The First Time You Voted

The federal Liberals have apparently raised the issue of mandatory voting in their recent policy retreat.

I predict another round of the "39 Acceptable Voter IDs" argument to come out of this, with some claiming that homeless people really shouldn't have the right to vote, etc.
What are your voter ID laws like up there? Does it vary significantly from province to province, or is there one nationwide standard?
 
What are your voter ID laws like up there? Does it vary significantly from province to province, or is there one nationwide standard?
It depends on whether it's municipal (city/county), provincial, or federal. Federal election rules are supposed to apply everywhere in the country, in all 10 provinces and 3 territories.

The current government is trying to put a so-called "Fair Elections Act" into effect that actually does the opposite - by doing away with the voter cards that are mailed to every household AND eliminating the vouching system for people without other ID or who are homeless, plus making it difficult for disabled, senior, and student voters to present IDs such as driver's licenses, passports, and bills with their names and addresses on them, this has the potential of disenfranchising a lot of voters. The government claims they want to prevent voter fraud, which is ironic because this government itself is barely legitimate. They took a leaf from the American bag of dirty tricks and engaged in robocalls to voters who would be unlikely to vote Conservative and told them their polling station had been moved. By the time these affected voters figured out what was going on, some of them were too late to vote at their proper polling stations (which had not moved).

In my case, I don't drive (so have no driver's license). I haven't been out of the country since 1987, long before passports/visas were needed to cross the border between Canada and the U.S. so I never needed anything like that. The only photo ID I have is an old ALCB card (Alberta Liquor Control Board, which was acceptable for any ID for provincial services)... until that was disbanded and privatized. There are still a few places my ALCB card is accepted; that's a relief, since I still look like my photo... but it's not acceptable ID for federal elections. So I have to trot out my latest utility bill with my name and address on it and prepare to argue that if my ALCB card was good enough for the provincial government, it should be good enough for the municipal election. What will happen next year, I don't know. As a disabled voter who can't easily access the polling stations, I have the workers bring a ballot to my home and cast my ballot here.

But compared to the homeless who want to vote, or the disabled people who have other barriers (such as blindness) and need assistance, I've actually got it pretty good - as long as they keep the practice of allowing election workers to go to disabled voters' homes.
 
Yep, it's nice to have a system whereby anyone who pays the nomination fees and gets the minimum number of signatures on the nomination papers can run as an Independent candidate. Sometimes they end up winning.

And next year I anticipate yet another litany of excuses from Stephen Harper why he won't let Elizabeth May participate in the televised leaders' debates... :mad:

They can, but for the Presidency they would have to do that in every State, and that's where the difficulty comes in, and where the established parties really have an advantage.

The debates really cheese me off as well. I find it ridiculous that the two main parties get to decide the rules for the debates. We should turn that over to the League of Women Voters.
 
Do you actually have to run in every state to be president? I know people have been elected without managing to get on the ballot in every state, but surely there's nothing requiring a Democrat to bother contesting Utah, or a Republican California.
 
You have to win a majority of the electoral college. I suppose you could play the numbers and only bother getting on the ballots in enough states that would make that doable, but then you'd have to win in every State you were on the ballot in.
 
Or cut costs by not contesting a state you have no chance of winning - but I suppose that would be damaging on campaign, since your opponent would rightly say that you weren't standing on behalf of the entire nation.
 
Do you actually have to run in every state to be president? I know people have been elected without managing to get on the ballot in every state, but surely there's nothing requiring a Democrat to bother contesting Utah, or a Republican California.

If the Republicans got out of bed with the loony tunes wing of their party and went back to their economic fundamentals and courted the Latino vote, they could win California by 2022. One of the absurdities of our election system is the biggest State in the union by every single important metric is basically completely ignored when this country elects its President.
 
If the Republicans got out of bed with the loony tunes wing of their party and went back to their economic fundamentals and courted the Latino vote, they could win California by 2022. One of the absurdities of our election system is the biggest State in the union by every single important metric is basically completely ignored when this country elects its President.

The Republicans did get out of bed with the looney tunes wing...by becoming independents or democrats. The looney tunes wing pretty much is the party at this point.
 
I first voted in the 2004 US Presidential Election. Everyone always told me "Voting is so important" and "Your vote matters" so I figure I'd do my civic duty and let my voice be heard. So when I got to the polling station the ballot I was given was for a bunch of smaller positions in addition to the President. I didn't know anything about the people running for the other positions which made my wonder "If this is so important, and the only race I know about is the Presidential race, should I really be voting?". Then I had another thought "There are dozens of races. How much time would it take to really know each candidate well enough to make an informed decision?". Well I cast my vote anyways because I felt that it was too late to back out now.

