll vouch for ‘em.

          • you culd be living with relatives or in student housing.

          • Imagine the poor homeless guy who lives under the bridge and doesn’t actually know anybody at all who can vouch for him? Clearly we need to remove any and all barriers to voting to accomodate that poor man. Because obviously somebody who lives under a bridge and has zero social connections will be easily convinced to vote Liberal for a bowl of soup.

          • come to think of it not every student living outside those conditions is on their lease – plenty of subletting going on. (Again, you can say its irresponsible, you can’t say it doesn’t happen).

          • You people are actively looking for excuses to keep this debate going.

            Yes, some students will not be able to get their stuff together to show valid ID. So better luck next time, when they ARE organized enough to get their stuff together.

            Oh, and you may be mugged while on your way to the voting station, MP’s better discuss that too. LOL

          • john g asked for any situation, we’re coming up with htem.

            “better luck next time” shouldn’t be good enough for a democracy. Shame on you.

          • Yes, we are actively looking.. because what you’re talking about here is preventing canadian citizens from voting. So if we’re doing that, we better be damn sure we’re doing it as little as humanly possible, or why bother having a democracy?

          • …why bother having a democracy?

            Somehow,I think deep down this is the inspiration for the bill.

          • Again, Thwim…..you miss the obvious.
            We’re talking about making sure Canadian citizens only get ONE vote each…but more importantly, ensuring that ONLY Canadian citizens get to vote.
            I think the Conservatives are tired of having thousands of non-citizens living in TO voting Liberal. Time to put a stop to it.

          • Got proof of that assertion? That thousands of non-citizens living in TO are voting Liberal?

            Again, if you do, have you taken it to Elections Canada? Or are you, too, simply talking out your ass?

          • “You people” are actively looking to shut down debate on a bill that is clearly anti-democratic on a number of fronts.

            It seems as though the CPC is looking to mug the nation’s voters before they get to the polls. And that’s no LOLing matter.

          • I looked at the list and realized it might be quite complicated for my daughter, a university student in residence elsewhere, to vote. Like many students she doesn’t have a driver’s license, other picture ID doesn’t include addresses (birth certificates, library cards, passports, student ID) and no, she doesn’t have utility bills or bank statements or insurance sent to her university residence.

            It is harder enough to engage younger Canadians to vote. This clause just makes it even harder.

          • If voting is important to her, she has a year and a half to get a piece of ID in order. Is that too much to ask so that we can ensure the legitimacy of our elections?

          • It IS too much to ask……if you are asking someone who thinks Governemnt has the responsiblity to look after us, regardless of the effort we make.

          • Please point out the place in the constitution where it says the lazy do not have the right to vote.

          • Clearly, the lazy DO have a right to vote. As do the drunks, druggies, entitled welfare bums………….
            I never wrote they didn’t have a RIGHT to vote………I just think we’d all be better off if they didn’t vote.
            But then….who would support the NDP?

    • The fact that there were at least 120,000 of them last time around makes your question redundant. Unless of course you propose we ban the idle and the incompetent from voting altogether. Which this bill essentially does since it offers zero solution to the human condition. It does worse, it won’t even allow EC to go with voter ID cards. If another party pulled this you’d be yelling your head off.

      • The fact that there were at least 120,000 of them last time around makes your question redundant.

        No it doesn’t. In 99%+ of these cases those 120,000 people had, or could easily get, the documents they need to vote. Go look at the list of what qualifies and see for yourself. It’s an impressively long list. And almost none of it requires you to prove citizenship.

        All vouching is is a license for fraud. That’s it. That’s all.

        • Yup. And how many of them will go home, dig up the needed documentation, and return to the poll? For every one that doesn’t, you have suppressed a vote.

          • So, your position that the person who shows up to vote has no responsibility to bring his/her identity? If they don’t, it’s the CPC’s fault that they didn’t vote?

            Spoken like a true Liberal.

          • Well said.

          • It will be if vouching is eliminated across the board. Is that the point you failed to make in Keith’s favour?

