Slashdot Mirror

But the media companies still have money, and so after the next election, when once again the contributors' favours are to be repaid, they'll be pulled back off the shelf no matter who wins. Just you wait.

Do you know about the restrictions on campaign contributions in Canada at the federal level?

Any individual who is a Canadian citizen or permanent resident of Canada may make these contributions:

• up to $1,000 in total in any calendar year to a particular registered party
• up to $1,000 in total in any calendar year to the registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates of a particular registered party
• up to $1,000 in total to a candidate for a particular election who does not represent a registered political party
• up to $1,000 in total to the contestants in a particular leadership contest

• [405(1)]

The Act provides for maximum contribution limits of $1,000, subject to an inflation adjustment on April 1 of each year. On January 1, 2007, the contribution limits were adjusted by the April 1, 2006, inflation factor and therefore established at $1,100.

So if you want to "buy off" a party or candidate, you can give only $1,100 to the political party and $1,100, in total, distributed among the candidates to whom you want to donate for that party. A "leadership contest" is held, at most, every few years within a party to choose a party leader.

The following are ineligible contributions, either monetary or non-monetary:

• contributions from individuals who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
• contributions from corporations
• contributions from trade unions
• contributions from unincorporated associations
• contributions in excess of the contribution limits set out in the Act

I added the emphasis in this quotation. So I'm not sure what "favours" the media companies, with all their money, can use to get repaid. I'm sure that bribery can and does happen on occasion, but the amount that the parties spend in elections is also monitored and reported, so I'm not sure how such "favours" could swing an election enough to need to be repaid. Federal politics in Canada aren't like in the US, where some forms of bribery are legal and common.

Canada's system works well because it is -extremely- transparent, and works through volunteers.

Well, volunteers and a world-class, neutral body that's responsible for organizing the elections, tracking campaign finance, and so forth.

They somehow managed to hand-count ~40M votes in a couple hours. It doesn't take a brain surgeon (or a statistician, in this case) to realize there's something fishy going on.

How so? I believe the way it works in Canada is that ballots are counted at each polling station and parties are free to have a representative oversee the election process. This ensures that we have an unofficial count a couple of hours after the polling stations close. (See The Electoral System of Canada, on page 34 of the PDF)

The official count comes, by law, up to seven days later, but it usually doesn't differ from the unofficial count.

In Canada, every polling station invites representatives of every political party to be present in the running of the polling station. And they all stand up for this responsibility. This means the parties themselves are responsible for policing each other. And it works, since the penalty for not policing each other is that the 'other guy' might get away with something.

As well, any individual that wants to come in and sit around the polling station all day is welcome to do so to observe the events.

In Canada it is generally accepted that the voting system works very very well. Unfortunately, the electoral system could be reformed and the parties leave something to be desired. But that seems to be pretty common and a trait shared with their southern neighbors.

In Canada, every polling station invites representatives of every political party to be present in the running of the polling station. And they all stand up for this responsibility. This means the parties themselves are responsible for policing each other. And it works, since the penalty for not policing each other is that the 'other guy' might get away with something.

As well, any individual that wants to come in and sit around the polling station all day is welcome to do so to observe the events.

In Canada it is generally accepted that the voting system works very very well. Unfortunately, the electoral system could be reformed and the parties leave something to be desired. But that seems to be pretty common and a trait shared with their southern neighbors.

Why can't the US do what we do in Canada? You don't have to make this complicated.

In Canada, we show up to our polling station with our voter card, show the card and receive a ballot. We take the ballot, which has the names of the candidates and their party in large font very clearly, and put an X in the big circle beside the candidate we're voting for.

Thats it! No fancy machines, no complicated forms, and no computers to go wrong or be hacked.

See this image:
http://www.elections.ca/yth/images/sample_ballot.gif

You know what's even simpler (and doesn't require legible handwriting)? Something like this, or this. Yes, god forbid people should have to actually make a checkmark inside of a circle, or draw a line to connect a broken arrow...

It's not representative, because the decline in voter turnout is often more severe in certain groups. The most distinctive feature of recent declines is in youth voters (18-24 or so). It's awful, and worsening, which is not only bad for now, but bodes ill for the future. This is true in Canada and apparently in the U.S. Youth voters are therefore underrepresented compared to older voters.

It's the one thing where I bend my personal ethics and use my university classroom for political purposes: I encourage the students to vote, and I explain how and where they can vote (i.e., in Canada, they have the option of voting in their home constituency or the one in which they reside during school). I even remind them that if they need a ride to the polls, they can often get one from a candidate.

I don't talk about parties or anything like that, but I emphasize that if they want to have a voice and they want politicians to care about their issues, then they have to get off their behinds, become informed, and vote. I figure 15 minutes for a good cause is worthwhile in class as long as I'm politically neutral.

Anyway, having looked into it, you are wrong about the implication the decline in turnout leaves a residual amount of voters that is equally statistically representative as before. Youth are disengaging in droves, possibly because they think their contribution doesn't matter (the reasons are debatable -- see the above article).

