Decision2006

January 23, 2006 7:25 AM

Online election results will be available after the polls close in British Columbia at 7pm PST. Bloggers have been warned not to post early results from the east before the polls close in British Columbia. CBC explains.

It appears that US-hosted websites ProAlberta and Captain's Quarters will be wilfully violating the Canada Elections Act and posting early results. Andew Coyne has suggested that posters to his website "[pretend] to report the results from some election in a foreign or imaginary land."

Paul Bryan was fined $1000 for posting early results from the 2000 election and is currently appealing to the Supreme Court. Previously discussed here and here.
posted by angrybeaver (126 comments total)

The first polls close in Newfoundland at 4pm PST and results should start trickling in shortly afterwards.
posted by angrybeaver at 7:39 AM on January 23, 2006

A bit off to say that Captain's Quarters is "wilfully violating the Canada Elections Act" - as a non-resident non-citizen, the elections act does not in any way apply to him (also, parsing the act, he's not posting the material from one electoral district to another, not being in an electoral district). Different story for Canadian bloggers, of course.

I think the more interesting issue is how technology has completely swamped any meaningful enforcement of this rule.
posted by magwich at 7:45 AM on January 23, 2006

They could easily solve this problem by counting votes the day after the election closes.
posted by furtive at 7:47 AM on January 23, 2006

MeFi's servers aren't in Canada, so we can report the results here, right?

The first returns are in! The NDP has swept Newfoundland!
posted by 327.ca at 7:55 AM on January 23, 2006

Someone should send Paul Bryan to Iraq. It took a ridiculously long time to post election results there.
posted by three blind mice at 7:57 AM on January 23, 2006

I'm all for obeying the spirit of the law... I'll wait till tomorrow. After that, there'll only be 1,300 days of the new government left, right? (barring another minority election... pretty please)
posted by anthill at 8:06 AM on January 23, 2006

Good point furtive. Of course, that doesn't satisfy the demands of people who want everything immediately. Patience is a lost virtue in our instant gratification society.

Thanks for the link showing that the Canadian Supreme Court is going to here this. I'll be interested to see how they rule. I found it interesting that the Petitioners argue that:
In a motion filed with the Supreme Court, various media outlets wrote that any impact on other voters would be minimal and should "not justify infringing the expression rights of literally several millions of Canadians."

As a balance of competing interests, I see it swinging the exact other way. I guess this is why we have judges and dissents. I see a potential of harm in effecting the election and bunking up the electoral power of those who are merely in a later time zone. So I see the potential for imminent and irreparable harm that has no other adequate remedy (sort of the standard for injunctive relief here in the US) if the information is widespread. So that would be one side of the equation. Balancing against that is the freedom to publish instant election results. To me, that is a hollow or content-less freedom. Why does someone need that? What harm occurs if someone is precluded from doing so? Even given the instant gratification desires of some people, it is completely necessary and no real harm in having the results 3 hours later than otherwise. So when I balance a potential irreparable harm on one side and a mere inconvenience on the others, I got to side with the statute on this one.

There is a fix for this, I am sure. As furtive said, posting results the next day is one. Alternatively, they could stagger the times so every votes concurrently. Are there 4 time zones? Run the earliest at like 10-8, then the next 9-7; 8-6; 7-5 in the latest (or whatever works to capture all of the interests). Then you don't have the problem of polls closing at different times.
posted by dios at 8:08 AM on January 23, 2006

Agreed, furtive. There should be a general ban on publication until 7PM EST- that includes the TV networks. Clearly, prime time Ontario advertising dollars are playing a role in deciding who is affected by the ban.
posted by simra at 8:08 AM on January 23, 2006

Oops, that's PST...
posted by simra at 8:09 AM on January 23, 2006

TrollFilter:
1,300 days of new government left, right
posted by CynicalKnight at 8:19 AM on January 23, 2006

I thought that law was gone?

I swear that in 2004 I watched the returns come in on CTV's "tracker" starting at about 4 pm PST - and I still had 3 hours to vote here in Vancouver.
posted by SSinVan at 8:32 AM on January 23, 2006

There are 6 time zones in Canada, and requiring someone in BC to vote 4 horus earlier than someone here in the Maritimes is an undue constraint on someone's voting rights, IMO.

At least with the web you have to go and look for results if you really want them. Not like them being splashed on the dinner-hour news. One could always use a telephone before, but no one wrote articles about that.
posted by Space Coyote at 8:33 AM on January 23, 2006

I find this really stupid. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall the whole idea of these blackouts as being to combat the sort-of fatalism that hits the West after Ontario counts its votes. ie, the government could be decided before the polls in Vancouver even close.

Its that sense of impotence that I find baffling. I mean, it's just a question of demography. Ontario has a hell of a lot more people in it than BC or Alberta. (Hell, Toronto alone has more people in it...) so, what difference does it make if you know who the government is going to be or not?
posted by generichuman at 8:34 AM on January 23, 2006

I have to go with dios on this one.

