# I have voted in the Advance Vote,voting up 26% from last vote,Nice



## 1980z28 (Mar 4, 2010)

Possible change coming

Did you vote in the advance day`s


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

I was there when the doors opened. 
They could not keep up. 

Just one polling table, more red tape, the room filled up with people really fast.
I felt sorry for the volunteers and all the people that came in after me.

But it is a good sign how many people showed up for the advance polls.
I think it means change


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I voted yesterday. The place was empty, but they did say they brought in additional volunteers since the reports of long lines. I guess the identity verification was slowing the process down.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

Tried to vote on Friday. Lineup was out the door so we left. Maybe today or tomorrow depending on the wait times.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

mrPPincer said:


> I think it means change


Superficially, yes.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Or does it mean Conservative voters are making sure they get out because they are concerned about so-called 'change' and recent polls showing Liberal strength?


----------



## 1980z28 (Mar 4, 2010)

Possible shared govt no one in power,will have to compromise


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Or does it mean Conservative voters are making sure they get out because they are concerned about so-called 'change' and recent polls showing Liberal strength?


I hope very much !


----------



## Ponderling (Mar 1, 2013)

voted Saturday, mid day, with about a 10 minute wait.

Lots more paperwork for clerks than I can recall from the past.
- I would not want to be in their shoes on the day of the general vote at about 5-8 pm.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

It is somewhat ironic in that the people complain the most about long lines also complain about taxes and the number of government workers. i think they miss the link.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

I heard on the radio that all the extra paperwork is only for the advance polls, not sure if that's true or not.

It was a little ridiculous; they had to check the id (no biggie), but then they had to find the voter's name in a giant scroll like in roman times or something, then they had to manually write voter's name/address on a sheet of paper, then get the voter to sign their name next to that, then they had to scratch out voter's name/address in the giant scroll, then voter goes and vote, brings back ballot, hands it to the volunteer, who rips off part of it and hands it back to voter, who places in in the ballot-box.

Whatever bureaucratic-dream-team thought up that process couldn't have made it more onerous for the volunteers if they tried. :stupid:


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> had to find the voter's name in a giant scroll like in roman times or something


 good obseravtion  I always was surprised by such stupid procedure.... why people cannot vote online?!


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/506741/why-you-cant-vote-online/



> The unsolved problems include the ability of malicious actors to intercept Internet communications, log in as someone else, and hack into servers to rewrite or corrupt code. While these are also big problems in e-commerce, if a hacker steals money, the theft can soon be discovered. A bank or store can decide whether any losses are an acceptable cost of doing business.
> 
> *Voting is a different and harder problem. Lost votes aren’t acceptable. And a voting system is supposed to protect the anonymity of a person’s vote—quite unlike a banking or e-commerce transaction—while at the same time validating that it was cast accurately, in a manner that maintains records that a losing candidate will accept as valid and verified.
> *
> Given the well-understood vulnerabilities of networked computer systems, the problem is far from solved, says David Dill, a Stanford computer scientist. “Basically, it relies on the user’s computer being trustworthy. If a virus can intercept a vote at keyboard or screen, there is basically no defense,” Dill says. “There are really fundamental problems. Perhaps a system could be tightened so some particular hack won’t work. But overall, systems tend to be vulnerable.”


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> Voting is a different and harder problem. Lost votes aren’t acceptable. And a voting system is supposed to protect the anonymity of a person’s vote—quite unlike a banking or e-commerce transaction—while at the same time validating that it was cast accurately, in a manner that maintains records that a losing candidate will accept as valid and verified.


I don't buy it ... attach voting to canada service id and it will be much easier and cheaper for everyone... actually voting and counting votes manually open space to more fraud


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Are you not familiar with all the problems the US has had with electronic polling stations? You are crazy if you trust electronic voting. Never mind the privacy implications of having votes cast traceable back to voters.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

I find it hard to believe that some combination of personal ID cannot be used for e-voting.

Also, once you're "in" the system the e-voting could remain anonymous. You just need to verify you have an eligible voter. Could be some sort of DL ID #, SIN #, Address, DOB, etc.

You could also register in advance and get a user ID and password or something.

Anyhow, you can do your taxes online, many Service Canada applications online, and more. E-voting should and will be done at some point. They (government) are simply too lazy to put the infrastructure in place. It's easier to keep the process the way it is, the way it has been, for generations instead.

I would think more Canadians would vote if they made the process a) more accessible and b) more streamlined.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

I am personally not in favor of electronic/automated voting. At all.
Let us do something at least the old-fashioned way, shall we.