I agree with your point that an uninformed "vote anyway" vote isn't really a solution, but the process starts with trying to convince people that their vote matters. Politicians do look at the gross statistics and think about where to focus their efforts, so a generally bad turnout in a particular group is inevitably going to bias their decisions.

In Canada, Elections Canada pays YOU to run.

Well, they reimburse a lot, and they pay the parties money on a per-vote basis.

One of the provisions of the new Elections Act (in 2006) was to limit personal contributions and to strongly limit corporate, union, and other organizational campaign donations. Roughly, the limit is $1100/yr for personal contributions (adjusted for inflation and you can donate to more than one candidate/party, you can contribute more to your own campaign, etc., so it can be a little higher in total). Contributions from corporations, unions, and other organizations are set at ZERO. Yes, you heard that right. They are banned. For more details see this background information.

As a result of the expected decline in campaign funds that these changes caused, if you get more than 10% of the vote you get up to 60% of your expenses refunded by the government. Political parties also get refunded for expenses if they get 2% or 5% of the vote, depending upon the type of election, and they get a certain amount of money for every vote they receive too.

The premise of all this is that it is better for the democratic process to level the playing field, financially-speaking, and for the taxpayer to pay some of the costs in order to achieve that goal.

The bottom line in Canada is: a shill, shyster, or despot can certainly generate campaign money, and perhaps more effectively than someone who is honest, but they're still going to be severely limited unless they want to get caught and go to jail (case in point: the party offices of the government in power were recently raided due to a dispute over campaign finances with Elections Canada). A politician won't be raking in millions from big corporate donors (because corporate donations are illegal in Canada), and they'll have to get a large number of $1100/yr donors to get to millions, which means a small number of people can't buy undue influence either.

In Canada a shill, shyster, or despot can still go far in politics (goodness knows there's plenty of examples), but unfortunately they won't find it as easy to generate campaign money as it used to be.

Maybe things are different in the US, but here in Canada you can just show up at a polling station with someone else who lives in the district and have them vouch for you. It really wouldn't be that difficult to slip in a false vote.

elections canada info

My favourite FAQ on that page is "Can I eat a ballot?". :)

I see so many people (and US states) that have not a single clue on how to run a paper ballot based election properly. This is how virtually all ballots in Canada are cast. How do we know it is secure? A chain of accountability is made to ensure no tampering happens, through (ah! Just like US government, they say...) checks and balances.

  - Special paper, number of sheets printed by the printer and returned to elections Canada are compared
  - Three part ballots, consisting of a stub kept in the returning officer's book with a matching serial number to a serialized stub attached to the true ballot handed to the voter. The serialized stub is removed by the deputy officer before the voter puts the ballot in the box and collected and tallied against the returning officer's book (no-one may look at the ballot's contents at any time it is in the voter's possession).
  - When a voter enters to vote, their name/address is verified against their voter card (mailed to the voter earlier) and a line is placed through their name on the deputy officer's list. After they have finished voting, their name has a check placed beside it.
  - Deputy and retuning officers may not leave the premises during the vote.
  - Candidate's representatives are permitted (one from each party) to attend any and all polling stations for all functions of voting.
  - Should there be a need to move the ballot box at any time, such as so a disabled voter may vote when the polling station is not accessible, all parties to the vote (representatives and officers) are to supervise and approve this.
  - Ballots and box may not leave the premises until counted and reported.
  - Counting of the ballots is to be supervised by candidate's representatives while the room is locked so no-one may enter or leave.
  - Number of ballots counted vs. number of people that have voted vs. stubs are compared.
  - ALL MATERIALS that are NOT ballots (but used during the election) are placed in a sealed envelope, along with the results of the counted ballots, and the envelope placed in the ballot box.
  - Special cellphones provided to the officers by elections canada for only elections canada use are used to clarify unusual situations and report the results of the vote.
  - Special elections canada tape is used to tape the box.
  - The box is then returned by the officers to elections canada, where the results are counted again and compared to the results reported. All ballots are kept for a specified time after the election is complete so a recount may be preformed.
  - Spoiled ballots are to be agreed upon as such by all parties to counting the vote. Disagreements are to be recorded and reported.

Since there are representatives of all candidates at the polling stations (sometimes there may not be representatives of all candidates at all polling stations, it is a voluntary option for the candidate to provide representatives) and two unrelated officers (at a minimum) at each polling booth, it is virtually impossible to get away with "stuffing the ballot" especially with the above procedures in place. To get away with it would take the co-operation of at least a half dozen people, and that would lead only to, at best, a few hundred ballots (only at a large booth -- when I participated as a representative, my poll had 32 people registered on the list, clearly trying to stuff more than 32 ballots in the box would be pointless as they are recounted later) that are swayed.

For those that think this procedure takes too long, we are able to get the results of the election so quickly, Canada has passed laws to prevent the results of ridings being released before the election has been completed in your province (which, obviously, leads to exciting arguments on the internet about how BC votes are pointless as the election is already "decided" before they even get to vote).

