Slashdot Mirror

What exactly is the point of computerizing any step in the process, if you end up counting physical ballots?

Here is a link to what a Canadian ballot looks like. You mark an X in the circle. We used these yesterday. They work.

You have ten times our population in the US, so that's a lot more ballots, but that means you also have ten times the willing volunteers to tabulate these things, no?

I don't understand how this cannot be public knowledge in the States. I just checked Elections Canada and the raw database information is available right on their site to anyone that wants it.

However, in Canada the WHOLE election system is completely transparent and any citizen can access any information they wish through the public organization 'Elections Canada'. A similar public system should be in place in any democracy.

On another topic I'll throw this out there.. Why not have paper ballots that can be read into computers. Wouldn't you have the best of both worlds? Both a paper record and electronic counting/

/voted NDP.
//envys the amount choices on American ballots..
///fails to envy the actual CHOICES on American ballots...

I don't understand how this cannot be public knowledge in the States. I just checked Elections Canada and the raw database information is available right on their site to anyone that wants it.

However, in Canada the WHOLE election system is completely transparent and any citizen can access any information they wish through the public organization 'Elections Canada'. A similar public system should be in place in any democracy.

On another topic I'll throw this out there.. Why not have paper ballots that can be read into computers. Wouldn't you have the best of both worlds? Both a paper record and electronic counting/

/voted NDP.
//envys the amount choices on American ballots..
///fails to envy the actual CHOICES on American ballots...

Here are the results for the 2004 election in my riding:

In Canada we mark an X in a circle on the ballot next to name of our choice. The results show a 0.3% ballot spoilage. That's what I call KISS. :-)

During the depression (1930s), there was a standard price for votes. You marked your ballot, showed it to the Nice Man outside the window, and deposited it in the box. The Nice Man let you keep the money he'd paid you and all of your teeth.

This is why, In Canada at least, you have to fold your ballot inside the voting booth and keep it folded on the way to the ballot box. If you show it to anyone, they won't let you deposit it.

Someone altering the ballots against the voters' wishes is one very important attack, and certainly would be preferred by an attacker. But influencing a voter is another effective attack that must also be precluded. That's the part that makes it really tricky.

And well you should find out where the parties stand on these issues before you vote later this year or early next. Check out detailed official party positions as of Election 2004 (they haven't changed much since) or read a Toronto Star summary on their stances.

Your local MP will soon be campaigning for your vote or seeking a nomination in your riding. Grill them on their position on Copyright, Open Source Software, and User Rights issues. This is an issue that has been virtually ignored, the fact is that most candidates know little about it and may alarmingly vote on complex IP legislation merely along party lines. Write them.

And it is *really* important that the media knows the result shortly after the polls close... because...?

I mean, get a life people... an election is not a TV-Show, you shouldn't compromize democracy for the sake of having news channels be able to get the results as fast as possible.

If canadian election officials can count 13.6 million paper ballots in a matter of hours (human beings, not machines), surely Americans can do it to. Don't go saying there are more people in the US... just assign more people to count the votes.

In the 2004 canadian federal elections, there were 63,859 polling stations, which collected a total of 13,683,570 votes. That's an average of 213 votes per station. With one election official per station, that means that each individual official had to count an average of 213 ballots... pretty easy to do in a matter of minutes... In the US, more electors mean more polling stations mean more election officials that each count about 250 votes... your precious media can still have the results in a matter of minutes.

And it is *really* important that the media knows the result shortly after the polls close... because...?

I mean, get a life people... an election is not a TV-Show, you shouldn't compromize democracy for the sake of having news channels be able to get the results as fast as possible.

If canadian election officials can count 13.6 million paper ballots in a matter of hours (human beings, not machines), surely Americans can do it to. Don't go saying there are more people in the US... just assign more people to count the votes.

In the 2004 canadian federal elections, there were 63,859 polling stations, which collected a total of 13,683,570 votes. That's an average of 213 votes per station. With one election official per station, that means that each individual official had to count an average of 213 ballots... pretty easy to do in a matter of minutes... In the US, more electors mean more polling stations mean more election officials that each count about 250 votes... your precious media can still have the results in a matter of minutes.