          • If there’s someone with them who has proper ID and can vouch for them, what’s the problem? Unless you can show me stats to indicate a rash of instances where a person WITH the correct ID showed up to vote, only to be told “Hey – you already voted”. Then you might have a legit argument.

          • People’s laziness is now an excuse NOT to vote?

            Oh, wait, that excuse has always been true.

          • No; now it’s apparently a reason to deny them their right to vote. AKA voter suppression.

        • Go look at the EC website yourself John; the one PP selectively quoted from. In the vast majority of cases the infractions were technical and the vouching properly backed up. I’m not arguing these people arn’t irresponsible or idle. I’m saying that’s not enough of a reason to disenfranchise them.
          I don’t like the way certain wealthy Canadians think or behave, but i don’t advocate restricting their right to vote.
          You have your point, but mine is be happy that 120 thou of these people even showed up – don’t turn them away unless it is clear there is an intent to defraud. I you had any evidence that most of the clerically responsible who showed up were all well informed also i might have more sympathy for the Conservative pov here; as it is i don’t.
          http://looniepolitics.com/building-poilievres-electoral-fraud-sky/

          • You could be in a car accident on the way to the voting station. You want this government to be responsible for that too?

            What is it that you don’t get? Making sure you have proper ID is a personal responsibility. Period.

          • But OTOH they let folks like you vote anyway FV.

          • Hey, EC even let me work for them at voting stations. I saw first hand how lax the voucher system is.

            I make sure I have proper documentation when going to vote. It is easy to do and every reasonable person over 18 knows that.

            Some people just need to grow up into being reasonable. And they will grow up, some day. Some day voters will hold themselves responsible as part of a working democracy. Until then, have your fun. LOL

          • So tell me how restricting ECs outreach to merely telling them where and when to vote is going to help at all? No one is arguing it isn’t a hell of a lot of work to try and grow the voter base, particularly when the miscreants are idle.
            Your point about voucher fraud being rampant is not supported by EC data…there i believe the figure is 0.07% or some such fraction of the number claimed by PP.

          • By that time, at the rate the CPC is going, they will have long lost any opportunity to vote.

            Up next: Must be a property owner to vote. Followed by: Must be gainfully employed to vote; Must have CPC membership to vote…

          • Hold it – we may have found the source of voter turn off. How much talking did you do to the voters you encountered?.

        • Silly generalization isn’t making your case any better John.

        • It is easy to make the assumption that everyone else lives like you do. My wallet was stolen last month — it took at least 3 weeks to get all my ID, including credit cards, back. You might be surprised at how many people don’t have driver’s licenses, used as a standard for picture ID and address. Or students who live in residence or rent, who don’t have utility bills or other correspondence.

      • Personaly, I think it is a GOOD idea to ban the idle and incompetent from voting.
        Tell you what Kcm2…….go round up about 20 layabouts, junkies, drunks, incompetents, and homeless people. Now give them your all of your money; and access to your bank account.
        If you complain about what they do with it……….you are a hypocrite.

        • Depends how you define incompetent. Used in the broadest sense that would certainly, in my estimation, rule you out with the so called bums.

          • Didn’t think you could muster a reply to that one.

          • I did, you just weren’t paying attention.

          • Your response can best be summed up with ……”SQUIRREL”

        • Second Conservative apologist I’ve seen in two days finally come out and admit he’s a fascist. At least you guys are starting to be honest.

          • One may note, when a Liberal or “progressive” cannot win an argrument against an opponent using logic…….the opponent is labelled a bigot, racists, or a fascist, etc.
            In this thread alone, I have been called all three.
            Thanks for proving my points fellas.
            Keep em coming.

    • Please describe a scenario in which “vouching” suddenly became a more pressing issue to address than the 1000+ complaints about robo-calls that occurred in the last 3 elections and the unsettling conclusion by a federal court judge that the CPC database was used in a systematic attempt to confuse voters?

      Also, where are the provisions that address the inability of EC to investigate complaints in a timely manner? to compel testimony?