Special rule:

  - If you are given a ballot, you must return it. You may not eat it, or otherwise decide to keep it for yourself.

Yes, gerrymandering would be just as technically possible under my proposal as it is under current the U.S. systems, but, in practice, it should eliminate gerrymandering. Other countries that also use first-past-the-post single-member districts, such as Canada and the UK, as the U.S. does, use redistricting schemes very similar to the one I described, and they do not have gerrymandering.

For example, here are interactive maps of the electoral districts in southwestern Ontario and Toronto, created using a system very much like the one I described. They are typical.

Yes, gerrymandering would be just as technically possible under my proposal as it is under current the U.S. systems, but, in practice, it should eliminate gerrymandering. Other countries that also use first-past-the-post single-member districts, such as Canada and the UK, as the U.S. does, use redistricting schemes very similar to the one I described, and they do not have gerrymandering.

For example, here are interactive maps of the electoral districts in southwestern Ontario and Toronto, created using a system very much like the one I described. They are typical.

I generally disagree that our voting system is in need of a major change.

Probably because you are lucky to live where you are, though there is room for a discussion [PDF] (Yes, I read though it, though not all). I may add that my bias towards CA is that things are not as fucked up there as in many other places.

I am also willing to bet that making the voter work harder is likely to drive down participation, which would skew the results in unpredictable ways.

I agree, thus no betting.

CC.

How about a ballot like this, marked with a pencil? And after you mark it behind a privacy screen, you fold it and present it to a poll worker, who looks at the folded ballot and verifies there is only one, valid ballot and initials it, then hands it back to you and you put it in a simple cardboard ballot box.

The votes are counted at each polling place by the poll workers, and representatives of each candidate can observe, and it is open to public observation.

Is this just too simple?

How about a ballot like this, marked with a pencil? And after you mark it behind a privacy screen, you fold it and present it to a poll worker, who looks at the folded ballot and verifies there is only one, valid ballot and initials it, then hands it back to you and you put it in a simple cardboard ballot box.

The votes are counted at each polling place by the poll workers, and representatives of each candidate can observe, and it is open to public observation.

Is this just too simple?

I don't know about you, but I like short URLs (not that any pages except top-level ones have short URLs, as evidenced by those links). I also don't like how that page needs the "www" (as you can see, the same being true for Elections Canada). Then again, few people actually go to pages through the URL; they just go to Google, and as you can see, it doesn't take much work to find it (you don't even need "of Canada").

How about a ballot like this, marked with a pencil? And after you mark it, you fold it and present it to a poll worker, who looks at the folded ballot and verifies there is only one, valid ballot and initials it, then hands it back to you and you put it in a simple cardboard ballot box. The votes are counted at each polling place by the poll workers, and representatives of each candidate can observe, and it is open to public observation. Is this just too simple?

How about a ballot like this, marked with a pencil? And after you mark it, you fold it and present it to a poll worker, who looks at the folded ballot and verifies there is only one, valid ballot and initials it, then hands it back to you and you put it in a simple cardboard ballot box. The votes are counted at each polling place by the poll workers, and representatives of each candidate can observe, and it is open to public observation. Is this just too simple?

DRASTICALLY. As in: private individual donations $5000 max to each party and/or candidate, adjusted annually for inflation. Corporate donations: $1000/yr to each candidate. Corporate donations to parties: banned. Union donations: same. Any type of organizational donations: same. Provide $x per vote to the political parties that get above a certain threshold of votes. Yeah, it hurts to think of paying tax dollars directly to politicians for votes, but they're going to mess around with our money anyway. The basic idea is to level the financial playing field to keep individual voter donations relevant, and curb the influence of massive corporate and organizational donations.

And if candidates say they can't run a campaign on that limited donation level: TOO BAD. They can do it on the cheap. Historically people still got elected on far less money than is typically used today.

Unfortunately it would probably take a constitutional amendment in order to get such a law passed in the USA, and it would be a rare politician in power that would agree to it. But if you think it's impossible to do, it has been done in other countries.

• You can make a political donation to registered political entities only if you are a citizen or permanent resident of Canada.
• You can give no more than $1,100* in each calendar year to each registered political party.
• Corporations, trade unions, associations and groups can no longer make political contributions. However, your employer can give you a paid leave of absence during an election period to allow you to be a nomination contestant or a candidate without that leave being considered a contribution.
• If you are running as a nomination contestant or a candidate, you can make an additional contribution up to $1,000 in total per election from your own funds to your own campaign. You can divide this amount between your nomination and candidate campaigns as you wish.
• All contributions over $20 must be receipted and reported.
• Candidates cannot accept any gift that might influence them as eventual members of Parliament.

Corporations, trade unions, associations and groups can no longer make political contributions. However, your employer can give you a paid leave of absence during an election period to allow you to be a nomination contestant or a candidate without that leave being considered a contribution.

