LB, the rule was one piece of Government ID with your address, or two others that prove your identity.  I'm sure even a credit card statement with your address could have been sufficient.  Along with the credit card, and some kind of Photo ID, mind you.

The passport should have been accepted.  I have the identification rules Elections Canada published in front of me, and Canadian Passport is listed as a valid identity card.  As long as she had that with either her voter card or a document with her name and address on it she should have been fine.

The ID thing is a good idea.

I have trouble getting my wife to get out to vote.  In the last federal election, I dragged her down there and they told her she had already voted. So maybe if a dishonest person knows somebody never shows up to vote, they can steal their vote.

ummmmm, I think having to show the id kept a lot of people from voting.

I know it did as lots of people here didn't have the necessary documentation. What a boon to the Con-servatives.

Really? Do you think voter turnout was so bad cuz of the ID? I think it was so bad because it was an election that just didn't matter. Nobody thought the outcome would be any different than what we had before and guess what? It isn't! Except for disgracing Dion...now the liberals can boot him out and start again. But why not do that anyway?

Harper still can't win a majority in Canada which means that the majority of Canadians don't want him, or the Conservatives, to run this country. Same mess different diaper.

While I don't think that the low turn-out was solely due to ID requirements, I do know that many in our riding were turned away and have heard similar reports across the country. The obvious ones were turned away at the polls but no doubt there are many who knew they didn't have the necessary ID and self-selected out of the process. Many were elderly, many were students (first-time voters who may never come back) and others were those who just moved to a new community and lacked sufficient documentation of their new address.

It is a farce and we should have UN electoral process observers, in my view.

As one active in the process I would like empirical evidence of people turned away - it took longer if one did not bring their card but if you had ID you could vote - the lack of it, as has been pointed out, is crucial because without it someone could steal your vote - I have seen it happen.

The low turn out reflects an apathy in our society - it is  a worry - it matters even if the results could turn out the same ( as it did) I don't let people off from their civic responsiblity - in fact voting is a sign of religious committment.  see this weekends text on taxes.

Ah, I love small towns.  Just as I got to the polling station I said out loud "Oh crap!  I forgot my wallet."  As I was about to turn around, the lady at the poll I was to vote at yelled "I know who you are, get over here!" 

I think it will be some time before the empirical evidence of which you speak, panentheism, will be available. I doubt that the returning officers were instructing the DROs to take names of those they turned away.

Are you aware that many of us in rural communities don't receive mail at our physical addresses but at box numbers? Thus, many people who showed up to register didn't meet the requirement in this area. Also, there were also quite a few students who share a dwelling often didn't have their name on the rental agreement, etc, and couldn't very well travel home for the advanced polls. In our riding, we also found that a number of elderly people who got to the polls didn't have quite the right information and didn't have someone that could take them home to get the right ID and bring them back again -- many of the polling stations are a long way from people's residences in rural communities.

A couple of days before the election, I heard on the radio that many First Nations leaders were concerned because lots of aboriginal people who live on reserve don't have documentation for their physical address either -- the mailing address is simply the reserve name. I wonder how those people met the critieria.

As for election fraud, this has never been documented to be a huge problem and thus, the cure of disenfranching people is worse than the disease. If the government was so convinced that fraud was a huge issue, they would be requiring citizenship cards or birth certificates. Since they don't, I think this is a measure that undermines democracy and, the cynical part of me tends to think that the Conservatives are the beneficiaries of such rules as it is people more on the fringes (and less likely to vote Conservative) that are left out.

I am unclear Mother of 5 why you would think that requiring ID, not something the Government instituted but something Elections Canada did, would necessarily be picking on voters who might vote for a left leaning party?

I can see you are tremendously disappointed in the election but that is not something that anyone could tell.

It was quite clear on my card that I required photo id.  It was in ads in the paper, it was talked about and debated on the news.

I agree that many elderly would have been surprised, after 60 years of voting, to have it different would have been a surprise. 

But as for the rest of us.  We had 5 weeks to hear the new rules.  There was even big talk in the press about this issue of photo ID as it related to women who cover their faces.

I voted in an advanced poll.  This year i was required to show my ID and card, answer a verbal question as to my name, address and birthday, sign a form with my hand writen address by the polling officer, and then vote.  When i asked why it was stated to me that last year, people voted early and then tried to vote again on election day.

Elections Canada tries to adjust things annually.  If you have a beef, write them.

I didn't say it was picking on left parties, what I said was that the result was that those on the fringes without the ID requirements (people without picture ID tend to be those who are more poor such as students, the elderly and those with other issues such as illness, etc) would generally be more of those who wouldn't necessarily choose a right-wing agenda. The results are skewed, in my opinion.

