I mean, the Anglo-Saxons were defeated and assimilated by the Normans close to a millenia ago, so regardless of any semantics of what we could call countries now, it's still inaccurate to call things "Anglo-Saxon". I wasn't exactly getting technical about it, I was making a bit of a joke :D
I know, and I got that :) But I was also asking a presumably native English speaker (referencing your location) what the correct term would be? :confused:
 
I know, and I got that :) But I was also asking a presumably native English speaker (referencing your location) what the correct term would be? :confused:
"English-speaking" or possibly "Anglophone" (which means the same thing) might cover it. The latter has some connotations through "Anglo" that might not universally be ideal (even though it often is okay), so your mileage may vary.

Ultimately, every catch-all is going to be reductive to some degree. Even "Western" might be enough to cover it (as this frequently seems to include Australia and possibly NZ, even though they're anything but). Depends on the context.
 
Looks like we're still stuck with "Anglo" as the most "fitting" term. :thanx:
 
Which is a prefix in its own right and not the same as (though used in) "Anglo-Saxon" ;) Not that "Anglo" is always fitting, because it's primarily linguistic in nature.
It also refers to a name of a tribe that made up a part of the future English population... I guess the linguistic criteria coupled with ancestry kinda works out. Its interesting how there isn't an official term for the "English world". Maybe in not-so-distant future?
 
It also refers to a name of a tribe that made up a part of the future English population... I guess the linguistic criteria coupled with ancestry kinda works out. Its interesting how there isn't an official term for the "English world". Maybe in not-so-distant future?
But the language spoken in England today is typically English not French; so I'd argue that
despite being militarily defeated in 1066 etc the Anglo-Saxons assimilated their Norman overlords.
Honestly, I'm not super-invested in this tangent (especially given the thread) - it was tongue in cheek to begin with. Maybe in another thread :)
 
Anglosphere probably the best term. Ex British colonies mostly native English speaking majority.

Australasia doesn't really count as the west I suppose.
 
Honestly, I'm not super-invested in this tangent (especially given the thread) - it was tongue in cheek to begin with. Maybe in another thread :)
It's okay as a side conversation not meant to hijack for more than a handful of posts, unless you want to remember that Canada has French as one of our official languages and the third party in this election (pending mail-in ballots and any necessary recounts in close ridings) is the Bloc Quebecois.

Anglosphere probably the best term. Ex British colonies mostly native English speaking majority.
There was a promise made during the election to grant official language status to some indigenous languages (presumably for court and government services). So if that promise is kept, then (for example) Cree, Inuktitut, and other speakers of the major indigenous languages won't be at the mercy of an English or French-speaking court or government officials, if they're not comfortable in those languages.

It's a promise I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for. Considering that the same BS happened with the VICs in some indigenous regions as happened in 2015 (wildly incorrect information resulting in sending voters on a wild goose chase to find the correct polling stations and many just giving up in frustration, or not even having the means to get to those places), government being mindful of indigenous concerns doesn't seem to matter much.

I'd be curious to know if those ridings were held by Reformacons. Back in 2015 this sort of thing happened far too many times to be simple human error, and it happened to people who had been on the voters' list for many years, at the same address.

Australasia doesn't really count as the west I suppose.
Southwest. :mischief:
 
I was disappointed by the horrible inefficiency of Elections Canada. We had 14 people working at our polling place and I would say it could easily have been done by 5. I was finished my count a full hour before the others were... apparently counting to 200 was not a required skillset. Even the so-called supervisors who had done this many times before seemed to have no clue.
 
I saw the news here in the Netherlands today, Justin Trudeau won but failed to gain a majority in an election that almost mirrored the one in 2019 (result wise).

I wonder how he managed to call an early election if he hadn't a majority in parliament? Did he convinced other parties? How does this work in Canada?
 
I was disappointed by the horrible inefficiency of Elections Canada. We had 14 people working at our polling place and I would say it could easily have been done by 5. I was finished my count a full hour before the others were... apparently counting to 200 was not a required skillset. Even the so-called supervisors who had done this many times before seemed to have no clue.
The last time I voted in person 2 years ago, they rejected a valid id (expired drivers license) and starting asking personal questions like do I drive with that and why don't I go buy another ID. I really gave the guy in charge a piece of my mind before I left...

(They ended up accepting it after realizing they were wrong. But ffs)
 
This is the first election I haven't worked for Elections Canada since the late '70s. Most workers have 2-3 hour of training. Then they are given a booklet, usually about 40 pages long, that they are supposed to read so they know how to do their jobs. They are supposed to bring the booklet with them and consult it if they are unsure of any situation... many don't. The Supervisor, who is paid better and is usually a veteran of several elections, should know all the rules, or at least how to look them up. They also should be monitoring the workers carefully, especially in the first hour or so of the vote... many situations can be resolved quickly if mistakes are caught early on.

Even most veteran workers only do this for a day or two every four years, and also work Municipal and Provincial election, which often have different rules.
 
Its interesting how there isn't an official term for the "English world".

It was simply called The Empire at one point, though His/Her Majesty's Dominions would be a legal and constitutional term for the time.

Of course said empire no longer exists, so Her Majesty's Former Dominions would have to do.
 