Like someone else mentioned, there's a legal limit for contributions in Canada, and it's quite small to avoid large payoffs like we see down in the States. It's actually even more strict now than it was a year or two ago. Take a look at the new rules on the Elections Canada website.

Here are some of the rules that just came into effect on January 1, 2007:

# You can make a political donation to registered political entities only if you are a citizen or permanent resident of Canada. (emphasis mine)

This rule is mostly meant to prevent American lobbyists from paying off Canadian politicians.

# You can give no more than $1,100* in each calendar year to each registered political party.
# You can give no more than $1,100* in total in any calendar year to the various entities of each registered political party (registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates).
# You can give no more than $1,100* to each independent candidate for a particular election.
# You can give no more than $1,100* in total to the leadership contestants in a particular leadership contest.

Basically, $1,100 is the limit that you can give to each political party.

# You can no longer make a cash contribution of more than $20 to registered political entities.

You can't pay in cash if the amount is over $20, it has to be a check, etc.. (this is most likely because cash donations are harder to trace)

# Corporations, trade unions, associations and groups can no longer make political contributions. However, your employer can give you a paid leave of absence during an election period to allow you to be a nomination contestant or a candidate without that leave being considered a contribution. (emphasis mine)

This is new. In the past, corporations could make donations.

# If you are running as a nomination contestant or a candidate, you can make an additional contribution up to $1,000 in total per election from your own funds to your own campaign. You can divide this amount between your nomination and candidate campaigns as you wish.
# If you are running as a party leadership contestant, you can make an additional contribution of up to $1,000 in total per contest from your own funds to your own campaign.

You can only spend $1000 out of your own pocket if you are running. I think this is meant to prevent those rich politicians from having a financial advantage over the average Joe who is also running for office.

# All contributions over $20 must be receipted and reported.

This has to do with that "You can no longer make a cash contribution of more than $20 to registered political entities" rule I mentioned above.

# Candidates cannot accept any gift that might influence them as eventual members of Parliament.

That's a no brainer.

# Candidates may accept a gift from a relative or as a normal expression of courtesy or protocol.

That seems fair enough. There is also a rule where if you receive a gift that is worth over $500, you must report it, the circumstance where you received the gift, etc..

I'm really liking most of these new rules. Anything to cut down on lobbying in Canada is good in my books. You shouldn't need large amounts of money to run for office. In the States, I hear about people running for President and they spend over $60 million on their campaign. That's just nuts in my opinion. You shouldn't need that much money to get elected. It should be on merit alone, not how much media coverage you can buy.

2006 fundraising controversy

In November 2006, Oda planned on holding a fundraising dinner for broadcasting executives, just weeks before a major review of broadcasting rules. The event was cancelled, but a number of donations were still made.

If you go to the Elections Canada website, you can see all of the corporations and individuals who donated to Bev Oda's Durham riding in 2006 (Unfortunately there's no direct link so you have to use their search feature). Select "Ontario" under Provice/Territory. Then select "Conservative Party of Canada" under Political Party. Now under Electoral District select "Durham". Leave the years 2006 to 2006. Hit the search button and then select Durham "Conservative Association / 2006". With that entry selected, hit the Add button. Finally, hit the lower right search button (not the top one).... (It's a horrible interface to access this public information...)

Now you should see the following three options:

By return summary Allows you to search summary information on contributions made to registered associations
By return details The easiest way to view the complete details of contributions and expenses for registered associations
By contributor Allows you to search for contributions made to registered associations

Click on "By return details".

Here's the list of corporate contributions (from Part 2b - Statement of Contributions Received - Details of Contributions from Corporations)

1 EMI Music Canada Jan. 3, 2006 500.00
2 EMI Music Canada Jan. 10, 2006 1,000.00
3 Gorritane Bros. Ltd. Feb. 24, 2006 300.00
4 Radio Marketing Bureau Oct. 12, 2006 250.00
5 Alliance Atlantis Oct. 25, 2006 500.00
6 Insight Productions Co. Ltd. Nov. 2, 2006 500.00

5 of those 6 corporate donations are from media corporations. It might even be 6 out of 6 but I couldn't find any details on "Gorritane Bros. Ltd.".

Also, much more disturbing is the list of individual contributions (Part 2a - Statement of Contributions Received - Details of Contributions from Individuals). The following are just the individuals who I could identify as working for some media corporation or group:

23 Gail Asper Oct. 31, 2006 250.00
5 Leonard Asper Jan. 26, 2006 2,500.00
Leonard Asper is the President and CEO of CanWest, a major Canadian media company (they own Global TV). It appears he also got his wife to donate to Bev's riding.

13 Andre Bureau Oct. 16, 2006 500.00
Andrea Bureau is the former chairman of the CTRC and is now the President and CEO of Astral Communications Inc (now known as Astral Media). Astral owns several Canadian radio and television stations.

14 Lisa De Wilde Oct. 16, 2006 250.00
Lisa De Wilde was a former president and CEO of Astral Communications (now known as Astral Media). She is now the CEO of TVOntario. Interesting how she and Andre Bureau both made donations on the same day. Lisa was the former President and CEO of Astral while Andre is the current president and CEO, and they both managed to make donations to Bev Oda on the same day?

