Jump to content
Jambands.ca

Voter turnout - lowest ever!

Freak By Night

By Freak By Night
in Politics

 Share

Recommended Posts

d_rawk Newbie

d_rawk

Posted
Posted

The drop in voter turnout seems to be concentrated very highly amonst Liberal supporters, for whatever that's worth and whatever we might be able to read into that. Interesting.

(Party: 2008 result - 2006 result = difference)

Green: 940,747 - 664,068 = +276,679

NDP: 2,517,075 - 2,589,597 = -72,522

CPC: 5,205,334 - 5,374,071 = -168,737

BQ: 1,379,565 - 1,553,201 = -173,636

LPC: 3,629,990 - 4,479,415 = -849,425

Hmm.

That's unacademic as those are vote totals which aren't directly correlated with a decline in voter participation, but when matched with popular support (CPC and NDP pretty much static but up a touch, Greens up, BQ down a touch, Liberals down the most at almost 4% but that is a far cry from the whopping 20% of seats that they lost) it seems to point to something.

Did the usual Liberal voters just decide to stay home?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
d_rawk Newbie

d_rawk

Posted
Posted

And I want some numbers on the effect of the new ID requirement rules. Somebody get onto a few campuses and find out how many students wanted to vote but were thwarted.

(Heck, last election, I took the oath, but if I hadn't known my rights it wouldn't have happened -- it was not suggested to me or the young lady beside me as an option at the polling station, but when pressed they got their act together. Even that was under a much less restrictive system)

New ID rules cause confusion at polls

At Dalhousie University in Halifax, almost two-thirds of the students showing up to cast ballots on campus were turned away because they didn't have the necessary signed form from their university residence stating their address or were off-campus students, said Mark Coffin, vice-president of education on the Dalhousie student council. The form is the only way for some students to prove they live in the area, as many of them have IDs with an address from another region.

He said he feared students who were turned away didn't go back to vote.

"You know, 1.4 million young Canadians didn't vote in the last election," Coffin said. "Well, these new rules aren't making it any easier for students to vote."

In Vancouver, polling station representative Pendra Wilson said she saw several voters turned away after they arrived without proper identification.

"I think every Canadian should be able to vote," Wilson told CBC News. "It made me sick to see so many conscientious Canadians not allowed to vote today."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thorgnor Newbie

Thorgnor

Posted
Posted

That my arguement in other threads for this change was aimed mainly at lowering the "minority" vote, Muslim women, the under-educated populations of reserves who aren't likely to read about the new rules, or to be able to read, or to have any ID other than a status card which they wouldn't need because they live way the fuck in the middle of nowhere and the only other poeple they do business with already know who they are. So it was meant sarcastically, capiche?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mattm Newbie

mattm

Posted
Posted

So if you were a student that lived off campus but still had the permanent residence on your license and other ID (like me all through school, permanent being my parents because I moved so much it would have been a pain to keep changing it), you couldn't vote? I know in a lot of student houses the bills are in one or two out of 4 or 5 persons names so there's a chance you don't even have a bill with your name on it.

Hell, what if you live here (here being anywhere other than there :) ), have ID but don't have any bills with your address on it (as in the scenario where one person has all the bills in their name)? Steph didn't get an election card but luckily there's a couple bills in her name but if there hadn't been, would she have been refused? Because that's BS...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
d_rawk Newbie

d_rawk

Posted
Posted
So if you were a student that lived off campus but still had the permanent residence on your license and other ID (like me all through school, permanent being my parents because I moved so much it would have been a pain to keep changing it), you couldn't vote? I know in a lot of student houses the bills are in one or two out of 4 or 5 persons names so there's a chance you don't even have a bill with your name on it.

Unfortunately, yep, that is exactly the case.

Hell, what if you live here (here being anywhere other than there ), have ID but don't have any bills with your address on it (as in the scenario where one person has all the bills in their name)? Steph didn't get an election card but luckily there's a couple bills in her name but if there hadn't been, would she have been refused? Because that's BS...

The way I understand, it would depend on exactly what that piece of ID was. If that piece of ID had both her photo and her current address on it (driver's license) she would have been fine. If that piece of ID had only a photo (passport, etc..) then without the mail she wouldn't have been able to vote. (You could vouch for her though, so long as you do have the required ID and are registered for the same polling station, and on condition that you haven't already vouched for someone else)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
d_rawk Newbie

d_rawk

Posted
Posted

And I guess I should say "and provided that you aren't adverse to swearing". Which seems to be a glaring problem with the new Elections Canada rules, and I'm totally unclear on whether it is still possible to refuse to swear but to make an affirmation instead. This makes me think not. But I can't find the text of the oath that is currently being used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
d_rawk Newbie

d_rawk

Posted
Posted
Just to be a dick, Elections Canada does go out of its way to give a lot of advance warning about voter registration. Just like anything, if you leave it to the last minute then expect roadblocks.

Not dickish at all :) Someone has got to get their backs, and besides, the new rules aren't really Elections Canada's fault.

The prob. is that the people who need to know the ID rules most either a) aren't the type of people who get voter cards (ie. students, recent immigrants, and such) and B) aren't helped too much by knowing them, if they don't have the requisite id anyways.

I didn't hear much about the new rules between when they were first implemented and now until election day itself. That may just be because of where I look / listen, but I sorta feel like I look and listen at all the major media.

There are secular objections to swearing oaths (they usually ultimately depend on you affirming something using some religious symbology like God or the bible), and religious objections to swearing oaths ("Do not swear at all. Let your yes be your yes, and your no be your no.") and the common thread between them which is that it makes the assumption that there are two levels of truth and that you should be understood as a liar until you insist that you are not, temporarily. An affirmation is a solemn insistence that "yes, I am telling you the truth" without appealing to some higher authority that isn't present to verify, anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
d_rawk Newbie

d_rawk

Posted
Posted
Since 1695 the right to give an affirmation has existed in the United Kingdom. This right has developed since the 17th Century (An Act that the Solemne Affirmation & Declaration of the People called Quakers shall be accepted instead of an Oath in the usual Forme William III, 1695-6)[1]. and is now embodied in the Oaths Act 1978, c.19 [2] .

It has its origins in the refusal of Quakers (also known as the Religious Society of Friends) to swear any oath, which would otherwise have barred them from many public positions. Quakers believe in speaking the truth at all times, and so the act of only swearing to truth in court, rather than in everyday life would imply double standards. As in James 5:12, they tried to "let your yea be yea and your nay be nay".

The cause for such a right is best shown in cases such as R v William Brayn (1678). Here, William Brayn was charged with the theft of a horse from Quaker Ambros Galloway. Brayn pleaded 'not guilty'.

One witness testified that the horse was owned by Ambros Galloway; and another witness said that he [probably Galloway] bought it from Brayn. As Galloway was a Quaker, he would not, "for conscience-sake", swear and so could give no testimony. The Court directed the jury to find Brayn 'not guilty' for want of evidence, and committed the Quaker, "as a concealer of Felony", for "refusing an Oath to Witness for the King".[3]

Some Christians, who may not be Quakers, refuse to swear oaths, based on Jesus' prohibition in the Sermon on the Mount. The relevant part is:

But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

-Matthew 5:34-5:37

(Dr. Evil Mouse and I prattled on about this once a year or so ago on this forum, too. Damn, I miss that guy - he should be in the 'Chernushenko leaves the Greens' thread reminding us all of the dangers of identity politics.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
timouse Newbie

timouse

Posted
Posted
(Dr. Evil Mouse and I prattled on about this once a year or so ago on this forum, too. Damn, I miss that guy - he should be in the 'Chernushenko leaves the Greens' thread reminding us all of the dangers of identity politics.)

dr evil mouse sends his regards, but isn't really in cyberspace these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
d_rawk Newbie

d_rawk

Posted
Posted
Douglas Todd, Vancouver Sun

Published: Friday, October 24, 2008

VANCOUVER - The attack ads the Conservative Party of Canada launched during this fall's election campaign not only convinced some declared Liberals not to vote for their party, they turned even more Canadians off from voting entirely.

Officials from Angus Reid Strategies on Thursday revealed polling results to The Vancouver Sun that showed the ubiquitous roll-of-the-dice TV ads that targeted Liberal leader Stephane Dion as a flip-flopping advocate of a carbon tax persuaded 11 per cent of Canadian respondents not to vote for any candidate at all.

Well that ain't good ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thorgnor Newbie

Thorgnor

Posted
Posted
Douglas Todd, Vancouver Sun

Published: Friday, October 24, 2008

VANCOUVER - The attack ads the Conservative Party of Canada launched during this fall's election campaign not only convinced some declared Liberals not to vote for their party, they turned even more Canadians off from voting entirely.

Officials from Angus Reid Strategies on Thursday revealed polling results to The Vancouver Sun that showed the ubiquitous roll-of-the-dice TV ads that targeted Liberal leader Stephane Dion as a flip-flopping advocate of a carbon tax persuaded 11 per cent of Canadian respondents not to vote for any candidate at all.

Well that ain't good ...

$10 says that the "Gov." puts out attack ads before the next camapign begins, again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...