Supreme Court of Canada VS Democracy

Well the Supreme Court of Canada heard the arguments and had their deliberations and reached a verdict…

And Ted Opitz retains his seat.

I think this is a bad ruling.  I am not alone.

This is not a partisan issue, but it could be in the future. 

It is a responsibility issue. 

Voting is not democracy, it is only a part of it.  But it is the only part that many people take part in.  The fact that ballots were cast without proper records kept is troubling.

Most of us take the Voter Card with us when we go to vote simply because it says to on the card.  Some of us forget our cards, some of us don’t have a card because we moved recently and didn’t have an opportunity to get the new card before the election and that is why there are provisions in place to handle these instances.

If I were to show up at the polls without my card and without enough documentation to show who I am, I can still vote if someone verifies who I am. 

“I know Bear Cat, he lives down the street from me. Here’s my documentation to show who I am, I’ll sign for him.”

This document is my proof.  It is a government document and should be treated as such.  If the document is lost, or not filled out properly then should my vote count?

The Court says yes.  I say no.

Simply put, the number of ballots in the box should equal the number of people stroked off the list plus any documents for people who weren’t on the list but were eligible to vote at that poll.

And the documents must be complete.

It is not that hard, and yet with our Elections Canada staff and scrutineers from the parties there it still happened.

I’m not calling for anything as severe as some of the legislation in the US where you cannot vote unless you provide proper documentation.  These laws are so strict that voters can be denied simply because they do not drive.  Let’s face it, besides our driver’s licence most of us don’t have enough Government Issue documentation to prove who we are.

Our system is simple and it works if it is applied properly.  In this case there was a breakdown and Elections Canada cannot show that every ballot cast was proper.  This leaves an opening for abuse and hindsight being what it is, if there is an opportunity for abuse, abuse will occur.

If this had happened during a “normal” election where the plurality is usually in the hundreds if not thousands, this would not be such an issue… But it still would be an issue.

Boris Wrzesnewskyj’s challenge to the results of the past federal election in Etobicoke was because the number of disputed ballots was greater than the plurality, the number of votes that decided the election in that riding.  Ted Opitz countered that overturning the result would disenfranchise voters, telling them that their vote didn’t count.

We do not know who the disputed ballots were for.  We do not know if they were all for one candidate or another.  But we do not know that they weren’t either.  We don’t know if these people voted twice, or were entitled to vote at all.

The Supreme Court of Canada had an opportunity to tell Canadians that their vote is important, that the rules in place are good.  They chose not to.

Four votes to Three.  The right of a citizen to vote is more important than the determination of whether an individual is entitled to vote.

At the very root of this it is not a Wrzesnewskyj vs Opitz matter or even a Liberal vs Harper Party matter.  It is about our faith in the system and that Elections Canada must show that they are capable of handling a proper election.

It appears that Elections Canada may not be capable… But the Supreme Court of Canada saved their bacon.

Afterthought… In a post ruling photo-op with Ted Opitz, Stephen Harper said something about improving our election system.  Why does this scare me?

Happy Hallowe’en, BC

The Supreme Court of Canada and the Etobicoke Election

The lawyers have had their say, the Justices listened and asked questions, and in the end the Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada decided to reserve their judgement.

I don’t blame them.  This is an important ruling and they need to be sure it is right.

From what I have read it boils down to a simple question.  Ted Opitz’s lawyer is saying that it is a simple clerical error and the election should not be overturned because a clerk didn’t record a person’s name in a book and Borys Wrzesnewskyj’s saying that the rules were not followed properly and those votes cannot stand.

Each side is arguing over the same coin by showing its two sides.

Opitz’s camp is saying that overturning the election “disenfranchises” the people who voted properly and supported the Harper Party Candidate.  Wrzesnewskyj’s side is saying that not overturning the result “disenfranchises” those who voted for the Liberal Candidate.

And both arguments are based on the clerks not recording the information properly.  Funny old world isn’t it?

My take is that as long as there are more disputed votes than the number of votes separating the two candidates, we need a new vote.

There were 79 votes disqualified, 52 were due to the fact that the original Judge could not determine whether they were registered to vote or not.  Of those 52, Elections Canada has determined 44 were registered.  That leaves 8.  Add those 8 to the 27 disallowed for other reasons and we are still over the 26 vote difference.

What does that mean to me?  That the representative for the 100,000+ people in that constituency, 52,000+ who voted, is decided by the 35 voters that may or may not be eligible to vote in Etobicoke.

The question becomes is Ted Opitz an MP or do we need to vote again?

We need to vote again.

We sent our Forces to Afghanistan to fight oppression and to give the Afghan people the ability to vote in free and fair elections.

One Hundred and Fifty of our Forces came home in coffins.

Anything less than a new vote is an insult to their memory.

Anything less is a slap in the face of all those who served over there.

We cannot reach into the ballot box and remove the ineligible votes.  The secret ballot is a linchpin in our Democracy, the only other option is to vote again and get it right.