16 Robin Jackson Oct. 20, 2006 250.00
Robin Jackson is the Executive Director of the CIFVF (The Canadian Independent Film and Video Fund). Here's a quote 'The Canadian Independent Film & Video Fund (CIFVF) is a dynamic private sector funding body which supports non-theatrical film, v

Elections Canada offers information, education and accessibility services to persons who have a disability, seniors, persons with limited reading and writing skills, and persons living in transitional situations (homeless or living in a shelter for victims of abuse). Material is available in alternative formats: large print, Braille, audiocassette and diskette (for talking computers).

Among the services provided by Elections Canada for persons with a disability are:

• information, e-mail access, and special ballot registration forms available on the Internet at www.elections.ca
  
• documents specifically for persons with disabilities including reading difficulties
  
• open- and closed-captioned videotapes for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing
  
• a voting template for persons with a visual disability
  
• a toll-free information line for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing:
  TTY 1 800 361-8935 (toll-free in Canada and the United States)
  
• mobile polling stations for certain types of institutions as specified by the Canada Elections Act, where seniors or persons with disabilities reside
  
• a special ballot, which allows early voting by mail, or in person at the office of the returning officer, or at home in the case of electors who cannot read or cannot go to the office of the returning officer because of a physical disability
  
• help with registration at the advance polls and election day polling stations
  
• flexible options for voting at advance polls and election offices with guaranteed level access
  
• Elections Canada takes every measure, where possible, to select level-access polling sites. Accessibility is indicated on the voter information card.
  
• transfer certificates permitting electors who use wheelchairs or who have other physical disabilities to vote at facilities providing level access if, in exceptional cases, their own polling sites do not provide this
  
• assistance available at the request of the elector to mark the ballot at the polling station (ordinary or advance), or at the office of the returning officer
  
• transportation of the ballot box from room to room to facilitate voting in hospitals and certain residential institutions
  
• language or sign language interpreter services on request

Looks like a complete muppet could use it, eh? The American voting system is much more complex than Canada's.

Canada has implemented a variation of this.

Polls on the West Coast are open 7 am - 7 pm, Mountain Time 7:30 - 7:30, Central 8:30 - 8:30, Eastern 9:30 - 9:30, Atlantic 8:30 - 8:30, Newfoundland 8:30 - 8:30.

This doesn't get them closing all at the same time, but it does reduce the closing times from a 4-1/2 hour spread to only a 3 hour spread. And most of the seats are in the Eastern time zone, so there's only a 1 hour difference between polls closing there and in the West, which is barely enough time for results to start coming back, let alone for winners to be predicted.

Obviously, this won't work as well for Hawaii, but could easily be implemented for continental US.

I'm not sure why Brokaw suggests voting over several days. I doubt this would provide any benefit, especially with all the reporting of exit polls. Everyone would listen to how the (very poorly attended) voting was going on the first day, and then show up on the second en masse to counteract/reinforce the first day's results.

(See http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=gen&do cument=ec90815&dir=bkg&lang=e&textonly=false for details.)

E.

Absetnee Ballot.

http://www.elections.ca/loi/com2001/Voting/vot10_e .html

Or the Bill of Rights does it say that *corporations*, unions, or any other organization has a right to make donations to politicians? Introduce legislation to ban them all.

Individuals, that's different, but some countries have managed to put limits on personal donations as well (e.g., in Canada it is a maximum $1100 per person per candidate per year) and they still have freedom of speech and other guarantees of freedom written into their constitutions. So, what's the big problem in the U.S.?

The sad truth is that partisans are involved in just about every aspect of the voting and elections process, and that's not going to change, ever.

The sad truth is that partisans are involved in just about every aspect of the voting and elections process, and that's not going to change, ever.

Wow. That's alot of money. As you are implying, it's probably part of the problem, but just a short while ago, campaign finance laws were radically changed in Canada. In Canada, corporations, unions, and organizations/groups are no longer allowed to make political contributions AT ALL. The only contributions allowed are a maximum $1100/yr from individual people to each party, candidate, etc. You can disperse at most a few thousand dollars in total to the various places (e.g., if you contribute to all the parties and all the candidates and election campaigns), and only Canadian citizens or permanent residents can do it. The only way around this is if you die (you can will as much money as you like -- there's no limit).

Therefore, maybe the easiest political influence the media companies can buy is in the U.S., where they can then get U.S. politicians to pressure Canadian politicians diplomatically. If by changing campaign finance rules we now have to put up with international pressure from bought-off politicians from some other country, it isn't as good a deal as I first thought. We've outsourced political influence!

Sorry, but your information is incorrect. According to the old rules, the limit was $5,000 for individuals, and $1,000 for unions and corporations.

According to the new rules that took effect January 1st, the limit is

• $1,100 to parties,
• $1,100 to party members,
• $1,100 to party-affiliated entities,
• and $1,100 (total) to party leadership candidates.

