the bill would add a major advance vote on the day before election day, in which all regular polls would be open from 12 p.m. to 8 p.m. That would effectively allow two days of voting in polls in neighbourhoods across the country.
The government's new bill would add two additional advance polling days to the three that already exist, although the biggest change is on the Sunday immediately prior to the traditional Monday voting day, when all polls will be open.
I don't agree with this conclusion:
The extra day of widespread voting would also carry additional costs for Elections Canada and the political parties who must have get-out-the-vote organizers available.
That might be a drawback for the Liberals and NDP, who do not have the vast war chest of the governing Conservatives.
GOTV abilities might be less relevant, if we had a system where it was easier to get out. In other words, if voters have another full day, particularly a relatively calm Sunday, the need for organization is less essential. Advance polls, in every neighbourhood, on a Sunday no less, effectively deals with time constraints and convenience. It's really hard to argue with the logic of this proposal, it seems like it will achieve the goal.
I also support the idea of reducing the unbalanced electoral system, that punishes certain provinces:
Ontario could have an extra 30 federal seats within three decades – and significantly more clout in the House of Commons – under legislation expected this week from the Conservative government.
Sources have told the Toronto Star that a bill to be unveiled by government House leader Peter Van Loan (York-Simcoe) will use the predicted growth in population, particularly in the GTA, to call for a boost in the number of federal representatives from Ontario. Alberta and British Columbia are also expected to receive additional representation under the plan outlined in the bill, but Canada’s largest province will get the biggest boost.
A government source who has been briefed on the legislation said that Ontario will have 10 extra Commons seats by 2014
There will still be a disparity gap, and I'm not sure the government has any choice, but any initiative that gets us closer to fair representation is a positive.
I see the merit in the Tory proposals on political loans:
The Conservatives moved to take non-bank loans out of federal politics yesterday with a new bill that would outlaw the practice of turning to family, friends and friendly tycoons to finance political campaigns.
The legislation will allow only banks to lend to political candidates, and places stringent limits on providing guarantees or collateral for politicians
There is a slippery slope in allowing substantial loans from private individuals. Lacking a guarantee of payback, the system allows for manipulation and advantage. Making the banks the primary loan giver eliminates any chance of unfair practices and demands a equal playing field. I don't really buy the early Liberal criticisms of this initiative, it seems sound to close loopholes. Funding is still available, the rules are just better regulated.
I don't doubt for a second that much of the above is politically motivated. Having said that, it really is irrelevant to the merits of the actual legislation. If I focus soley on the ideas, and forget where they come from, or why, then it all seems good from here.
23 comments:
Don't be fooled, this is all about the after-church vote.
Anonymous said...
Don't be fooled, this is all about the after-church vote.
Been a regular church attendee for almost 40 years. I have attended United, Anglican, 4 denominations of Baptist and two denominations of Mennonite. The only church that even hinted at any kind of Christian duty to vote one way or another was the United Church that hinted that everyone should vote NDP or else Liberal. Every other church has emphatically stated that "this church would not tell anyone how to vote". One of the mennonite churches even recommended that a Christian should not vote. Also every church refused to allow any political literature to be in the building during worship time. The insinuation that evangelical churches are hot beds of conservatism, based on my experience, is nonsense.
No they just preach against SSM, abortion and what-not and then send their flock on their way.
So of course that same flock starts to look for a party that follows those preachings.
Just because the church may not allow politics amongst the pews does not mean they disallow it from the pulpit.
I once attended a wedding at an evangelical church. To my surprise there was a sermon in the middle of the ceremony and that sermon was not about the happy couple loving and honouring each other, it was about the sin of homosexuality and the immorality of SSM.
The regulars of the church, including the couple getting married, ate it up and I almost vomited in disgust. Ugh.
anon, I have to say that the issue you raise never occured to me, interesting angle though.
joe, I bet Harper's pal McVety might disagree with you.
Overall, Steve, unless anon's prediction is true, I don't have a problem with the first bill.
I'm not in favour of the second though, for the reasons that Cerberus raised today. Additionally, getting a loan from a bank is not that easy and could restrict a good number of people. This bill will guarantee that those we send to Ottawa will be the "elite", who weild enough clout to be granted huge loans from banks. That said, I think some changes to the existing rules could be made. This particular bill is all about getting the Lib's and don't think they won't flaunt that once it passes. I say that, because the Bloq and NDP, (finding yet another con motion to support in bashing the Lib's), are supporting it.
Yikes ottlib, what an uplifting way to send the happy couple off...with hatred. Charming!
knb
Fair points for sure, and I'm under no illusion that much of this is politically motivated. I guess my agreement stems from the fact that the elite, backed by the powerful, can still acquire loans, and the kicker, they don't have to necessarily pay them back, which does introduce political favors into the equation. The elite still yield influence, but the alternative might be more transparent.