      The problem with the measures to revoke vouching is that it’s a diversion, whatever you might think of the value of allowing or preventing it.

      Meanwhile the bill enshrines corruption in election financing by expressly allowing the questionable transfer of over-spending at the national party level to under-spending ridings, and by exempting the cost of fund raising from existing donor base as election spending, both of which advantage the Conservative Party of Canada over all the other parties and any newcomers.

      In that context, pretending that voters without documentation are the problem, instead of targeting actual irregularities is quite unfair.

    • No law requires us to have ID. That means we don’t have to have ID.
      For a party that frothed mightily and spat blood over the requirement to register lethal weapons and the threat that that posed to personal privacy, you’d have thought that they’d be the first ones to appreciate this.

      • This is getting more and more ridiculous.

        If you’re willing to go through life without health care, employment, a bank account, a credit card, a driver’s license, a birth certificate, a passport, a government cheque, etc., then I can’t imagine not being able to vote is going to be a major hindrance to your lifestyle.

        • If you have all of those things, why make a fuss about filling out a little paperwork to own a gun?

          She makes a very good point, if you ask me. Or is unfettered gun ownership more important than the right to vote?

          • Keith…clearly, you know nothing about what is required to own a firearm. It’s far more than al ittle paperwork. Background checks, interviews with your neighbours, interviews with your teacher (if you are younger) medical checks..etc..etc.
            Now if you want to know the difference…….ask someone from High River Alberta what the big deal is.

          • You missed the point. We are mocking how the same group that was so opposed to the government having a gun registry getting their knickers in a knot about ending the vouching process (ostensibly to eliminate the fraction of a percent of genuinely ineligible voters who were breaking the law) seems counter-intuitive. Unless they have an ulterior motive, such as voter suppression of groups that seldom vote for their party.

            But since you want to talk about the paperwork surrounding gun ownership and the Registry: You still have to do all that now, correct? Even after the Registry is cancelled? So what EXTRA steps were required to register the gun? What was it about those extra steps that made them such an onerous task? Or was it simply that gun owners were all paranoid that the Big Bad Government was going to swoop in and take away their toys?

          • Keith, the Big Bad Government has already used their power to confiscate firearms. They were purchased legally, but the CFO now deems them dangerous, and then take them away without compensation. It’s been happening for a while.
            Please note….in every country where a registry was enacted, personal firearms have been confiscated. in every single country…..without exception.

        • Holy cow.

          How about the people who have no means to get any of those things.

          Since when did the government get to tell people how they have to live their lives before they have a vote? That is interesting. Maybe when the liberals win they can say you cannot vote if you have too much money – because, after all, people with a lot of money already have advantages over those who do not. Why should they get to vote too?

          • Gayle,
            If that is the scope of your reasoning skills……………then maybe the Bill needs to be amended further.

        • Which part of Section 3 of the Charter does the right wing have problems understanding?

          As I wrote further down:
          “3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of
          members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.”

          It doesn’t say that only home owners can vote
          It doesn’t say that only those who pay for utilities can vote.
          It doesn’t say only those who are employed can vote.
          It says every Citizen has the right to vote. This new law curtails that right

          One line and you and the boys who would be leader still can’t understand it. Every citizen has the right to vote and only the truly fascist would seek to limit that right.

          • It says citizens. Thus, it wouldn’t be going to far to suggest that proof of citizenship is required.

          • So I, a car driving citizen replete with required driving licence go to vote and I see old Jerry, a pensjioner who lives in a basement suite with all utilities paid trying to vote but he has no ID with him. I want to vouch for him but now can’t. Likewise Jenny a high school student just turned 18, she uses public transport and lives with her older sister. I can’t vouch for her either.

            This law is discriminatory and directly infringes on their Charter right for no good reason other than to prevent them form voting.
            Citizens in Canada are not legally required to carry ID to prove their citizenship for any reason.

            It is somewhat telling that the Harper government is seeking to change this and just confirms their totalitarian leanings.
            “Ihre papiere bitte!” I have heard those word before, just I never thought I’d hear them here.