That's from individuals, so a family of four could potentially contribute 4 * (4 * $1,100) = $17,600.

That seems "significant" to me.

Canada's last federal election used machine-read paper. A sheed of paper with circles you mark an X in. They are put in an envelope you can't see through, then given to the election official who feeds the paper into a reader. You get a green light if the machine was able to read your vote, at which point the paper is sucked into the lock box in case a manual recount is needed. If it didn't read it, it is spat back out and you are given the option of destroying the ballot and getting a new one. A certain number of polling stations in each area randomly have their machines opened and their electronic count matched against a manual count. If they are off by one, the entire district is manually counted. All in all, this is the best voting system I have ever seen. Quietly implemented, without a fuss. Designed by people who are more interested in an accurate, quick, efficient system than they are interested in partisan politics or winning contracts for their favourite corporation. I love living here.

BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT

That is not, in ANY way, shape for form, how the Canadian System works. NO machines are used IN ANY PART of the federal electoral process. Period. End Of Story. I have no idea where the bloody hell you got that fiction, but you obviously have not, nor have you ever been, a voter in Canada.

OK - Here's how a Federal election works in Canada. Obviously, some of the fine details vary from election to election, as things are fine tuned/adjusted, but this is basically it.

Canadian Federal elections are run by Elections Canada http://www.elections.ca/, which is an arm of the Federal Government. It is responsible for printing up ballots, distributing them, recording the vote totals, yadda yadda yadda.

The Cole's Notes version of how an election is run at the riding level is as follows:

Each riding is split into polls, each containing 100-300 voters. The returning officer for a riding (picked from a list traditionally supplied by the winning party in the last election) and his deputy (picked from a list traditionally supplied by the party that finished 2nd in the riding) decide where each poll will be physically located. For example, a church basement, legion hall, school gym etc, may contain 10 or 15 different polls - few people, if any, will be required to walk more than 10 minutes to reach the place where they have to vote.

When you walk in, you are given a ballot. You go behind a screen, mark it, give it back to the poll clerk. The poll clerk, in your view, rips off a strip of paper containing the ballot's serial number and places your vote in the ballot box.

When voting ends, the poll clerk (picked from a list supplied by one of the parties who ran a candidate in the last election) and his assistant (picked from a list supplied by one of the OTHER parties that ran a candidate in the last election) open the box and start counting.

During this process, each party or individual candidate who is running in that riding can nominate individuals called scrutineers to represent him at EACH AND EVERY POLL. The scrutineer is allowed full access to the polling place, and can watch anything and everything. The only restrictions are that he is not permitted to touch either the ballot box or the ballots, for any reason.

In a typical riding, you'll have candidates for the Liberals, NDP, and Conservatives. In most urban ridings, you may also have an independent, and candidates from the Green Party, Communist Party, Tin Foil Hat Party, etc.

So

You have a supporter of two parties actually handling the votes, sorting them, and counting them (the poll clerk and his assistant)

You have anywhere between 1, and 10 people from every OTHER party watching them very, very closely.

It doesn't take more than a half hour to an hour to sort at most 300 ballots (assuming a large poll and 100% voter turnout) and coun

Actually in Canada it is illegal for businesses,trade unions etc to donate any money to political campaigns. Also individuals are limited to donating $1100. Unluckily this only came into effect on Jan 1,2007. See http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=gen&do cument=ec90557&dir=bkg&lang=e&textonly=false

Yes, it is. Counting x*1000 votes is really a monotonous job, and you quickly lose your ability to concentrate by doing so. I think that an accuracy of 99.95 would be an acceptable value of accuracy (which means you miscount every 2000th vote) for manual counting.

The Directeur Général des Élections (DGE) is in charge of all elections/referendum within Québec.
In Canada, federal elections are handled by Elections Canada. Rules are virtually the same (exceptions listed below).

Registration. Everyone is automagically registered. If you file an income tax report, you are registered UNLESS you specifically ask so (a part of the tax form asks for it).
When the election comes, the DGE sends out notices to everyone on the list. If there are mistakes, or you are not listed, you can ask to be properly registered at the local election office (usually, one by riding).

The part-time election personnel is chosed riding by riding. The incumbent hands out the "important" jobs (poll center supervisor, revision official, scrutineers) while the "less important" jobs (security, assistant revisor, poll clerk) are left to the other candidates.
Training for the poll workers lasts about 3 hours, and happens a week before the election. It explains what are the general procedures. We are also given a book that explains special cases, which we have to read (but are not tested). The scrutineer is given the ballot box which contains the paperwork. We are to meet 2-3 days (usually in the scrutineer's home) before the election to check that the contents are okay; we are to report discrepancies so they can be fixed in time.

We are given a list of all the people entitled to vote (about 400 per box), with those who voted in advance and those who moved-out or otherwise no longer voting there crossed-out.