Frankly I’m saddened by the fact that the Harper Party chose this path, rather than respect the court’s decision and just call a byelection.

I would suggest that the Harper Party, rather than chasing this rabbit, they should show Canadians that they are serious about elections.  I think they should propose a law that punishes those who interfere with the right of others to vote.  Further, any Party that condones these actions should be stripped of Official Party Status and their bankroll should be deposited into the General Revenue of Canada and that any tax refunds for donations to that party be disqualified.

Maybe that would encourage everyone to do the right thing, and make sure their people are doing the right thing as well.  Poutine anyone?

Elections Canada needs to clean up their act.  I realize that these EC officials (Poll Clerks) are only hired for one day every four years or so but they need to know how to do their job.  Each party is allowed scrutineers at the polls as well.  They should be taught so that if they see something like this occurring that it is addressed then and not months later.  They need to know the rules just as much as the EC officials.

Until then, we can only wait and see what the Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada decide.

I hope it is a decision we can live with, because we will have to.

Canadian Democracy is found, in Etobicoke Centre

Yes! Yes! Yes!

The results are in on the Court Challenge for the disputed Federal Election in Etobicoke Centre, and Harper Party MP Ted Opitz has received an eviction notice from the House of Commons.

The Lawyer representing the Liberal Incumbent, Borys Wrzesnewskyj had argued that 181 ballots were in dispute and the Judge hearing the case, Justice Thomas Lederer set aside 79 ballots.

The ballots set aside included some from people who had voted outside of their own polling station but who were in fact stroked off the list at their home polls, showing they had apparently voted twice.  Other ballots set aside included several instances where the voters arrived with no voter’s card or identification but were allowed to vote anyway.

There were other ballots set aside for people who had voted outside of their home polling station and even voting outside of their home riding.

Now the Judge did say that there were no indication of the Opitz campaign doing anything wrong but because there were 79 ballots set aside, and the difference in the election was only 26 votes the Vote was declared null and void and there will need to be a new election.

A Harper Party spokesman, Fred DeLorey complained that the ruling threw the “democratic decision” of the 52,000 who voted “into doubt”, but what of the people who had voted for Wrzesnewskyj?  I think this throws a harsh light on the Harper Party attitude.

There is no way to prove who these improper ballots were for but the fact that they exist shows that the result is in question.  If he had said that they had hoped for a different result but would respect the verdict of Justice Lederer, that would have sounded much better to my ears, how about yours?

Justice Lederer said in his ruling that Canadians must have confidence in our electoral system and that "If that confidence is diminished, it follows that our interest in, and respect for, government will be similarly diminished. It surely follows that if people who are not qualified to vote were permitted to do so, or if there is a concern that people may have been permitted to vote more than once, confidence in our electoral process will fade."

This is an important issue folks.  Too many people do not vote now because they feel their vote doesn’t count or worse, that none of the candidates are worth voting for.  We can’t afford to have the view that it doesn’t matter because the result is predetermined and will be made to happen by any way they want.

This includes “robocalls.” 

Wouldn’t you think that a Party that boasts about being the “Law and Order Party” would be the first to want tighter rules governing how elections are run and how the votes are cast?  Wouldn’t they be the ones insisting that the Officers at the Polling Stations are properly trained and able to perform their duties properly?

Now the Harper Party may wish to appeal this, I hope they don’t.  It would show that they don’t care about the truth of the vote… that they don’t care about Democracy in Canada.

We take pride in the fact that we are asked to send observers to oversee elections in countries where they are still learning how to be Democratic.  It is sad to think that we need observers as well…

I have no doubt that should this election be rerun, that it will be under the microscope and well it should be.  [I refer to the possibility of an appeal here]

All elections should be.

You see Mr. DeLorey the issue is not about the 52,000 who followed the rules and voted properly, the issue is the 79 votes that Justice Lederer set aside.

Some of these people appear to have voted twice-that is illegal.

Some of these people voted in a riding they do not reside in-that is illegal.

Some of these people voted without proper identification-that is illegal.

Justice Lederer is speaking for the 52,000 who followed the rules.  Their right to elect a representative has been taken from them by the actions of 79 people.

The choice is your Mr. DeLorey.  It is the same choice facing the members of the Stephen Harper Party.

Do you choose to stand with the 52,000 who followed the rules, who believe in casting one ballot each to select their elected Member of Parliament, who believe in Democracy?  Their votes were not called into question, but the results of their votes were.  Because of the actions of just 79 people.

Stephen Harper and the Harper Party should be standing up and strengthening Elections Canada not cutting their budget willy nilly.  The Harper Party should be standing with the other parties of the House in calling for stronger laws governing Election Fraud.

But instead the Harper Party is disappointed when a Judge finds in favour of Democracy.  They bluster and bully whenever charges of Election Fraud are raised.

Listen, I’ll gladly dip my finger in ink to show that I voted.  If it helps to prevent others from trying to vote twice then that is so much the better. 

I’ll wear that ink with pride, people will know that I care enough about my country to take a moment to have my say about who should be running it.

But I choose which finger gets dipped.