We Canadians use a simple system. Old fashioned paper ballots. When you go to vote, you show them your elections card that was sent in the mail, your name is crossed off a list, a ballot initialed by the elections officer is handed to you. You go behind a screen where there is pencil, you mark an X next to the whatever you're voting for, fold it back up and hand it back to the elections officer, who checks for his initials, rips off a "counterfoil" portion, hands it back to you, and you stuff it into the box. Your name is then checked off as "already voted." Done. Results in a few hours (usually by midnight or so). Official validation from all polls within seven days. The box, the screen and all documents are made of cardboard and come folded up in a compact package.

More detail.

I have a low-tech solution to the voting problem: Use paper ballots.

Here is the process:

1. A voter arrives at their polling station.
2. An election official confirms that the voter is eligible to cast a ballot.
3. The official hands the voter a paper ballot and is told to make their choice in private behind a screen or inside a booth.
4. The voter takes the ballot, goes into the private area, and makes their choice by placing an X next to the candidate of their choice.
5. The voter returns with their folded ballot and deposits it into a sealed ballot box.

Elections held this way are simple and secure. There is no worry about paper trails or verification, because the ballots themselves are the proof.

As for the ballots themselves, they look something like this:

NAME OF POSITION BEING VOTED FOR

[ ] Joe BLOW
The Name of Some Party

[ ] Somebody ELSE
The Name of Some Other Party

I guess what I am trying to say is that elections do not need to be complicated by technology. The method I am proposing there depends on the ability of people to count, nothing else.

The method I propose here really works too. Where I live, it is the standard for both my provincial and federal elections.

I really hope that the voting method throughout every county in the U.S. is reformed. Personally, I know it is hard to accept election results when your preferred candidate loses, but at least where I live, I know that the vote itself was fair.

Actually, that one's pretty easy. The Canadians have it figured out, though they use exclusively paper ballots for their important elections. Their Elections Act outlines the specific conditions under which a recount may (or must) be conducted.

First, a judge-supervised recount is required by law in any race where the margin of victory is less than 0.1% of votes cast. (In practice, that usually means any margin of fewer than fifty to seventy-five votes.)

Second, any elector may request a recount if they are willing to swear an affidavit stating they have reason to believe an error has been made in counting or rejecting ballots, or in recording their numbers, or in tallying the total results. In such a case, the elector must also provide a $250 deposit to the court, out of which costs will be paid to the winner (at the court's discretion) if the recount is found to be spurious.

Presumably that second condition could be modified to include suspected mechanical, electronic, or logic error as legitimate grounds to request a recount.

So a serious challenge is any situation where a) the margin of victory is very small; or b) someone is willing to make a sworn statement that they believe errors occurred--and that person is willing to put his money where his mouth is.

This sort of thing, by the way, actually prompted Elections Canada to put an FAQ on their website about ballot eating..

The only hack this would require is getting an old dot-matrix printer to talk to a modern server and only print out one line at a time.

All you have to do is plug it in, assuming you're using some variant or UNIX/BSD/Linux.

The real hack with your system would be making it not possible to figure out how someone voted by corellating the vote log and the elector log (who voted already).

The problem with touchscreen voting is that the voter has no way of knowing the vote they entered is the vote that was recorded.

If your state has trouble figuring out how to run a free and fair election, Elections Canada can help.

They tried this in Canada by implementing a ban on publishing polls 48 hours before the election, and not allowing Media stations to report on election results before all polls across the Country closed (4 Time Zones - 4.5 in Newfoundland)

But, a provincial judge found the ban unconstitutional and struck down the law. Our most recent federal elections was a free-for-all, but it still didn't make much difference in the final results due to Ontario's urban population.

Rejection of ballots
284. (1) In examining the ballots, the deputy returning officer shall reject one
(a) that has not been supplied by him or her;
(b) that has not been marked in a circle at the right of the candidates' names;
(c) that is void by virtue of section76;
(d) that has been marked in more than one circle at the right of the candidates' names; or
(e) on which there is any writing or mark by which the elector could be identified.

Some people deliberately choose to spoil a ballot as some sort of protest vote. I'm willing to let them have it.

Well, I've had four Candadians (I'm assuming) explain to me what those simple rules are and have gotten three different answers.

Perhaps, but it's a false dichotomy. The answers have been essentially the same with respect to content. If you're interested, the full Elections Act is here. Particularly salient in this discussion are Parts 12 ("Counting Votes") and 9 ("Voting"). Rejecting a ballot is governed mostly by Section 284 of the Act:

284. (1) In examining the ballots, the deputy returning officer shall reject one

(a) that has not been supplied by him or her;
(b) that has not been marked in a circle at the right of the candidates' names;
(c) that is void by virtue of section 76;
(d) that has been marked in more than one circle at the right of the candidates' names; or
(e) on which there is any writing or mark by which the elector could be identified.