On election day, at each poll you have the scrutineer, the poll clerk, and as many representatives as there are candidates. The representatives are there to watch that everything is done properly; they can question some aspect of the procedure, like question the identity of voters and question the admissibility of a ballot when counted (but in all respect, the scrutineer has the last word). And representatives can be expelled at will if they don't behave.

Showing ID is not compulsory. But in Québec, anyone can demand a voter identify himself; however, in Canada, election officers are specifically prohibited by law from asking for ID. What is interesting is that many people spontaneously show their ID when they come to vote, and we have to tell them they don't need to (this shows how people accept to show their ID in order to vote).
The situation is different in Québec because federalist parties were caught red-handed rigging elections, so when the law was put in front of parliament, they could not very well vote against it, given the huge amount of egg on their face...

When the voting begins, the ballot boxes are sealed after everyone present agrees that they are empty. The representatives can sign the seals, and note down the serial numbers.

The ballots are printed on stapled booklets, from which the ballots are detached. Each ballot has the list of candidates (or options for referenda), a space for the scrutineer to put his initials and two identical serial numbers.
The serial numbers are on different tear-off stubs; the first remains in the booklet, the second is kept on the ballot when it is handled to the voter.
Before handling the ballot to the voter (AND ONLY AT THAT TIME!!!!), the scrutineer marks the back of the ballot with his initials, with the stub with the serial number in plain view.
The voter votes, and either tears-off the serial number stub in plain view of everyone, and shows the scrutineer's initials (this is to insure that this is the same ballot that was handed earlier - in order to avoid "telegrams"), or the scrutineer does it for him without unfolding the ballot. THE STUB WITH SERIAL NUMBER IS TO BE KEPT!!!
The voter then puts the ballot in the box, a

It's orders of magnitude more complicated.

Here's the slate from San Francisco County for the upcoming election. The one from another city or county in California will have the same state and federal positions on it, but will have completely different local questions. One from a different state will be almost unrecognizable, as it will even have different federal officials (except in a presidential election year).

Now, compare that to this sample ballot from Canada or this one from Scotland and the problem should be obvious.

The complaints about paper ballots can be pretty reliably traced back to Florida in 2000, when we were told that the butterfly ballots "were confusing", and then we had the whole fun of chads... I personally still find it hard to believe that the ballots were confusing... I've seen the images of them... they were basically %name% with an arrow to the hole to punch...

> > > 2. An X is an X. A dash is not an X
> > Other markings invalidate the ballot.
> The entire ballot, or just that one choice?

There is a separate ballot for each election question. That being said, we don't have as many questions as you. Usually just one or two. And an X is two independent lines that intersect somewhere inside the circle, and don't in any of the other circles. Here's an example ballot. All ballots, municipal, provincial and federal look like this, every time.

Here is a link to the number of votes cast in every federal election in Canada since confederation: http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=pas&do cument=turnout&lang=e&textonly=false.

In June, 2004, Canadians cast 13,683,570 ballots. Every one of them was counted by two people in a locked room, usually a gymnasium or a church basement. They each put their hands on the ballot, looked at the ballot, and said aloud which candidate the voter cast his ballot for. Another person kept a tally. They were volunteers. Paid public service workers oversaw the counting, as did scrutineers designated by candidates running in the election. After a ballot box's ballots were counted, the two tallys were compared. If the counts did not agree, another team recounted the ballots from that box. I've done this. It feels good to do it.

Within a few seats in the House of Commons (there are 308), I knew the results before I went to bed. Because the country spans many time zones, people in Newfoundland had to wait until they got up in the morning.

The way you ran an election in your high school scales up to run an election for an entire nation. So scale it up.

1. One piece of paper as long as required. Alphabetically.
2. An X is an X. A dash is not an X
      Other markings invalidate the ballot.
3. You are only given one ballot, you can only cast one ballot.
      They watch you put it in the box (it is folded first)

For details
http://www.elections.ca/

i was largely referring to errors by the people counting them (which as the other replier mentioned, is pretty much a non-issue due to the procedure for counting them). and i was referring to Canadian ballots, rather than the US ones. completely different systems.

our Canadian voting ballots are rather simple things http://www.elections.ca/yth/images/rft_image042.jp g. rather than needing a big honking machine, or electronic terminal, or whatever, you just use a pen and write an X in the circle to vote. then just tear off the part with the names (it's perforated, which isn't shown in the picture) and fold the section with the circles and put it into the ballot box.

old fashioned, yes, but simple, efficient, and near-impossible to screw up. new technolagy isn't always the answer.

The US pursues trade practices that are to its own advantage because they are to their own advantage, not because they feel insulted by some guy they've never heard of before.

If you look back at the history of the softwood dispute, you will the see that the Liberals did indeed pursue a resolution through appropriate channels. Or was Emerson just dilly-dallying when he was a Liberal? Somehow I doubt that he was, or why would Harper have recruited him?

