[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Valmy]

i never got why texas was conservative. You guys spend a lot, fuck a lot, and drink a lot. is it casue of the guns?

Baptist religion: You behave very badly in secret but publicly pretend to be highly morale. 

Also we believe very firmly in getting lots of government services while paying no taxes thanks to the oil monies and the Conservatives in the US are all about that.

[Neil]

Now that I'm back in Alberta I am reminded of the advantages of one party Conservative rule.

I think the 40th anniversary of Lougheed's win is coming up next year.

Right as the provincial PCs are starting to get shaky.

[Josephus]

Incidentally, a lot of media attention on the issue of whether Elections Canada will crack down on people who communicate results via social media in breach of the Elections Act.

Intersting; but impossible to enforce I imagine.

[crazy canuck]

Incidentally, a lot of media attention on the issue of whether Elections Canada will crack down on people who communicate results via social media in breach of the Elections Act.

Intersting; but impossible to enforce I imagine.

That was one of the main arguments against the law when the SCC last considered it - a few years ago.  However in a 5/4 split the law was upheld.   I think that if the case were to be decided today the result would likely be different.

edit:  here is one of the stories on it http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/elections-officials-bound-to-investigate-early-vote-tweets/article1994365/

Interesting to see Elections Canada take the view that transmiting results in private is not a violation.  That is stretching the Act a bit far to compensate for the fact everyone is on twitter and facebook these days.

[Barrister]

Now that I'm back in Alberta I am reminded of the advantages of one party Conservative rule.

I think the 40th anniversary of Lougheed's win is coming up next year.

Right as the provincial PCs are starting to get shaky.

Meh - it's not like the Wild Rose people are leftwingers.

Hell we've been a one-ideology province since 1935 (and I suspect that the United Farmers could also have been described as a right wing party).  SoCred/PC/Wild Rose is all different labels for right wing.

[Grey Fox]

It's easy now with all the Oil money tho.

[Barrister]

It's easy now with all the Oil money tho.

Is it?

You guys aren't having much luck despite all the hydro money...

[Grey Fox]

It's easy now with all the Oil money tho.

Is it?

You guys aren't having much luck despite all the hydro money...

Well this is Quebec. They money is funelled to all the Mafia folks.

[crazy canuck]

You guys aren't having much luck despite all the hydro money...

You really think Hydro generation is a lucrative as oil?

[Barrister]

You guys aren't having much luck despite all the hydro money...

You really think Hydro generation is a lucrative as oil?

It could be.

With a right wing government. 

[HVC]

Plus Quebec has 2-3 times the population. So even if it was equally as lucrative it'd be spread thinner.

Plus, yo uknow, they're french

[Drakken]

Just think - this man is now the leader of a major Canadian political party.

Yeah, Duceppe was a Marxist-Leninist in his youth. He was also Jean Duceppe's son, so he could afford it.

[Josephus]

Incidentally, a lot of media attention on the issue of whether Elections Canada will crack down on people who communicate results via social media in breach of the Elections Act.

Intersting; but impossible to enforce I imagine.

That was one of the main arguments against the law when the SCC last considered it - a few years ago.  However in a 5/4 split the law was upheld.   I think that if the case were to be decided today the result would likely be different.

edit:  here is one of the stories on it http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/elections-officials-bound-to-investigate-early-vote-tweets/article1994365/

Interesting to see Elections Canada take the view that transmiting results in private is not a violation.  That is stretching the Act a bit far to compensate for the fact everyone is on twitter and facebook these days.

I would love them to try to prosecute some 18 year old kid for posting "Mansbridge predicts Tory majority" before the polls in BC close. I think the Act needs to change a bit to realize that social media have changed the way people interact with one another.

I've always wondered how the Elections were covered in B.C. once "timeshifting" options become the norm...or with the WEb even. Last time I was chatting on this forum and we were talking in real time as election results were revealed. Was I breaking the law?

EDIT: Maybe they ought to consider uniform closing times around the country. Maybe have polls close at 7 pm in BC, 10 in Ontario and whatever it is in Labrador? It would mean later results.

[crazy canuck]

I've always wondered how the Elections were covered in B.C. once "timeshifting" options become the norm...or with the WEb even.

TV channels carrying the election literally  go blank.  Local channels that do not cover it are still on and then as soon as polls close here we see the coverage the rest of the country has been watching.  Web sites are more difficult but until recently it has been possible to "control" that information because the content was usually provided by the owner of the site - so easily policed at least in theory.

But now everything has changed.  The web has gone "viral" with interactivity.  No chance really of policing it.

Last time I was chatting on this forum and we were talking in real time as election results were revealed. Was I breaking the law?

Yes you were breaking the law.  But don't worry, no complaint was ever made to Elections Canada.  That is required for an investigation to be triggered.  So even BB cant touch you now.

EDIT: Maybe they ought to consider uniform closing times around the country. Maybe have polls close at 7 pm in BC, 10 in Ontario and whatever it is in Labrador? It would mean later results.

The way the stagger now works is that Ontario and Quebec polls close 30 minutes before the polls in BC.  The evidence in SCC case was that it takes more than 30 minutes for meaningful results to come out of those provinces that might influence an outcome in BC.  The evidence also was that nobody in BC cares what the folks in the martimes do so learning any results from those provinces would not influence voter behavior.  The reason for that is simple.  For voter behaviour to change the result of the election (ie who will form government) must be known and that cannot happen with just the maritime vote.

Uniform voting times was considered by the Lortie Commission but was rejected as it was felt that having everyone across the country voting at the same time (with some people voting at very odd hours) would effect voter behaviour (namely turnout) and so that idea of staggered voting hours was adopted.

The argument before the SCC was, in part, that the old prohibitions against communications were no longer valid now that we had staggered voting hours since there was no evidence of harm necessary to justify a Charter infringement (freedom of expression).  Four of the judges accepted that argument.  But the majority ruled that the competing interest of preventing an imbalance of information (even if there was no evidence of actual harm) was sufficent to justify the Charter infringement.

[Jacob]

What's the argument against having uniform voting times, but stretching them out - say everyone can vote when it's 7 AM in the Maritimes until it's 10 PM on the West Coast? Too much a pain logistically, or is it felt that it will produce unfair results somehow as well?