Cheers.

Some people deliberately choose to spoil a ballot as some sort of protest vote. I'm willing to let them have it.

Well, I've had four Candadians (I'm assuming) explain to me what those simple rules are and have gotten three different answers.

Perhaps, but it's a false dichotomy. The answers have been essentially the same with respect to content. If you're interested, the full Elections Act is here. Particularly salient in this discussion are Parts 12 ("Counting Votes") and 9 ("Voting"). Rejecting a ballot is governed mostly by Section 284 of the Act:

284. (1) In examining the ballots, the deputy returning officer shall reject one

(a) that has not been supplied by him or her;
(b) that has not been marked in a circle at the right of the candidates' names;
(c) that is void by virtue of section 76;
(d) that has been marked in more than one circle at the right of the candidates' names; or
(e) on which there is any writing or mark by which the elector could be identified.

Cheers.

Some people deliberately choose to spoil a ballot as some sort of protest vote. I'm willing to let them have it.

Well, I've had four Candadians (I'm assuming) explain to me what those simple rules are and have gotten three different answers.

Perhaps, but it's a false dichotomy. The answers have been essentially the same with respect to content. If you're interested, the full Elections Act is here. Particularly salient in this discussion are Parts 12 ("Counting Votes") and 9 ("Voting"). Rejecting a ballot is governed mostly by Section 284 of the Act:

284. (1) In examining the ballots, the deputy returning officer shall reject one

(a) that has not been supplied by him or her;
(b) that has not been marked in a circle at the right of the candidates' names;
(c) that is void by virtue of section 76;
(d) that has been marked in more than one circle at the right of the candidates' names; or
(e) on which there is any writing or mark by which the elector could be identified.

Cheers.

Here's an example of how the regulations work around this:

243.1 (1) On application of an elector who is unable to read, or who is unable to vote in the manner described in this Division because of a physical disability, and who is unable to personally go to the office of the returning officer because of a physical disability, the designated election officer shall go to the elector's dwelling place and, in the presence of a witness who is chosen by the elector, assist the elector by
(a) completing the declaration on the outer envelope and writing the elector's name where the elector's signature is to be written; and
(b) marking the ballot as directed by the elector in the elector's presence.
Note on outer envelope
(2) The election officer and the witness who assist an elector under subsection(1) shall indicate, by signing the note on the outer envelope, that the elector was assisted.

You really have to see these ballots for yourself to understand, I guess; mistakes pretty much have to be intentional or truly incompetent or from those who refused assistance. Those conditions are acceptable, given the alternatives and small numbers of rejected ballots (under .5%, that's half a percent, not bad considering some of those are protest abstentions--figures from Elections Canada).

Have Americans forgotten this?

Of course, we Canadians take election ballots very seriously. For example, it is illegal to eat your ballot. This upsets some people. (No, ballot eating has nothing to do with the topic at hand, I just wanted an excuse to post that.)

Is it all that hard to add a 'print reciept' option to all of these voting machines?

Because that would be the logical thing to do... and you don't want tracable logical things when power and money is involved.

When there's not even a standard paper ballot for the whole 'voting' thing i'm not supprised paper trails and receipt are NOT priorities...

Visit: Elections Canada

It has samples, and all sorts of other information (e.g., from the FAQ, it is illegal to eat your ballot :-|).

Yes, the number of choices to make is vastly different: one. Who do you wish to be the member of parliament (MP) for your riding? (rough analogy: choose your congressperson) For historical reasons the system is similar to the parliamentary system in the UK. We do have referenda, but those are rare at the federal level.

The election ballot is a list of choices, including (last election, in my riding) about 5 candidates. Each option is listed by name and party in black text in a white box, and there is a big, white circle beside each one. Everything else on the voter's side of the ballot is black. Stick a cross in the middle of a circle, and that is it. There are various cross-checks/ballot security things maintained by the people at the polling station (low-tech but reliable), and various provisions for the visually impaired, but you can read about those.

