acanuck's picture

    Election Day chaos: Just say no!

    By acanuck on Mon, 11/03/2008 - 4:01am |

    Reading this week about five-hour-plus lineups for advance voting, legal clashes over disputed registrations and extended hours, allegations of voter fraud and voter suppression, I couldn't help but think: WTF! Why do people put up with this crap?

    Two weeks ago, I voted in the Canadian federal election. Two or three hours before the polls were set to close, I strolled two blocks to my neighbourhood polling station, waited for the couple ahead of me to vote, did my civic duty, and left. The whole process, stroll and all, took 15 minutes. I've done this for decades, and it always takes 15 or 20 minutes.

    You might argue that Canada has one-tenth the population of the States. So, of course, it's easier. But Montreal is a big city -- 3.6 million in the metropolitan area. Same logistics as, say, Atlanta. Why do we appear so much better organized?

    The federal government maintains a permanent voter list. A permanently updated list. The provinces co-operate with it, both supplying data and sharing the results for their own votes.

    When you file a change of address with the taxman, or the post office, or the vehicle registration department, that gets fed into the database. If you die, you get taken off the list. If you turn 18, you're added to the list. If you become a citizen, you're added to the list.

    Automatically. And if an election is called, you get a card in the mail reminding you that you're eligible to vote and telling you when and where to do so. You normally drop a paper ballot in a box, and it's counted by hand -- usually quickly and reliably.

    In addition to the permanent voter list, there's one other key difference with the U.S. We have a single, non-partisan chief electoral officer supervising the process coast to coast. And his main job is to keep political interference out of the voting booth.

    I'm not saying Canadians are in any way better than Americans. I'm just saying that your electoral system -- the hodge-podge of differing state rules, eligibilities, deadlines, ballots and machines -- is a recipe for political interference and even fraud. In short, it sucks.

    If Tuesday sees anywhere near a repeat of the chaos we saw in 2000 and 2004, I'd suggest it's time to go back to the drawing board.

    Comments

    It never takes us more than 15 minutes in Central PA, either, but we're at a new polling place this year.


    by Donal (not verified) on Mon, 11/03/2008 - 12:43pm

    When you think of the absolutely mountainous effort that the Obama campaign has had to put into registering people, making sure they're not being scammed or blocked or cheated out of voting, the incredible volunteer effort, the paperwork on and on... it's just insane. When all that time could have gone into informing voters about issues, discussing the candidates, people's lives, whatever.

    In the end, it's a staggering success, what the campaign has pulled off. But it'd be nice to see it simplified next time, so the concentration can move more to health care, finances, etc.

    And for today, I'll take it - just as long as those gets counted tomorrow. Otherwise.... well, I'm gonna run to the end of my street, and throw snowballs at the White House. (I got a good arm. Can almost see DC from here.)


    by quinn esq (not verified) on Mon, 11/03/2008 - 12:44pm

    Friggin' pompous Canadians. At least our most famous singer isn't Celine Dion.

    For the record, NYC polls usually work well, even though our voting machines were built in the cro-magnon era. The problem in the U.S. is that the election boards are localized, so polling processes are very inconsistent. Fortunately, the poorly-run election systems are only in states that don't matter, like FL and OH.


    by ☠enghis (not verified) on Mon, 11/03/2008 - 5:39pm

    I say, "Let the market decide! Why not limit the number of votes in the Electoral College to, say, 401. Then, any state which did not meet certain minimum performance standards in its most recent election.... lost their EV's. It'd create a constant incentive for improvement. States would go out to the best providers of solid systems, boosting competition. The candidates could save money not having to campaign in Florida, Ohio, etc. Plus, the daft buggers wouldn't keep screwing up your elections.

    We already do this with Newfoundland. We haven't bothered counting their votes since 1949, and they've never bothered asking the results. We let their more amusing candidates come to Parliament, speak from time to time, but their votes aren't counted either. So far, so good.


    by quinn esq (not verified) on Mon, 11/03/2008 - 6:30pm

    My personal taste in Canadian chanteuses runs to Sarah McLachlan, Jann Arden and Loreena McKennitt. But I take your point about Céline Dion.
    I understand why politicians cling to the principle of states' rights, but I believe the public would welcome at the very least minimum nationwide standards.
    The same legislation should ideally spell out exactly who is eligible to vote -- for example, felons who have served their sentences?
    Ignore Quinn's rant (below). He overstates how badly we mistreate Newfoundlanders.
    Only occasionally do their ballot boxes fall overboard during the long sea voyage to the mainland.


    by acanuck (not verified) on Mon, 11/03/2008 - 7:31pm

    That's it? C'mon Canuck. 'Fess up to the secret sins! Shania... Avril... Alanis... Anne Murray... Nelly Furtado...

    I'll take Joni, Feist, Jane Siberry & kd lang. ;-)


    by quinn esq (not verified) on Mon, 11/03/2008 - 7:57pm

    All easy listening, Quinn.
    But I'm expanding my list, the first addition would be Margo Timmins of Cowboy Junkies.
    And an old, old favourite (Canadian spelling for your reading pleasure): Buffy Sainte-Marie.
    I caught her in concert a month ago; she sounds as great as ever and, in tight leather pants and high heels, still looks totally hot.


    by acanuck (not verified) on Mon, 11/03/2008 - 8:39pm

    Latest Comments