Lots of the poor are more transient than others and unlike in Ontario where a health card has a photo, those in other provinces would need to have other photo ID such as a driver's license, etc. Those documents are costly to attain and many of the poor don't have them. Thus, they must meet another set of criteria, which they can't necessarily do when they have only just moved somewhere and have no proof of residence or receive their mail at a post office box.

As a person of privilege who does have these documents, I know that it's easy to brush off these concerns but there needs to be recognition of these problems and changes to the Elections Act in order to bring those who have lost their right to vote back into the process. Otherwise, we are not the democracy we claim to be.

My roomie registered with his passport and a bill.

Where's M Moore when you need 'em,

Inannawhimsey

IW, that works when your bill comes to your physical address but not when, as many people do, you have a box number or get your mail through General Delivery.

Where's M Moore indeed. I know that he was observing the Canadian electoral process for another film that he's doing -- I wonder if this issue will surface there. I wonder if anyone has informed him of the problem since he was observing before this problem became widely known on election day.

Lastpointe the changes were from a Parlimentary Committee recommendations and passed into legislation in 2006 - not Election Canada's.  However the way the changes were implemented were the responsibility of Elections Canada and since there appears to be discrepancies as to what occurred in polling stations across the country there is a serious problem.

This is not about who won, this is about the ability of eligible citizens exercising their right to vote.  If it was Conservatives being shut out of the process I would be, and suspect MotherofFive would also be, still vehemently complaining about it.

Personally I do not understand the mentality that fixes things that are not broken while breaking things that work.....

LB

Democracy forever teases us with the contrast between its ideals and its realities, between its heroic possibilities and its sorry achievements.     Agnes Repplier

I am unsure of what situation created a need to change the rules.  I only remember the Quebec vote last year where women wearing veils caused a big up roar about how to identify them.  It was then that I realised we didn't actually have to identify ourselves, just present a card.

That did seem odd and from what I read about this issue, the changes were to ensure that all people clearly identified themselves, that Elections Canada weren't just picking on Muslem women.

Certainly every citizen should vote.  If you have evidence of errors then i hope you will document them in a letter to Elections Canada

Indeed, LB. I have no way of knowing who was intending to vote for whom, in the end. It is about eligible persons not being able to vote, regardless of whom they were intending to vote for. With these changes, especially if this problem is not fixed immediately, we are no longer the democracy we pride ourselves on being.

FYI

Canada's New Government Takes Action to Reduce Opportunity for Voter Fraud (emphasis mine)

24 October 2006    Ottawa, Ontario

The Honourable Rob Nicholson, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform today introduced in the House of Commons a bill to amend the Canada Elections Act so as to improve the integrity of the electoral process.

“I wish to thank the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for its work and I am confident that this bill, in addition to the Federal Accountability Act, will go a long way in further fostering and protecting Canada’s democratic electoral process,” stated Minister Nicholson.

A key reform recommended by the Committee, and implemented in this bill, is the introduction of a uniform voter identification system at the polls. Photo identification will be required, and may only be waived through more stringent alternative means of demonstrating proof of identity.

[....]

During its study, the Committee heard evidence from political parties and Committee members of instances in which non-citizens have voted. Concerns were also raised about voter information cards that are sent by Elections Canada being left in bundles in apartment buildings, leaving open the opportunity for individuals seeking to defraud the system to use these cards as evidence of their entitlement to vote.

http://www.democraticreform.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?media_category_id=1&id=1374

It should be noted that so far I have been unable to find any documented proof of this occurring, this change was made on anectdotal evidence alone.  Considering the very real and documented proof of  Canada's Health Care system's erosion and nothing has been done to "fix" that, I fail to see the pressing need in this particular case - but that is just my humble opinion and my apologies for such digressions in a long post.

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs:  Improving the Integrity of the Electoral Process:  Recommendations for Legislative

The following should be noted

The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that the provision be amended so that identity may be established by a written affirmation from the elector where proof of identity is not available. The rationale for this recommendation is that the presence of the elector at his or her residence affords a degree of certainty in establishing identity.

The Committee does not support this recommendation. Members are concerned that this proposal does little to enhance the accuracy and integrity of the Register of Electors or the permanent list of electors.

Again, note the Chief Electoral Officer did not recommend the demanding of Photo ID at the polling station, it was the Committee which was comprised of MPs.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2287023&File=0

Government Response to the Thirteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs:  Improving the Integrity of the Electoral Process

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2418739&File=0

As an aside I found this comment from the first citation particularly ironic.  In addition, some individuals may vote out of a mistaken belief that they are qualified to do so rather than due to any malicious intent.

Blimey, wouldn't want some unqualified voter going out and voting, not when we're hitting less than 60% for voter turn out.