          • There is a very good reason you shouldn’t be allowed to vouch for anyone Harebell…..you might be lying.

            Let’s try another scenario……….since you show a fondness for them.

            There is a Tamil candidate in a Toronto riding. It looks like a close race….so just to be sure, he speaks to the Tamil community leaders (maybe even the same ones who were extorting money from Canadians of Tamil origin to support the Tamil Tigers, a known terrorist group) and lets them know he may need some help. Come polling day……these upstanding Tamil leaders bring busloads of Tamils….many without citizenship, and have Canadian Tamils “vouch” for them, thereby allowing Non-Canadians elect someone who didn’t actualy garner the most support.

            Or.

            Try this: First nations reserve of 1000 folks, many without ID, use the “vouching” criteria in the 2011 election. The results are surprising……on a reserve of 1000 indians…….1300 Indians voted for the NDP.

            The Charter right to vote is a good one……which is why the right to have ONLY legitimate votes having an impact upon elections is also a good idea. That is what this Bill is for.

            I think you fully understand why the Bill was created……you just don’t like the impact of certain groups ONLY having one vote.

            That is why the Liberals hate it so much.

          • Why Tamils and Why FNs in the examples when the recorded examples of election fraud have revolved around Guelph, Toronto and BC? In fact Election fraud findings have come down against both Lib candidates and the CPoC as a whole, yet you whip these racially charged scenarios out of your butt… why?
            You have had a whiff of the jackboot about you in the past, but this is some pretty overt racsim with very little to back it up. Remember we have talked about sources in the past.

          • So you can’t refute his point, at all, and you have to resort to accusations of racism? Typical.

          • I can refute his point, it’s pure faerie stories and he has provided nothing of substance to back them up.
            So when documented cases of Election Fraud involve Political Parties and lots of white affluent men, it is somehow wrong of me to ask why he didn’t refer to those documented cases rather than create some fantastic scenarios involving terrorists, brown people and first nations is it?
            Why not use actual events that have been in the national spotlight to highlight his point?

          • Because his examples of the Tamil’s and First Nations have been documented. You can choose to simply not believe him because you don’t want to, or you can go find the truth. There are zero cases of white affluent men (sexist and racist of you to bring that up, by the way) conspiring to vouch for one another to skew the vote.

            Oh, and the Tamil case was brought up by Liberals also. So it’s hardly a partisan conspiracy to point out that the Tamil’s did have some strange voting patterns.

          • So still no evidence to present, just your word for it hey?

            Oh, I mentioned election fraud and there are real findings to support that and their perpetrators happened to be powerful, white, men. You really have an issue with facts don’t you Rick? Actual judgements handed down against Parties and their bag men still outweigh hearsay and so called strange patterns.

            Call me old-fashioned but give me a legal determination over pure speculation any day.

          • Yes, I’m aware that the Liberal Adscam was perpetrated by wealthy white men. What’s your point again?

          • So why the Tamil and FN examples then?

          • Since when is making stuff up a “point”.

            Oh wait, I am responding to Rick. That is the only way he ever makes a point.

            ha ha ha ha ha

          • Actually harebell…….
            I got this info from todays’ newspapers.
            Maybe you should read more.

          • Then you should have problems directing me to it.. right?

          • Harebell….let me fix that for you.

            “3. Every GENUINE citizen of Canada has the right to vote ONLY ONCE in an election of
            members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.”

            It doesn’t say that only home owners can vote
            And the Bill doesn’t say it either.

            It doesn’t say that only those who pay for utilities can vote.
            And the Bill doesn’t say it either.
            It doesn’t say only those who are employed can vote.
            And the Bill doesn’t say it either.

            It says every Citizen has the right to vote. This new law curtails that right
            The new Bill doesn’t curtail anything other that fraud. If folks cannot get the right docs within the next 2 years…..their problem, not democracy’s.
            Just thought you could use some help………..I hate to see only half of the story.