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

mrPPincer said:


> I heard on the radio that all the extra paperwork is only for the advance polls, not sure if that's true or not.
> 
> It was a little ridiculous; they had to check the id (no biggie), but then they had to find the voter's name in a giant scroll like in roman times or something, then they had to manually write voter's name/address on a sheet of paper, then get the voter to sign their name next to that, then they had to scratch out voter's name/address in the giant scroll, then voter goes and vote, brings back ballot, hands it to the volunteer, who rips off part of it and hands it back to voter, who places in in the ballot-box.
> 
> Whatever bureaucratic-dream-team thought up that process couldn't have made it more onerous for the volunteers if they tried. :stupid:


I'm going to be working the election day as a poll clerk so I have gone to the training already. All of those steps are needed on regular election day EXCEPT for the part where they write it on a sheet of paper and the voter signs it. 

Also, they're not volunteers. They are paid.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

I was going to do this for fun too. Unfortunately it's a 14 hour work day and I have parenting obligations. Too bad it would have been interesting.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

Spudd said:


> I'm going to be working the election day as a poll clerk so I have gone to the training already. All of those steps are needed on regular election day EXCEPT for the part where they write it on a sheet of paper and the voter signs it.
> 
> Also, they're not volunteers. They are paid.


Good to know that part won't be needed on election day, that was the most time-consuming part.

I know you aren't technically volunteers because you get paid, but I think of it the same as volunteering, because the pay is something not much more than minimum wage (as I was given to understand) and the hours are quite long.

I was invited to do the job too, because they were having trouble getting enough people in my area, and I thought if I did do it I'd think of it as a volunteer job with the bonus of getting a small paycheck afterwards.
Decided not to, at least this time.


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

Yeah, it's not much more than minimum wage. I'll be getting $210, for a 14 hour day - plus $50 for the 3 hour training session. So $15/hr - not too bad but nothing to write home about either.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Spudd said:


> Yeah, it's not much more than minimum wage. I'll be getting $210, for a 14 hour day - plus $50 for the 3 hour training session. So $15/hr - not too bad but nothing to write home about either.


and this is on weekend :biggrin: maybe OK for seniors.....


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

none said:


> It is somewhat ironic in that the people complain the most about long lines also complain about taxes and the number of government workers. i think they miss the link.


You mean the link that ALL government run operations are plagued with inefficiency that serves only part of the population as they want to be served? so it is the duty of the intelligent electorate to minimize the extent of the size, involvement and control the government has over our individual freedoms?

I find your ironic findings ironic...


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

mrPPincer said:


> ... they had to check the id (no biggie), but then they had to find the voter's name in a giant scroll like in roman times or something, then they had to manually write voter's name/address on a sheet of paper, then get the voter to sign their name next to that, then they had to scratch out voter's name/address in the giant scroll, then voter goes and vote, brings back ballot, hands it to the volunteer, who rips off part of it and hands it back to voter, who places in in the ballot-box.
> 
> Whatever bureaucratic-dream-team thought up that process couldn't have made it more onerous for the volunteers if they tried. :stupid:



Odd ... from what I recall of the last official election day vote I participated in, it was pretty much the same process.


Cheers


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

peterk said:


> You mean the link that ALL government run operations are plagued with inefficiency that serves only part of the population as they want to be served? so it is the duty of the intelligent electorate to minimize the extent of the size, involvement and control the government has over our individual freedoms?
> 
> I find your ironic findings ironic...


Well government can't win - people want LESS red tape and then complain about lack of oversight, they want lower taxes but demand excessive services etc. the lists go on and on.....

That's why it's hard to take much of the anti-government sentiment terribly seriously. It's like people on vancouver island complaining about the cost of the ferry: yes, gas is expensive. Done.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

none said:


> It is somewhat ironic in that the people complain the most about long lines also complain about taxes and the number of government workers. i think they miss the link.


I could be mistaken, but I thought most of the people at the polls were volunteers.

As for on-line voting, you have to be kidding. Some of you are complaining about the niqab and possible voter fraud, but think that on-line voting would be fine? There's no way at the moment to confirm that the person voting is the person who is registered. Passwords, and forms of ID can be hacked. At least when you have to physically be in place to vote, there is no/little chance that the person can vote multiple times.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

none said:


> Well government can't win - people want LESS red tape and then complain about lack of oversight, they want lower taxes but demand excessive services etc. the lists go on and on.....


Really? show me all the individual people that hold these views en-mass... There are many people who want less red tape and lower taxes, and there are many people who want more oversight and more services. The relationship to whether you are one or the other is highly inversely correlated to how much of your own personal money is being taken to fund the oversight and services...