If only 90% of people who voted for the Conservatives actually wanted them to win, that means that a party that was wanted by less than a third of voting electors is now leading the country... That makes your 'left-field' look like a vast majority that is effectively disenfranchised right now... On the up side, if the Conservatives change tacks and become interested in meaningful electoral change (e.g., proportional representation instead of the tokenism they are currently engaged on), this kind of poor electoral outcome should become less common in the future.

Volpe's acceptance of these contributions was widely mocked and derided. The website cited in this thread was launched, and got a fair bit of coverage online.

Mr. Volpe subsequently decided to return the donations given by these kids. At about the same time, the website above had its DNS record SUSPD for one of many reasons (the Canadian Internet Registration Authority, CIRA cited a different reason in a press release (failure to provide valid Canadian contact information, as required by CIRA rules for a ".ca" domain) than that apparently given to the domain registrant (disrepute).

The interesting questions I find are (1) how influential were Volpe's minions in getting this site quashed, given that he was a member of the former Liberal government and CIRA operates under the authority of the Canadian Governmental department Industry Canada, and (2) what due process rights does any (".ca") domain owner have, given the speed with which this process executed (especially in light of all the legal expertise which is present on CIRA's board of directors, apparently not even bothering to ask for any court order or proper investigation against this site).

"Hypocrite" is a blanket word used in duckspeak, right up there with "democracy".

You know what democracy means? "rule by the people". How can someone have an approval rating in the 30s and be able to make the rules for another two years before the people can do anything about it?

My country allows opposing parties to make a motion of no confidence in the case of minority rule, but the fact of the matter is, the people can't make this motion. And in the case of majority rule, no one can do anything.

Canada's 2000 general election cost $200 million, while the US election cost an upwards of $4 billion. Two elections a year = about $30 a head. I'll pay that to put a little fear and accountability in our gov't.

Then maybe they wouldn't be able to pass stupid laws like, say, not allowing online gambling.

The big problem with the current machines is that they combine both those steps & don't provide any means of independent public oversight.

Nail, meet hammer. Right on the head.

A great deal of the problem with American vote counting, as opposed to Canadian, is that, as another reply stated, with a two-party system, the second party doesn't really care if the first party gets knocked off this time around. Their position is just about as powerful; their 'leader' just doesn't get to sit in the big comfy chair and hold the remote.

In Canada, by contrast, we have the following parties:

1. The Liberals . This party has been in power the most often. They are fiscally conservative, socially progressive, and quite corrupt. They are currently without a real leader.
2. The Conservatives , formerly the Progressive Conservatives, briefly the Reform Party, even more briefly the (conservative) Alliance. One of Canada's two original parties, the Progressive Conservatives were almost completely destroyed by their own leader's unpopularity in 1992. The new Conservative party is fically conservative, socially regressive, quite corrupt, and generally whacko. Their current leader is the head whacko.
3. The New Democratic Party . Canada's semi-socialist party, fiscally socialist, socially very progressive. At the height of their popularity in the 1980s, they became known as "the conscience of the Commons". Unfortunately, when their leader retired, they lost their direction and their credibility. Their current leader is a posturing buffoon. The NDP currently holds the balance of power in Ottawa. They've never held enough seats to become corrupt.
4. Le Bloc Quebecois . One of the parties that formed following the destruction of the Progressive Conservatives, the Bloc's sole mission is to separate Quebec from the rest of Canada. They have only fielded candidates in Quebec.
5. The fringe parties. The Communist Party, the Green Party, the Marijuana Party, the Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party... we've got 'em all. Full list here.
6. The Rhinoceros Party . This party disbanded after its original leader died, but it is worth noting for being the most popular 'joke' party in Canada's history. Although they never held a seat, they received numerous votes from disgruntled voters for policies like the following:
   • putting the national debt on Visa
   • turning the Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine tunnel in Montreal into a free carwash by poking holes in the ceiling
   • switching Canada to driving on the left side of the road to be more like England (and therefore less like the USA), but making the transition gradual: trucks and buses first.

I still puzzles me why americans don't use something simpler...

hell, if India (with a BIGGER population) is capable of holding elections without soo much trouble, why can't the US do it?

Elections are complicated, even the simple things can get really broken. Again, another example, here in central ohio, polling stations which served a lot of people (the inner city ones) ended up with a severe shortage of voting machines. This is a really easy oversight to fix (which is why there were so many accusations of rigging), but it still went drastically drastically wrong.

Referring to this as an oversight is tremendously rich, given that the County elections boards and the Secretary of State's offices were advised of this potential problem repeatedly prior to the election and took no action to correct it. Furthermore all of the precincts affected by this problem happened to be precincts that voted for the opponent of the candidate for whom the highest ranking state elections official (Sec of State) held the position of co-chair of re-election campaign.

BTW, in Canada, we generally discourage elections officials (with the weight of the law) the practice of engaging in partisan activities (like, say, acting as co-chair of the election campaign of one of the candidates in the election you are running).

How do I put this exactly. The Average American is not as.... above-average as the Average Canadian. Your "reject this ballot" examples run like a who's-who of things Americans have wound up losing entire elections over.