          • I just checked the Charter and your fixing did no such thing. Clearly you have no respect for the Charter.
            Also I think you need to understand what the word curtails means. There is very little point in debating stuff with you if the meaning of words becomes what you want it to be.

          • NO, the reason you don’t like to “debate” me……is that you always end up looking like the puffed up buffon you are.
            You make it too easy.

          • No that’s not it, as I repeatedly do try and engage with you; but you insist on redefining words to suit your purposes, introducing extremely dubious “facts” and inventing stuff.
            A debate takes two people with a grounding in reality.

      • Just like there is no Law against refusing certain services to someone without an ID. YOu don’t have to rent to a person without ID…..you don’t have to give them a mortgage…you don’t have to provide them a loan….you don’t have to accept their credit cards…etc..etc…
        Non-actions, like actions…have consequences. If you want to get the services…you need to prove who you are. If you don’t have an ID…..then you are responsible for the consequences.

        • And you are conflating service with rights.
          Rights are for everyone all the time, services are provided at the convenience of the providers and the recipients.
          The right to vote is a fundamental right that cannot be curtailed except in some serious instances. Committing a crime is no bar to voting, yet you think that law abiding citizens who are not breaking a law by not carrying federal id should not be allowed to exercise that right?
          Wow.

          • Once again….you miss a relatively easy point I was making. I never said anything about RIGHTS….I was only making comments with regards to what life may be like if one doesn’t have any valid ID.
            But while we’re at it……my RIGHT to vote….should not be invalidated by someone who votes more than once, or by someone who is not a Canadian.
            apparently, Charter rights are not your concern when it comes to people who vote Conservative.
            Learn to read. Not read in.
            that’s what the Courts are for.

          • Your right to vote would not be invalidated by anything anyone else does. You would still have that right and you would have exercised it. The result of the election may have been skewed and invalidated but your right would not have been infringed. Charter rights are my concern regardless of political persuasion.

            My objections would be just as valid for the right wing libertarian who lives off the grid and thinks that the black helicopters are coming to get them. They have a right to vote and there is no requirement for them to carry official federal ID. What’s more, if I knew them and they needed vouching for I would do that, because I’m responsible for the state of our democracy as a citizen. So are you, but you think your responsibility stops with those you disagree with.

  5. Re “Vouching”.

    Just double checked. If October 19, 2015 is the date of the next big show, whaddyawanna bet a whole bunch of university students won’t have their ID sh*t together in time to vote?

    Goodness me. That couldn’t possibly be on purpose, could it?

      • In your world, everyone remembers all the documents they’ll need for the whole day every time they leave the house.

        Your world doesn’t exist.

        And wouldn’t it be better if all these points were being debated in the HOC instead of here, exclusively?

        Why is the Government so damned afraid of talking about this 240 page bill?

        • You forgot your documents at home?

          That’s why they put polling stations near your house. Go home and get them.

          • John, why is the Government so damned afraid of talking about this 240 page bill?

    • Leftists who vouch for each other voting at multiple polling stations.

      • Frankly, if it wasn’t for this bill, given their known / suspected history, I’d be more inclined to think CPC supporters would be the ones doing this.

        • You should give the Canadian Mental Health Association a call and get some help.

          • I assume I’ll be in the queue after you?

          • Not likely Keith, but you can hold KC’s hand.

          • Awhh…don’t be like that. Life’s short, live large Bubba.We might even have a future together…although i will have to run it by the wife first.

          • Still in denial I see! Well, hope you get the help you need before you harm yourself or others ;-)

      • Funny thing, it’s the Cons seem to be the only ones who seem familiar with how this scam works – stealing voters cards, renting buses etc.

  6. Saturday, April 23, 2011

    Vote Early, Vote Often

    Just a reminder that advance polls are open yesterday, today, and Monday. Elections.ca will gladly point you where you need to go.