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

bgc_fan said:


> I could be mistaken, but I thought most of the people at the polls were volunteers.
> 
> As for on-line voting, you have to be kidding. Some of you are complaining about the niqab and possible voter fraud, but think that on-line voting would be fine? There's no way at the moment to confirm that the person voting is the person who is registered. Passwords, and forms of ID can be hacked. At least when you have to physically be in place to vote, there is no/little chance that the person can vote multiple times.


Exactly - see my post directly above yours....


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I agree with Harold Crump...............some things just need to be left alone.

Just because we can change something doesn't mean we should.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

bgc_fan said:


> I could be mistaken, but I thought most of the people at the polls were volunteers ...


Several I've talked to in the past have indicated they are paid. I don't recall any that were volunteers. 

Post # 21 gives dollar figures.


Cheers


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> Several I've talked to in the past have indicated they are paid. I don't recall any that were volunteers.
> 
> Post # 21 gives dollar figures.
> 
> ...


I didn't catch post 21 when I typed up the original response. I was going to qualify that I thought there may have been some sort of minor reimbursement, but not much of one.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

re the many messages on pay for polling station staff: if the CMF member serving as poll clerk is being paid $260, then the DRO at each poll station would be paid around $350 or more? usually there's quite a gap.

the DRO (deputy returning officer) will always come from the party in power, the poll clerk from the opposition. 

there are also officials who are usually seated at the ends of each poll station table. These are called "scrutateurs" in quebec, i'm not sure what in english. They are official observers from each of the political parties. They're supposed to keep an eye on things, make sure the poll is run comme il faut. In particular they have the right to challenge the legitimacy of a ballot during vote counting.

the scrutateurs are paid, i'm not sure by whom. Common sense would suggest that they should be paid by the parties, but perhaps their work at the polls is considered a normal duty for opposition parties, therefore they should be compensated by elections canada.


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

The DRO's are paid $238 vs $210 for the poll clerk (plus presumably the same $50 for training, as we were all in the same training session). So it is more, but not a heck of a lot more. All the salaries are out there on Elections Canada's website if anyone cares.

From the training I understood that the "scrutateurs" are not part of the Elections Canada staff. They may or may not be there at the polls, it is up to the parties if they want to send them. I can't remember the English name for them off the top of my head.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Scrutineers are volunteers, usually from the parties.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

you can see how out-of-date my info is! actually the poll clerk is the one who if anything does more work at the poll, it's the poll clerk who keeps the list of voter names updated as citizens vote.

the scrutateurs should definitely be allowed to sit at the polling table, imho. There was an unusual separation referendum in quebec some years back, around 1995. As voting stopped, the parti quebecois scrutateurs at our table leaped to their feet, leaning forward excitedly to peer at the vote count. We had no idea where they were planning to do, but there was something almost menacing about the way they leaped to their feet & leaned almost into our faces.

immediately, the 2 scrutateurs at our table began condemning many perfectly valid ballots. For example, if a voter had not marked his choice of candidate with an X but had instead placed a check mark or - even worse - had used his pencil to shade in the entire vote circle, then the scrutateurs would shout that the vote had to be condemned.

i was the dro, i distinctly remember that, at my table, if a voter's penilled X exceeded the vote circle on the ballot by even a millimetre (ie voter had a shaky or messy hand), even though the X itself was absolutely clear, nevertheless our scrutateurs were demanding to condemn such a vote.

the same thing was happening at every polling booth in that particular voting centre, which was in a large downtown montreal church. Voting in that district was expected to be heavily anti-separation, ie heavily federalist. Within minutes, it became obvious to us that the scrutateurs had been trained to condemn as many ballots as possible.

pandemonium reigned. Most of the DROs suspended vote counting & began calling for the PRIMO (this may be a french acronym, anyhow it's the elections officer in charge of the entire voting centre.) The PRIMO for his part was racing from poll to poll to poll like a madman, trying to observe & rule on all the objectioned ballots.

at my poll one scrutateur got so carried away with zeal that he began condemning pro-separation ballots for his own side, as well as many anti-separation ballots.

in the end there was some kind of normalcy, the PRIMO ruled that half or more of the objectioned ballots were to be allowed. All of the contested ballots were collected separately. There were so many that they were never counted. For years, they were kept locked in storage somewhere. For all i know they're still locked, in storage somewhere.

the do-not-separate side won by a sliver of a hair, less than one percentage. Put another way, on that night the separate quebec side lost, but only by a sliver of a hair. Neither side included the large number of contested votes, which were something like 10 or 15% of total votes cast. Later, in the news, it would often be said that if those contested votes were to be physically examined again & recounted, they would probably increase the federalist, do-not-separate majority to 60 or 65%.

just a little story about the havoc a scrutateur can cause.


----------