That evening when the results came in the Presidential election was decided by a couple million votes. In my state the election was decided by over 100,000 votes. All the other elections I voted for were decided by a few hundred to tens of thousands of votes. Then I thought to myself "If I didn't vote, every election result would have turned out the exact same as if I did vote. So why does my vote matter so much again?".

That was the first and last time I voted.
 
That was the first and last time I voted.
Good.

Don't get me wrong, I do wish we had 100% eligible voter participation, but only if the people are not too lazy to bother learning about the races on the ballot. If one doesn't care enough about their city/county/state/country to inform themselves, I'd just as soon they stay out of the political process and leave it to people that do care.
 
Agreed. The thing is those get out the vote campaigns that come around each election season always strike me as odd because I get the feeling that many people simply vote along party lines, or for the biggest name, or some other superficial reason rather than actually knowing each candidate and making an informed decision.
 
You wouldn't like Belgium or 'Straya, as voting is compulsory there.
 
1984. First year I was eligible.

Heh, you and VR were eligible to vote before most of the people on this forum were born. :)

I see, I didn't realise it worked like that - in the UK, there are practically no restrictions on who can stand in an election.
Yep, it's nice to have a system whereby anyone who pays the nomination fees and gets the minimum number of signatures on the nomination papers can run as an Independent candidate. Sometimes they end up winning.

And next year I anticipate yet another litany of excuses from Stephen Harper why he won't let Elizabeth May participate in the televised leaders' debates... :mad:

Depending on the state, that is close to how it works here. The key problem is the number of petition signatures or registered party members to qualify, which can easily be over 50,000 in a state and in some cases approaches a half-million. Through a combination of media neglect, exclusion from debates, first-past-the-post, and a lack of prior candidates on the ballot, it is difficult for third party candidates to reach that critical mass to get on the ballot regularly.

Combined with the current state of campaign funding in the US, prospects aren't good.

I like the quotation in your signature, by the way.

From the man in the avvie himself!

My first vote was in 2008. I was going to college in Iowa at the time and I drove there at the beginning of January to caucus for Obama. My precinct ended up giving Obama most of the vote, shutting out Hillary Clinton, and giving Joe Biden more than 1/4 of all the tiny number of Iowa state-level delegates he won (or would have had he stayed in the race). I also voted for him in the general election in November.

That was the first and last year that participating in the political process was any fun for me. I cast an inconsequential ballot in Portland when I lived there in 2010 (all the Democrats won by large margins of course), and another inconsequential ballot in a mostly rural area of central Illinois in 2012 (Obama obviously won the presidential vote; all the other races on the ballot were easily won by Republicans and most were uncontested).

This time I'll probably vote for a weird mix of Greens (mostly write-in), a Libertarian or two (at least I agree with them on civil liberties and social issues), and Democrats wherever it matters or no third parties are on the ballot and no write-ins have registered. It won't have any more significance than any major-party vote.

Open races are always more fun than reelection bids.

I can feel your Portland pain, though. Georgia and Massachusetts aren't exactly swing states, and the greatest impact you can have here is participating in the primary. Does Illinois have open primaries (so you don't have to register) or are they closed?

You have to win a majority of the electoral college. I suppose you could play the numbers and only bother getting on the ballots in enough states that would make that doable, but then you'd have to win in every State you were on the ballot in.
Or cut costs by not contesting a state you have no chance of winning - but I suppose that would be damaging on campaign, since your opponent would rightly say that you weren't standing on behalf of the entire nation.

I think new parties would be cut some slack in this department, but if either of the major parties didn't run a presidential or state-wide candidate it's a story. See the recent stories about the Democrats dropping out of the Alaska gubernatorial race and Kansas senate race, for example. Or when presidential campaigns pull advertising in states, it's typically viewed as a weakness because they don't think they can win or are running out of money.

If the Republicans got out of bed with the loony tunes wing of their party and went back to their economic fundamentals and courted the Latino vote, they could win California by 2022. One of the absurdities of our election system is the biggest State in the union by every single important metric is basically completely ignored when this country elects its President.

I think it's a bit of an unusual period in our country's history that most of the electorally-rich states are safe for one party. Back in the day, the big states like New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, and Michigan were always in play.

Nowadays, our largest five states are California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois, and of those only one is regularly contested (Florida). Pennsylvania, the #6 slot, has also been leaning to one side for quite awhile now.
 
fall '95 for me. and to this day I ashamed of the vote I cast
 
Back
Top Bottom