    I just got back from voting for Christine Innes,
    a fine candidate in Trinity Spadina who I’ve had the honour of door
    knocking for this campaign. Christine, as you may know, is running
    against Olivia Chow since, after all, I’m just incapable of ever living
    in a Liberal riding.

    posted by calgarygrit at
    7:37 PM

  7. Voter fraud concerns in east Toronto widespread

    CBC News

    Posted: Mar 14, 2012 9:30 PM ET
    Last Updated: Mar 15, 2012 2:03 PM ET

    Mano Kanagamany, who has worked on Liberal Party campaigns in
    east Toronto for 25 years, says he and former Scarborough Southwest
    candidate Michelle Simson filed a complaint with Elections Canada after
    the last federal election. (CBC)

    Allegations of widespread voting irregularities in an east Toronto
    federal riding are similar to complaints from a neighbouring riding
    and a municipal byelection held nearby, two people closely involved say.

    “This
    should have come out a long time ago,” Muttukumaru Chandrakumaran, who
    ran in a municipal byelection in Ajax, Ont., said Wednesday.

    Chandrakumaran was responding to a CBC News investigation on
    Tuesday that uncovered allegations of electoral fraud concentrated in
    the Tamil community in the riding of Scarborough-Rouge River. Those
    allegations, which span both the federal and provincial ridings, centre
    largely on what appears to be a lack of oversight surrounding
    election-day additions to the official voters list.

    Chandrakumaran
    said he remembers groups of people from his Tamil community who were
    not on the voters list showing up at polling stations during the 2008
    vote and claiming to live at the same address.

    “Up to 26 people were voting from one house,” he said.

    ‘Elections Canada, it’s like talking to a wall’

    Chandrakumaran said he complained to police and Elections Canada with no response.

    “Elections Canada, it’s like talking to a wall,” he said.

    CBC
    reported Tuesday that Marlene Gallyot, the federal Conservative
    candidate who lost to the NDP’s Rathika Sitsabaiesan in
    Scarborough-Rouge River has complained to Elections Canada, alleging
    ineligible voters “by the dozens” turned up on voting day and filed
    ballots illegally. She also said scrutineers — party volunteers who
    oversee voting on behalf of candidates — were approaching voters at
    polling stations, speaking to them in Tamil and coaching them on who to
    vote for.

    Mano Kanagamany, who has worked on Liberal Party
    campaigns in east Toronto for 25 years, said Wednesday that he and
    former Scarborough Southwest candidate Michelle Simson filed a complaint
    with Elections Canada after the last federal election over
    concerns about illegal voters.

    “We are only asking Elections
    Canada to investigate it,” Kanagamany said. “Cross-check with
    [Citizenship and Immigration Canada] that they are real citizens who
    live in the riding.”

    Most of the complaints involve members of the Tamil community.

    Gary
    Anandasangaree, a spokesman for the Canadian Tamil Congress, said the
    community works to get out the vote but has never heard of anyone taking
    part in fraud.

    “We’re not in any way, advertently or
    inadvertently, suggesting people go out and vote when they’re not
    eligible to vote,” he said.

  8. Almost missed during all of this, the Minister of Foxes whisked his Defense of Hen Houses Bill through 1st, 2nd and 3rd reading in a record 17.5 seconds earlier today.

  9. FWIW, my proposal to help the “disenfranchised” if vouching is removed.

    1) Anyone who shows up to vote without the required ID is given a special provisional ballot. This ballot has a reference number. The reference number is given to the citizen after voting for further validation (see below)

    2) The provisional ballots will not be counted on election day.

    3) Within x days of the election (7? 15? 30?) the elector is required to submit evidence of eligibility to Elections Canada (as specified in Option 1 or 2 on the EC page) , and to provide the number he was given from his ballot. Once this is done, his provisional ballot becomes validated. The reference numbers will be removed from the validated ballots before they are opened and counted so that the elector’s vote is kept private.

    4) For any riding which is too close to call, the validated provisional ballots will be counted at the end of the validation period.

    5) Any provisional ballots for which the citizen does not supply the required documents by the end of the validation period will not be counted and will be destroyed without opening them.

    • Far better than what the government is proposing.