In the U.S., yes, the election ballot is loaded with all sorts of local, state, and national issues. On one hand, this is a good thing, right? The populace gets to choose directly. It is more democratic. On the other hand, the election is much more elaborate to manage, which is probably one of the incentives to move to some kind of electronic system for tallying. Pages of choices? Wow. That would be tougher for an election system to deal with.

It is debatable whether the simpler elections in Canada are a good thing or not for governance, but that difference sure makes voting procedures easier. That plus the ~10x greater population in the U.S. means a direct comparison is not really valid.

Every time this issue comes up, someone points out that the Canadian system works perfectly (Elections Canada runs elections in many foreign countries which lack the infrastructure). Then someone claims that it won't scale. Ridiculous.
There are a bunch of polling stations for each riding. After the polls close, people at each polling station manually count the collected paper slips. These small numbers are then sent to a central point, summed, and the winner is determined.
It's distributed. If a riding had ten times as many voters, it would have ten times as many polling stations, and ten times as many people counting votes. It scales perfectly. As long as X% of the population is involved in ballot counting, the size of the population is irrelevant.

I just worked for the federal elections last week as a poll clerk. (I'm the one who crosses-out the name of the voters as they came to vote).

Each poll had about 500 electors - more than half of those showed-up in my poll.

The system scales pretty well, and the paper-trail is there: we're having an automatic recount, as there was only 35 votes difference out of 45,566 (less than 0.1%). No diddling about hanging chads, each one of every actual hand-marked ballot is physically looked-up by a human-being and counted.

Every time this issue comes up, someone points out that the Canadian system works perfectly (Elections Canada runs elections in many foreign countries which lack the infrastructure). Then someone claims that it won't scale. Ridiculous.
There are a bunch of polling stations for each riding. After the polls close, people at each polling station manually count the collected paper slips. These small numbers are then sent to a central point, summed, and the winner is determined.
It's distributed. If a riding had ten times as many voters, it would have ten times as many polling stations, and ten times as many people counting votes. It scales perfectly. As long as X% of the population is involved in ballot counting, the size of the population is irrelevant.

I just worked for the federal elections last week as a poll clerk. (I'm the one who crosses-out the name of the voters as they came to vote).

Each poll had about 500 electors - more than half of those showed-up in my poll.

The system scales pretty well, and the paper-trail is there: we're having an automatic recount, as there was only 35 votes difference out of 45,566 (less than 0.1%). No diddling about hanging chads, each one of every actual hand-marked ballot is physically looked-up by a human-being and counted.

What works for Canada doesn't necessarily scale so well for the US.

With electronic voting, you should (in theory) get more accurate results, in less time, using fewer people. The paper verification means that if there is a dispute and a recount is called for, the option is available. However, you don't have to front that level of expenditure everywhere. It's much more efficient.

It's worth noting that in their national elections in 2000, Canada had 21 million voters and the US had 105 million. You can see why the US might be a little more obsessed with the cost and speed elements.

• Require federal agencies to initiate transitions to open source operating systems and productivity software.
• Make technology that has been developed at public expense, a publicly owned resource. Software that has been developed at taxpayer expense will be released under an open source license, making it free for all Canadians to use.
• Shorten the length of software patents to seven years. The software business cycle is so fast that longer patents only stifle innovation.

Would you add, change or remove anything, make your wish list. It seems like we are making politicians wake up and smell the coffee.

Yep! Right here

Amazing how much the unions donate...

Our paper and pencil (non-erasable pencil marker actually) system can be easily electronically tabulated. It can't be hard to develop a scanner to read our ballots and identify a valid mark. We don't have to give up auditable paper ballots to have fast electronic counts.

Our paper and pencil (non-erasable pencil marker actually) system can be easily electronically tabulated. It can't be hard to develop a scanner to read our ballots and identify a valid mark. We don't have to give up auditable paper ballots to have fast electronic counts.

One of the main reasons it's cheaper is because all elections are run by a single body, Elections Canada, but in the U.S. elections are generally run by individual counties, each having to make their own ballots and having their own procedures. This also adds to the problem where poorer counties would have to make do with older equipment.

It would be cheaper and more efficient if each state had a single body that administered elections, buying equipment in bulk, but most states "pass the buck" onto counties for budget reasons, even though it ends up costing taxpayers more in the end.

But what about a ballot with a little dash, or even a dot? Do you count that? What about if there are two boxes marked, but they are marked differently (maybe one looks like it's been scratched out)?