It was simply called The Empire at one point, though His/Her Majesty's Dominions would be a legal and constitutional term for the time.

Of course said empire no longer exists, so Her Majesty's Former Dominions would have to do.
The US is also part of that world, so I guess its what makes it complicated.
 
I was disappointed by the horrible inefficiency of Elections Canada. We had 14 people working at our polling place and I would say it could easily have been done by 5. I was finished my count a full hour before the others were... apparently counting to 200 was not a required skillset. Even the so-called supervisors who had done this many times before seemed to have no clue.
Polling stations differ according to municipal, provincial, and federal elections. Municipal can decide how many voting stations to put in each polling station. Sometimes this is decided by whether it's a large district, a small district, or how much room there is in the space provided. The usual number is about 4-6 for a mid-sized city like Red Deer. In Edmonton, municipal elections may well have a dozen or more, depending on how many people live in each polling district (not sure exactly how municipal elections work in cities with wards).

Federal is different. The number of voting stations is determined by the voter's list. You may well have been able to do it with a lot fewer people, but they would have had multiple lists to juggle, and that could have resulted in errors.

I saw the news here in the Netherlands today, Justin Trudeau won but failed to gain a majority in an election that almost mirrored the one in 2019 (result wise).

I wonder how he managed to call an early election if he hadn't a majority in parliament? Did he convinced other parties? How does this work in Canada?
He didn't have to convince the other parties, and he doesn't need a majority. He doesn't even have to convince his own party, though it would be political suicide not to at least have a plan in place with the senior party members. A Canadian PM can call an election any time he wants. Trudeau could call another one before Christmas if he wanted, but it would be a monumentally stupid thing to do, and I suspect that if he did, the Governor-General would say, "Fine, you don't want to govern, I'll ask the Opposition if they want to."

The only times when an election must be called is when the 4-year mandate is up, or if the government loses a non-confidence vote. The usual way that happens is if the Opposition parties (or enough members in them) vote against the budget. If that happens, the government falls, and the PM must go to the GG and ask her to dissolve Parliament. The writ is dropped and we're off to another 35-day campaign (if lucky, it will only be 35 days).

The last time I voted in person 2 years ago, they rejected a valid id (expired drivers license) and starting asking personal questions like do I drive with that and why don't I go buy another ID. I really gave the guy in charge a piece of my mind before I left...

(They ended up accepting it after realizing they were wrong. But ffs)
As long as the ID proves your identity and your age and/or current address, it's valid. They had no right to question whether you drive with that license and why you don't have other ID. That is none of their business, just like it's none of their business about certain other things.

In 2015 when I was trying to arrange my in-home special ballot, the Returning Officer was unbelievably rude. She had all sorts of questions - how do I get to the doctor, how do I get groceries, how do I do this-that-the other if I can't access a polling station.

None of that is her business. NONE of it. Elections Canada has no right whatsoever to ask personal questions of any voter.

Them asking you questions about your driver's license is like them asking me to log into my online banking and show the EC workers my current bank statement (not kidding, that <censored> Returning Officer actually said that) - and when I asked why, she said, "To verify your address." I told her, "Look, I already told you what ID I have, what I plan to use, and two of them verify my address. You do not need to see my bank statement."

This is the first election I haven't worked for Elections Canada since the late '70s. Most workers have 2-3 hour of training. Then they are given a booklet, usually about 40 pages long, that they are supposed to read so they know how to do their jobs. They are supposed to bring the booklet with them and consult it if they are unsure of any situation... many don't. The Supervisor, who is paid better and is usually a veteran of several elections, should know all the rules, or at least how to look them up. They also should be monitoring the workers carefully, especially in the first hour or so of the vote... many situations can be resolved quickly if mistakes are caught early on.

Even most veteran workers only do this for a day or two every four years, and also work Municipal and Provincial election, which often have different rules.
The municipal and provincial aren't that different. The polling station setup is different between municipal and federal, but the rules are basically the same.

In that article I linked earlier, the First Nations voters were subjected to the egregious BS that some were subjected to in 2015, when most of the workers were really poorly-trained Reformacons. It's like EC took the rule book and decided to do the opposite of what it said. It is absolutely unconscionable to not open a polling station on time, and to have staff that know what they're doing.

And this statement regarding the FN situation:

article said:
Elections Canada spokesperson Réjean Grenier told CBC News there are always mistakes on voter cards, and there are additional challenges in First Nations because some "don't have the same kind of addresses that we would have in an urban area."
This is unacceptable. The errors on the cards discussed in the article aren't small mistakes. They are the same BS as in 2015, which was a VIC version of the robocall scandal from 2011. Harper got caught in 2011, so in 2015, they decided to get cute with the VICs - in essence, disenfranchising voters via robocards - in ridings or parts of ridings that are unlikely to vote Conservative.

As for the crack about addresses... bigotry is ugly. Yes, rural addresses are challenging. I remember the election of 1993 when the system was changed for rural voters, and when I worked in the Returning Office I had to handle calls from panicked people who lived in the county because they were worried that their actual addresses wouldn't match the address on the voting list and they wouldn't be able to vote. It was quite a stressful mess.

But that was nearly 30 years ago, and there is no excuse whatsoever for Elections Canada not to have figured things out by now.
 
Top Bottom