    • Very sensible suggestion John. But detractors will shoot it down by denigrating the volunteers who actually conduct the vote. “Oh, you can’t expect these poor volunteers to handle such a complex system.” We will just disenfranchise legitimate voters and let god sort it out.

    • I will shoot it down.

      Some people are so poor they will never have the required documentation.

      Also, your vote should count no matter what, not “just in case the vote is too close to call”. Come on.

    • That works, and I’m good with that.

      Of course, it still won’t stop a single illegal vote, since, as you yourself point out, the documents to “verify” your identity are extremely easy to obtain, and if you’re willing to fraudulently vote, you’re probably equally willing to make a lease agreement with a fraudulent address. That plus a credit card is all you need, after all.

      But hey, if it enables all of these conservatives to let go of their pearls so that we can start considering the OTHER problems in the bill, I’m all for it.

      • Of course, it still won’t stop a single illegal vote, since, as you
        yourself point out, the documents to “verify” your identity are
        extremely easy to obtain

        Not if you ask Gayle.

        • You are correct. They are not easy to obtain.

          Hey, I have an idea. Why don’t you take a stroll into a homeless drop in centre one day and ask people there how easy it is for them to get ID.

          For most people who do not want to be proven wrong, they would avoid that kind of exposure to evidence that debunks their little theories, but you? Well, if the evidence debunks your theory you just ignore it and carry on. So my guess is you have nothing to be afraid of.

        • Gayle’s assuming an honest citizen. The one’s we’re concerned about aren’t that.

  10. Part of me wonders if this is just a red herring. Maybe Poilievre will “change his mind” after listening to all the criticisms of this portion of the bill.

    Meanwhile that part where the people investigating electoral fraud have to answer to Harper goes unnoticed…

  11. The Tories keep getting caught breaking the rules. So they change the rules. Time to change the Tories.

  12. Marc Mayrand is ticked because his bluff has been called. Everyone who is honest knows Mayrand has a special hatred for the Federal Tories. He seems to focus Elections canada resources and efforts at trying to make the Conservative Party look bad. If in doubt, ask yourself how an RCMP raid on Conservative party headquarters, came complete with the CBC and other media parked outside the doors of the Office complete with camera’s….just in time to see the raid. Someone at Elections Canada tipped off the media. Someone pretty high up.
    This new bill will stop Mayrand from carrying out his own personal vendetta against Harper and the Conservatives….and Markie isn’t pleased about it.
    As for the “vouching”…it has been mentioned before that certain ethnic communities commonly engage in fraud at the polls. No news here, but what is also not mentioned about the vouching too often, is the propensity for first nations communities to see voter turnout of over 100%. How does that happen?
    As you know…most immigrants and First Nations folks do NOT vote Conservative. No wonder the Libs and NDP are outraged. They are no longer going to be able to count on three or four votes per person. Now they have to earn their votes one at a time…like the Conservatives.

    • “Everyone who is honest knows Mayrand has a special hatred for the Federal Tories”

      Replace “honest” with “suffering from paranoid delusions”, and that statement would be correct.

      As for your so called “evidence”, please point to me the evidence that it was EC who leaked that raid to the CBC. Maybe you did not notice, but when the RCMP raided a certain BC politicians home, the media were there too. EC had nothing to do with that raid, so who do you suppose leaked it to the media? Could it have been the RCMP? The same people who conducted the raid on the CPC headquarters?

      Now, I know, the fact that other RCMP raids on politicians were leaked to the media is evidence that would tend to suggest that it was NOT EC that leaked this raid to the media, so you will probably ignore it.

      I have to say it is so very easy to tear apart the arguments raised in support of your paranoid delusions. John got a taste of that the other day.

      As for the rest of your comment – vile racist rant.

    • Your post is pure propaganda without any foundation in truth. How easily Conservatives forget that Marc Mayrand was appointed by none other than Stephen Harper in 2007. Harper has NOT been known to appoint any small or large ‘L’ liberals. Marc Mayrand, much to his credit, has conducted his office in a non-partisan way. Anytime people perform their offices in a non-partisan way and the Conservatives land into trouble (with the Parliamentary Budget Officer, for another example of a Harper appointee), they accuse that person of being partisan and against them.