The ballots are pieces of paper with names and a circle beside them. If one (and only one) of the circles had been obviously marked then the ballot is counted in that fashion. It isn't rocket science - see here for an example of vaild ballots and here for invalid ones.

What if the pen is out of ink...

Actually, pencils are used, tethered to each polling booth. The people working the polling station have plenty of extras.

but when you have a frenzy like in Florida

There have been close elections in Canada before. Our system is different than the American one - you just vote for your local representative and then the leader of the party with the most representative is the Premier or Prime Minister (depending if you are talking Provincial or Federal politics). So, many times the voting for a local representative is very close.

See the Elections Canada website for all the information you could ever want.

But what about a ballot with a little dash, or even a dot? Do you count that? What about if there are two boxes marked, but they are marked differently (maybe one looks like it's been scratched out)?

The ballots are pieces of paper with names and a circle beside them. If one (and only one) of the circles had been obviously marked then the ballot is counted in that fashion. It isn't rocket science - see here for an example of vaild ballots and here for invalid ones.

What if the pen is out of ink...

Actually, pencils are used, tethered to each polling booth. The people working the polling station have plenty of extras.

but when you have a frenzy like in Florida

There have been close elections in Canada before. Our system is different than the American one - you just vote for your local representative and then the leader of the party with the most representative is the Premier or Prime Minister (depending if you are talking Provincial or Federal politics). So, many times the voting for a local representative is very close.

See the Elections Canada website for all the information you could ever want.

But what about a ballot with a little dash, or even a dot? Do you count that? What about if there are two boxes marked, but they are marked differently (maybe one looks like it's been scratched out)?

The ballots are pieces of paper with names and a circle beside them. If one (and only one) of the circles had been obviously marked then the ballot is counted in that fashion. It isn't rocket science - see here for an example of vaild ballots and here for invalid ones.

What if the pen is out of ink...

Actually, pencils are used, tethered to each polling booth. The people working the polling station have plenty of extras.

but when you have a frenzy like in Florida

There have been close elections in Canada before. Our system is different than the American one - you just vote for your local representative and then the leader of the party with the most representative is the Premier or Prime Minister (depending if you are talking Provincial or Federal politics). So, many times the voting for a local representative is very close.

See the Elections Canada website for all the information you could ever want.

Really? How would you go about marking this ballot so there would be ambiguity and some sort of dispute over who you voted for?

For those who don't know, in Canada we still use a pen and paper voting system -- not even punch cards. This vote was specifically for the leader of a political party, so I believe it was run by the party, not by Elections Canada. For me, these problems are evidence that we should stick with our proven voting methods until we're much more confident in electronic voting systems (if ever).

I don't know about the US, but in Canada you would go to the Elections Canada web site (http://www.elections.ca/), as opposed to the web site for the House of Commons. The House of Commons is roughly equivalent to the House of Representatives in the US.

Ballot

A piece of paper on which are printed the names of the candidates, their political parties and a place for the elector to indicate the preferred candidate. (At a referendum, the ballot has a printed question and spaces for the elector to answer "Yes" or "No".) Canada uses the secret ballot, which means no one except the elector knows the choice that was made.

Ballot box

A cardboard box with a narrow slot on top, into which are placed all the completed ballots until the polls close and the votes are counted. There is one ballot box at each polling station. Metal boxes were used until about ten years ago.

some respondents to this post have referred to the old butterfly ballot and claimed that to be proof that paper ballots don't work - that is misleading. the butterfly ballot was another (confusing, poorly designed) technical solution to a non-problem.

A paper ballot needs:

1. the names of the candidates in a single column.
2. a box next to each name
3. a pencil to mark a box with an 'X'

There is a picture of a canadian ballot on this page . It is fairly simple in design.

this whole thing really is a sick sad joke.

In Canada, national elections are handled by a nonpartisan Federal agency, Elections Canada. Everyone across the country gets the same kind of ballot, a simple card with circles beside the names where you make your "X". No punch cards, machines, or other fancy things that can go wrong or confuse people into voting for Pat Buchanan. It's only a coincidence that the same party keeps winning elections. I swear!

If you want electronic voting, the best idea is probably the system used by the City of Toronto in last fall's mayoral elections -- the ballots were paper, but the counting was electronic. To vote, you filled in a region beside a candidate's name, much like those computerized multiple choice tests. All the counting was done 1 hour after polls closed, and they still had paper records to verify the results.