If we look at the last leadership campaign, you could the "elites", with the most institutional backing raised more money, while Dion, despite the loans, did have a lower supporter/donation size balance.
anon
Statistically, "church folk" vote at a higher rate than other demographics, so I'm don't see much impact, and if there is any, it will be offset by the working family that actually has time on Sunday.
Steve,
I don't doubt for a second that much of the above is politically motivated. Having said that, it really is irrelevant to the merits of the actual legislation. If I focus soley on the ideas, and forget where they come from, or why, then it all seems good from here.
Would I be terribly arrogant to think that my latest admonition had an affect on you? In any case, I'm glad that you can separate the substance of a policy from the motivations (which, as you point out, are surely political to some degree, but most political decisions are).
I do understand where you are coming from Steve, I just don't want to restrict the potential field. I haven't come up with the answer, but I think there must be another solution.
anon, on the other side of the coin, there could be backlash from religious folk. Voting on the Sabbath, the Lord's day, could be a bad thing for some.
"Would I be terribly arrogant to think that my latest admonition had an affect on you?"
You might be Olaf, because I haven't a clue what you mean??
ottlib said: No they just preach against SSM, abortion and what-not and then send their flock on their way.
Actually the most involved church in the SSM debate was the United Church which seemed to spend an inordinate amount of time on the issue. In all the other churches in which I've been only give passing reference and ususally only if someone in the church speaks in the possitive. When people in church speak negatively about these subjects they are usually shunned. The point is that Christianity is not about politics or trendy social issues. When people are seeking spiritual purity these topics are pointless and divisive. However when doing pastoral counselling I often encounter soul destruction in people who are or have been involved in the "gay lifestyle" or abortion. It is very difficult helping these people assuming their rightful place in humanity when they have condemned themselves.
Steve - glad to see some realism on the loans issue. Cerberus and Cherniak are losing the plot. The problem is not raising money, it's that campaigns are costing too much, especially for leadership. The LPC should be lowering barriers to entry, starting with abolishing $50,000 deposits (which Elections Canada are treating as non-refundable) and finding alternative mechanisms to stream suitable candidates. Priority two has to be expanding the donor base beyond the mad selling of memberships for nomination purposes.
Steve,
You might be Olaf, because I haven't a clue what you mean??
Well, it wouldn't be the first time I've given myself more credit than was due. Sometimes, I just try to angle enough credit my way in the hopes that at least some of it will stick.
To explain: one of my last posts referenced our little debate at my place, and how I think it's more important to assess the substance of a policy than to try to analyze the motivation behind it - you seem to have taken a similar approach here... like other Liberal partisans, you could have easily dismissed the whole thing as "politically motivated" (what political policies aren't?) and thus illegitimate without even considering the substance of the proposed policy, which I think is ridiculous... anyways, good post
Thanks for clarifying, I did read that post. I have my moments :)
"The LPC should be lowering barriers to entry, starting with abolishing $50,000 deposits"
The thinking was that this measure would eliminate fringe candidates, but you could do so in other ways, possibly a minimum supporter list?
Steve, never under estimate the need for a conservative commenter, (Olaf), to tell you he is right!
Just teasing Olaf...it's been one of those days.
All of you should remember that the Harper government is working against Canada's welfare. Anything they propose is destructive to anyone opposing their views. They use the Republican playbook to crush opposition. They mean to destroy Canadaian laws and institutions to harmonize us with the US. Do not trust anything they do; everything has an ulterior motive for them, keep all power to themselves. There is nothing they do that is good for Canada. NOTHING.
"I think it's more important to assess the substance of a policy than to try to analyze the motivation behind it..."
I am afraid the consevatives set up the partisan analysis. They are the ones who introduced this bill with comments suggesting Dion was beholden to big money interests who loaned him the money for his leadership campaign.
That said, my initial reaction was definately against this bill, but I guess I should actually read it before I make up my mind.
"I am afraid the consevatives set up the partisan analysis. They are the ones who introduced this bill with comments suggesting Dion was beholden to big money interests who loaned him the money for his leadership campaign."
It would be refreshing if just once they introduced something, without trying to score points in the process.
I still can't figure out why they just don't make Election Day a holiday.
dale
Now you're talking :)
Steve
There are various mechanisms that could be used such as nomination of X MPs/MPPs/riding presidents. Another condition could be membership of the LPC for longer than five minutes.
Plenty of whackjobs with lotsa money, plenty of good people with less.
"Another condition could be membership of the LPC for longer than five minutes."
That would have eliminated me :) There are problems with instant Liberals, but it also allows for fresh blood, at a time when people are engaged.
Post a Comment