      In terms of the vouching, your claims are pure lies that you cannot prove. As Elizabeth May has correctly pointed out, with young people and First Nations, the problem isn’t that they tend to vote more than once. The problem is they tend to vote LESS than once. And credible news sources have found that any problems with the elections were NOT caused by voter fraud, but by poor training of the staff that handles elections.

      The Neufeld report commissioned by Elections Canada in 2013 makes no recommendations to axe or change vouching and Voter Information Cards. It does not attribute any administrative errors or “irregularities” made on Election
      Day to the vouching process itself either. In fact, in no place does the report advocate that vouching be scrapped.

      Tightening up voter ID to prevent voter fraud was also a rationale used in the US, that would have prevented many African Americans and poorer people from voting. A massive study on voting irregularities was conducted a couple of years ago in the US. Voter fraud occurs just 0.0000068 per cent of the time, according to a study of election fraud cases in the US that examined 2,068 alleged election fraud cases. So in the US, where there are 146 million registered voters, they found only 10 cases of voter fraud.

      Of course, this answer to you relies on scientific evidence and research.

  13. A bill is proposed that would make it impossible for Elections Canada to investigate a sitting government for fraud, and people are making “vouching” the biggest issue. It’s definitely an issue, but I’m more immediately worried about the fact that EC needed power to compel testimony because the Cons have been stonewalling regarding the CIMS-based 2011 voter suppression scheme, and instead of giving EC that power, they have neutered it. Such a blatant attempt to cover one’s crimes should be the focus of every headline in the country. What is it with Canadians and their “It couldn’t happen here” attitude? IT IS HAPPENING HERE! History is never over. Fascism is not only in the past. This is exactly how democracies incrementally become dictatorships. Harper even calls it “Incrementalism”! Come on. This is way more serious than even Mulcair seems to realize.

    • I agree… except that, instead of your term ‘neutered’, I would say the Conservatives have castrated Elections Canada. The fact that the Commissioner of Elections is now separated out from Elections Canada, and reports, instead of to Parliament, to the Minister, of course shuts out the rest of Parliament from any knowledge of misdeeds. The fact that under this Unfair Elections Act, it is now forbidden to reveal any ongoing investigation, is counter to transparency and the public’s right to know and hold our politicians and their staff accountable. The fact that Elections Canada is now ordered to only tell us the bare minimum of when and where an election takes place, and cannot actually promote the right and duty of citizens to vote or encourage it among populations who are underrepresented or send kits on voting and citizenship to school kids runs so counter to the very nature of democracy that it is Orwellian on steroids.

  14. Too many people commenting here are, without any evidence, claiming that vouching has let to voter fraud… just to support their partisan support of a partisan and unfair bill.

    Vouching has never been shown, in Canada, to lead to people voting more than once. As Elizabeth May has correctly pointed out, with young people and First Nations, the problem isn’t that they tend to vote more than once. The problem is they tend to vote LESS than once. Credible news sources (i.e. NOT Sun News) have found that any problems with the elections were NOT caused by voter fraud, but by poor training of the staff that handles elections.

    The Neufeld report commissioned by Elections Canada in 2013 makes no recommendations to axe or change vouching and Voter Information Cards. It does not attribute any administrative errors or “irregularities” made on Election Day to the vouching process itself either. In fact, in no place does the report advocate that vouching be scrapped.

    Tightening up voter ID to prevent voter fraud was also a rationale used in the US, that would have prevented many African Americans and poorer people from voting. A massive study on voting irregularities was conducted a couple of years ago in the US. Voter fraud occurs just 0.0000068 per cent of the time, according to a study of election fraud cases in the US that examined 2,068 alleged election fraud cases. So in the US, where there are 146 million registered voters, they found only 10 cases of voter fraud. This is a statistically insignificant number and would not have affected any election outcomes.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *