Monday Night News Hits
-The Ontario election is off and running...after being off and running for the past few months. I'd be betting on a McGuinty majority.
-Veil voting has become a hot topic in the Quebec by elections. To me, it doesn't seem unreasonable, so long as veiled voters can show their face to a female elections officer. The vote will be on September 17th.
-SES has a town hall set up for the Ontario election where, amongst other things, you can try and beat the experts with your predictions. Sounds like fun.
-Stephen Harper has Senate envy. Except in this case, he's not envious of the size, but of how Australia uses it.-Veil voting has become a hot topic in the Quebec by elections. To me, it doesn't seem unreasonable, so long as veiled voters can show their face to a female elections officer. The vote will be on September 17th.
Labels: News, Ontario Election, Senate Reform
posted by calgarygrit at
11:37 p.m.
10 Comments:
To me, it doesn't seem unreasonable, so long as veiled voters can show their face to a female elections officer.
As of today it's been said even this is not necessary. This election will be the first in Ontario to ensure voter fraud.
By
Raphael Alexander, at 1:57 a.m.
I wouldn't be so sure about McGuinty's chances. For the past year he's never been able to get a lead much bigger than 5% and the incumbency usually gives you that much of a cushion before the writ because you control the message. Couple that with lessons from 1999 and 2003 that show McGuinty as an underwhelming performer, particularly in debates, and I think that there is a slight edge to Tory's Tories.
By
nbpolitico, at 8:49 a.m.
In my opinion, for whatever it's worth, I think the best that McGuinty can hope for is a minority government.
Regarding veil voting, I think it's interesting that all four federal parties seem to be on the same wave length.
By
Brian in Calgary, at 1:33 p.m.
Not holding my breath on a Liberal majority government. The only thing that keeps Toronto voting Liberal is the dismal Conservative campaign. In my riding, Mike Colle is the MP (need a million dollar grant anyone?) but his opponent is??? can't remember his name, or web-site, and his campaign team is just as forgetful.
So crappy Conservative campaign = Liberal win...
By
Urban Daddy, at 2:04 p.m.
McGuinty should be losing, no question - he's a liar, a hypocrite, and a mediocre manager. But on the plus side for him, John Tory's off to a pretty lame start, so... anything's possible in this one!
But a minority is at this point a good bet, I think.
-
I respect your opinion, Dan. I have a different take on veiled voting. I don't think anyone's religion, Protestant or Jedi or otherwise, should come into play in civic matters. No one has the right to demand a female elections officer - or a male elections officer. Your home and your place of worship are your business - your belief in the supernatural is yours alone. No one else should have to accommodate your ideas. It's like being a vegetarian - cook how you want, but others don't have to cater to your personal, private ideas.
(I've worked several elections where only myself and another male were around. We were assigned according to ease of reaching the polling station. I feel it's totally unreasonable accommodation to expect or request election workers to shuffle around so that at least one woman (and presumably at least one man) is present in each. I feel personally this is taking it too far.)
By
Jacques Beau Vert, at 4:12 p.m.
I too envy Australia's Senate. If only Harper hadn't appointed Fortier, I'd take his grievance with ours more seriously.
By
Jacques Beau Vert, at 4:13 p.m.
jason; Well, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a female elections officer if there's on there. Now, if you have a polling station with all men, I guess that one gets a bit trickier.
Good catch on Fortier though...I should have mentioned that as a shot in the initial post
By
calgarygrit, at 4:28 p.m.
Hey, Fortier was essential to the government. You may not see any indication of that in how things have gone since, but that just means you aren't looking hard enough.
By
IslandLiberal, at 10:35 p.m.
Upon further examination... I see what you mean.
By
Jacques Beau Vert, at 11:35 p.m.
Apparently, as the Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, and National Post's editorials have indicated (all on the same side for once), there are three options for identifying yourself at the polling station, and only one of those involves photo ID.
The second method involves two valid pieces of non-photo ID from a list of IDs from the chief electoral officer.
So forget veils, religion, etc etc . You simply don't have to be identified by face at a polling station. In theory, everyone could cover their face. Yes, the law seems silly, but that is Parliaments fault for not writing the law properly.
Once you read the law there is only one way to interpret it. It would be upsetting if the Mayrand had gone out and not interpreted it as written.
By
Unknown, at 1:22 a.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home