Then again, we don't have a two-party system where you have to fight like the devil just to get on the ballot (not that it's much easier to win, though). All it takes in Canada to become a party is to run candidates in enough ridings, and deal with the paperwork requirements. At that point, you not only get to spend your heart out, you even get to issue tax reciepts.

Of course, your chances of winning aren't that much better. Only 5 parties made it into parliament, this time 'round.
`ø,,ø!

Then again, we don't have a two-party system where you have to fight like the devil just to get on the ballot (not that it's much easier to win, though). All it takes in Canada to become a party is to run candidates in enough ridings, and deal with the paperwork requirements. At that point, you not only get to spend your heart out, you even get to issue tax reciepts.

Of course, your chances of winning aren't that much better. Only 5 parties made it into parliament, this time 'round.
`ø,,ø!

As for higher tax rates, I'll have you know that Alberta is moving to a 10.5% FLAT tax at the start of the new year. There will still be federal tax... but even at its worst, if you live in Alberta you won't pay more than 38% in taxes no matter how much you earn. And look at what you get - space, a clean environment, safety, cheap living expenses, etc.

I live in Ontario, please friend, ask Alberta (and the west) to stop voting Reform (Alliance). I really believe what we will find under the aura of this 'progressive' party who encourages 'change' is an extremely right wing, pro BIG BUSINESS (ala America) group that will very literally sell our Canadian community out. I agree that change is good, and I welcome new ideas with very open arms (the true debate in Canadian policy and politics is refreshing and a great source of pride), but I am not convinced of Mr.Day's intentions and his honest commitment to his fellow Canadians. I am also not disagreeing with the 'flat tax' idea - I feel it deserves analysis and debate...

Also, please read the article at Discover.com and contact your member and ask them to end plurality voting. It looks like the elections people have already had some analysis.

Elections Canada has a report, written in 1998, from KPMG/Sussex Circle on their web page outlining issues in voting technology, as they pertain to Canadian electoral policy.

The authors of the report use the state of Florida as an example of a U.S. state that has investigated internet voting, particularly for their absentee voters.

Elections Canada has a report, written in 1998, from KPMG/Sussex Circle on their web page outlining issues in voting technology, as they pertain to Canadian electoral policy.

The authors of the report use the state of Florida as an example of a U.S. state that has investigated internet voting, particularly for their absentee voters.

slashcode's long-line breaker seems to be screwing up links after previewing... So let's try that again without a preview:

So, will we be seeing this kind of coverage of the Canadian federal election to be held ton November 13? Probably not.

I hope not, considering that the Canadian federal election is November 27.

So, will we be seeing this kind of coverage of the Canadian federal election to be held ton November 13? Probably not.

I hope not, considering that the Canadian federal election is November 27.

Here are a few links:

http://home.ican.net/~alexng/can.html
http://www.elections.ca/
http://cbc.ca/election2000/

The french version of the CBC's web site is formatted differently, imo, better:
http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/polit.asp

Right.

Speaking of all the election hype, I feel compelled to throw in my $0.02 on the upcoming elections for us neighbors in Canada..
Since I'm generally (by choice) uninformed about American politics, I only take interest in the subject purely for entertainment value.
Equally entertaining is that of Canadian politics, which from my personal observation, us Canadians take more of a humouristic look..
The next Federal Election is Nov 27, 2000, and our candidates have given us a few more boxes on the ballot to check (or spoil) :)

So, for those Slashdotters interested, here's some nifty links I've come across for some more comic relief

Elections Canada
Some Logos
Parties
Liberal Party
PC Party
NDP
Canadian Alliance
Marijuana Party
Bloc Quebecois
Government of Canada

Right.

Speaking of all the election hype, I feel compelled to throw in my $0.02 on the upcoming elections for us neighbors in Canada..
Since I'm generally (by choice) uninformed about American politics, I only take interest in the subject purely for entertainment value.
Equally entertaining is that of Canadian politics, which from my personal observation, us Canadians take more of a humouristic look..
The next Federal Election is Nov 27, 2000, and our candidates have given us a few more boxes on the ballot to check (or spoil) :)

So, for those Slashdotters interested, here's some nifty links I've come across for some more comic relief

Elections Canada
Some Logos
Parties
Liberal Party
PC Party
NDP
Canadian Alliance
Marijuana Party
Bloc Quebecois
Government of Canada