Nov 292011
 

TWO ARTICLES:

(1)   http://www.briankieran.com/2011/04/voter-suppression-in-canada-apathy-by.html

Posted by Brian Kieran

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Voter suppression in Canada – apathy by design

On no less than three occasions during the national leaders’ TV debate Prime Minister Stephen Harper deflected assaults by insisting this election is “unnecessary.”
Why would he persist in repeating this tired refrain? Because it is not necessary to vote in an unnecessary election.
Indeed, at least one third of voters are already telling pollsters they have no intention of going to the polls. It is as if a malaise of political indifference has infected the national psyche. It has. This virus, which will keep so many of us bedridden on May 2nd, has a name: “Voter suppression.”  Apathy by design.
It’s the attack ads that were born in the USA
There is one national political party, the Conservatives, that benefits from voter apathy and is actively cultivating it. Behind its highly organized, committed and motivated base of support the Tories cultivate disgust and apathy in the rest of the electorate knowing the outcome will be electoral success.
We hear commentators lament Canada’s dwindling voter turnout. Elections Canada reports voter turnout in 2008 was the lowest ever … 58 per cent of those eligible, down five per cent from 2006 and down 17 per cent from an all time high in 1988.
Several explanations are given, but not the most important. Elections Canada cites: Little policy to galvanize voters; the global financial crisis; and, disenchantment amongst Liberals. It neglects to mention the big one: Voter suppression.
Sound Machiavellian? It is. It is a strategy of suppressing opposition turnout that has its roots in the US Republican Party. The goal is to increase the number of eligible voters who fail to vote because they believe politics is inherently corrupt.  Turnout suppression works best when the attacking party has a solid core of support more committed than its opponent.
The Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul’s Lib) raised the issue in March. “There is no question that people are concerned about all-time high cynicism. There is serious concern about negative advertising and the way that the party in power seems to be employing Republican voter suppression techniques.”
Green Party leader Elizabeth May also raised the alarm. “Attack ads are fundamentally anti-democratic. They discourage voters from showing up. I’m afraid this very anti-democratic strategy has come to Canada. It’s time to send it packing.”

“People around the world will risk their lives to get democracy and in Canada we appear to have people willing to deliberately poison democracy,” May said.

Conservative voter suppression has exposed us to relentless attack ads about Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff. He’s an ugly American, isn’t he? Just visiting?
Fear mongering at its finest in this anti-Liberal ad
Recently, the Tories raised the suppression stakes with human smuggling attack ads. Liberal MP Bob Rae says these ads cross the line. “It is based on fear, and is directly prejudicial to a fair determination of refugee claims that are currently being considered.” He focused on pictures of the MV Sun Sea and superimposed statements about “crimes,” “smugglers,” and attacks on “Ignatieff and his reckless coalition.”
Another Conservative attack ad contends that an opposition “coalition” would impose “a brand new tax that’d have you paying up to $75 more for iPods, smart phones, personal video recorders, MP3 players and just about anything with a hard drive.”
Tory flash mob … not true, but effective
The Liberals did vote for a Bloc motion last year that supported, in principle, the idea of possible levies on certain electronic devices to help compensate songwriters and other creators of content. But in December, the party announced it would not support an iPod tax. Nevertheless Tories have orchestrated flash mobs in shopping malls to peddle the myth.

Venomous and inaccurate attack ads are just one of many tactics. More sophisticted techniques are used in the US to sour opponents. One is a ”push poll,” a smear campaign that sounds like a neutral phone survey. As well, direct mail efforts are used to keep people home.

The Republican Party once sent ”voter registration bulletins” to 150,000 African-Americans, who tend to be Democrats, warning them that if they showed up to vote they would be questioned about their residency.

This strategy to sully the process so completely that we lose interest in voting altogether has been described as ”one of the dirty little secrets of political consultants.”

= = = = = = = = = == = = = =
(2)   REGRETS:   I lost the source of this article.   It has good information.  But there is a wrong assumption:  that voter suppression techniques are not already being used in Canada. 
The comments to the article included accounts of people’s experience.  Somehow that got lost, along with the URL.

What can we do to prevent voter suppression from coming to Canada?

The best prevention against vote suppression is education. The main information for source about the election is Elections Ontario. Ensuring their website provides an opportunity to report improper practices and educated voters on what to look out for would be useful.

More significant moves are also possible. California recently introduced a Voter Intimidation Restitution Fund, which uses the fines from those convicted of vote suppression crimes to assist in paying for voter education initiatives to prevent misinformation in the first place. Ontario should consider moving to a similar fund if these imported techniques gain any foothold here.

Finally, Elections Ontario needs to treat voter suppression as the crime it is. The first line of defence is the Election Act, which bans voter interference and attempts to mislead voters about where to cast their ballots.

As you can see, the penalties for such crimes are severe, including up to $25,000 in fines and two years less a day in prison, as well as loss of any provincial office and an eight year ban from holding a provincial office:

Interference with exercise of vote

96.2 (1) A person who, inside or outside Ontario, prevents another person from voting or impedes or otherwise interferes with the person’s exercise of the vote is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $5,000. 2011, c. 17, s. 3.

Party to offence

(2) A person who, inside or outside Ontario, does anything for the purpose of aiding another person to commit the offence described in subsection (1), abets another person in committing it, or counsels or procures another person to commit it is a party to the offence. 2011, c. 17, s. 3.

Impersonation

96.3 A person who, inside or outside Ontario, falsely represents himself or herself to be any of the following is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $5,000:

1. An employee or agent of the office of the Chief Electoral Officer.

2. A person appointed under this Act.

3. A candidate or a person who is authorized by the candidate to act on his or her behalf.

4. A person who is authorized by a registered party or registered constituency association to act on its behalf. 2011, c. 17, s. 3.

General offence

97. Every person who contravenes any of the provisions of this Act, for which contravention no penalty is otherwise provided, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $5,000. R.S.O. 1990, c. E.6, s. 97.

Corrupt practice

97.1 If, when a person is convicted of an offence under section 90, 94, 95, 96, 96.1, 96.2 or 96.3, the presiding judge finds that the offence was committed knowingly, the person is also guilty of a corrupt practice and is liable to one or both of the following:

1. A fine of not more than $25,000, instead of the fine that would otherwise apply.

2. Imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day. 2011, c. 17, s. 4.

Corrupt practice, effect of conviction

98. (1) A person who is convicted of a corrupt practice,

(a) shall forfeit any office to which he or she was elected; and

(b) is ineligible to stand as a candidate at any election or to hold any office at the nomination of the Crown or the Lieutenant Governor in Council until the eighth anniversary of the date of the official return.

However, all the legislation in the world won’t make a difference if the appropriate authorities will not treat voter suppression as the crime it is.

Much like auditors-general, who began to use their powers to uncover real problems of mismanagement, Elections Ontario needs to effectively expose wrong-doing in electioneering.

If there are examples of voter suppression in this election, Elections Ontario needs to be held responsible by the public to find the criminals involved and prosecute them to the fullest extent of their ability.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)