Anyway, why do they even disclose the numbers? If Elections Canada simply embargoed all the data until every poll was closed, no one would be able to report it, right? Why do journalists even get the opportunity to report this data? That's what makes no sense to me.
posted by GuyZero at 8:37 AM on January 23, 2006

I'm not as interested in when we'll see the first results as when we'll see the first story in media featuring some hapless "man in the street" declaring he'd have not voted NDP/Green and split the vote had he known Layton was going to siphon off enough Liberal votes to allow a Harper majority. Wednesday maybe?
posted by Keith Talent at 8:38 AM on January 23, 2006

The press is allowed to "influence elections" with other kinds of reporting, polls, and editorials. What's so wrong about reporting voting numbers that makes it different?
posted by grobstein at 8:40 AM on January 23, 2006

Run the earliest at like 10-8, then the next 9-7; 8-6; 7-5 in the latest (or whatever works to capture all of the interests). Then you don't have the problem of polls closing at different times. - dios

But you do have create two new problems:
1) potentially causing some confusion. Right now it's easy because all the polls are open for the same hours, so there's a consistent message on newscasts and in the Elections Canada materials, etc.
2)making it more difficult for people to vote by having more limited polling hours. Polling stations are open 12 hours today. My employer doesn't have to give me anytime off to vote because my normal hours still allow the 3 statutory required hours in order to vote. If we time-shifted hours, it would mean lots more people would have to be take time off of work. I don't imagine this would be very popular. It's hard enough to get people to show up without making them PAY to do it.

But furtive's solution - waiting until the next day - seems simple enough to me. And it has the bonus effect that we wouldn't have to stay up all damn night to see the results. What would the objection be to this? Security of the ballots possibly. As the system is right now, the ballot box is babysat by the electoral officers and the scrutineers all day and then directly starts having the votes counted. How would they ensure the security over night? (This may be resolvable, but it's a point to consider).

I think the more interesting issue is how technology has completely swamped any meaningful enforcement of this rule. - magwich

Hmm, yeah. Why did they make that law in the first place? What's it trying to protect us westerners from?
posted by raedyn at 8:47 AM on January 23, 2006

Regardless of whether it contains polling results or not, I am interested in seeing any discussion of what is happening in Canada on election day. Sometimes, being out of the country makes it really hard to keep track of the national debate.
posted by sindark at 8:50 AM on January 23, 2006

But furtive's solution - waiting until the next day - seems simple enough to me. And it has the bonus effect that we wouldn't have to stay up all damn night to see the results.

I'm not sure what the rationale is but I wonder if it's simply considered not democratic. Why shouldn't voters know the results as soon as they're available provided that knowledge doesn't skew the outcome?
posted by 327.ca at 8:53 AM on January 23, 2006

I'm not as interested in when we'll see the first results as when we'll see the first story in media featuring some hapless "man in the street" declaring he'd have not voted NDP/Green and split the vote had he known Layton was going to siphon off enough Liberal votes to allow a Harper majority.

Keith, my downstairs neighbor who has NDP signs in all of his apartment windows came home from voting about 45 minutes ago. The thing I hate most about this guy is he has the loudest, most unmodulated voice in the world and also no furniture to absorb sound (or the smell of his pot smoke), so we can hear every damned utterance he makes, every conversation clearly, as though he were sitting in our living room. We've just had to suffer the last 45 minutes listening to him freak out to his girlfriend "oh my god, what have we done, what have we done, we've put so many people's rights in jeopardy!!" and other similar exclamations. If he doesn't shut up by the time I post this comment I'm going downstairs to berate him.
posted by zarah at 8:59 AM on January 23, 2006

Hmm, yeah. Why did they make that law in the first place? What's it trying to protect us westerners from?
The lack of Bloc in Quebec meant the election was literally decided in Quebec/Ontario before polls closed in Alberta/BC. There was absolutely no effect you could hope to influence outside of your local representitive. Growing up the seventies, I recall my parents having a far more fatalistic attitude towards elections than we do today becuase of this.
posted by Keith Talent at 8:59 AM on January 23, 2006

Why shouldn't voters know the results as soon as they're available provided that knowledge doesn't skew the outcome?
posted by 327.ca at 10:53 AM CST on January 23

I don't think there is any reason as long as it doesn't skew the results. Which can be done by releasing them after all the polls are closed.

But what is the answer to the obverse? Why should voters know the results as soon as they're available?

It's not like the legislature takes power as soon as the results are known. The only answer is that we live in an instant gratification society. People want to know immediately everything. There is no right or democratic ethos at stake by making them wait for 3 hours; there are rights and democratic principles at stake in attempting to ensure accurate elections. It is just an inconvenience to instant gratification. Considering there is a possibility for harm, it seems a minor inconvenience to suffer upon the people who live a little to the right of the those on the left coast.
posted by dios at 9:00 AM on January 23, 2006

If he doesn't shut up by the time I post this comment I'm going downstairs to berate him.

This is good. Please keep us posted, zarah.
posted by 327.ca at 9:03 AM on January 23, 2006

Good for your neighbour, explain to him he's at least six months ahead of the curve of the Harper supporters that will be wailing that they'd have never voted for the man if they'd have known he was going to be a mini-Bush.

Progressive lot, those NDP.
posted by Keith Talent at 9:07 AM on January 23, 2006

Dios, I like your argument. I'll bring this out in support the next time you get the circled wagons on an American political thread.
posted by anthill at 9:12 AM on January 23, 2006

I'm a personal friend of Paul Bryan and have seen this long, drawn-out, piece of legislative crap go on for far too long. I've mailed just about every rep I have on this...the Liberals defended the lawsuit, the Conservatives said that it was wrong. I'm curious to see what the C's will do when they are elected.

Saying that though, my preference would be that all election results be held back until all polls are closed. I don't think that there is any real chance of skewing the results, but the appearance of impropriety is sometimes as importance as the reality of it.

However, I (living in Richmond BC) will be checking the results early from the linked blogs or internet radio. I've already voted this morning and wouldn't have had my vote changed anyway.
posted by Kickstart70 at 9:19 AM on January 23, 2006

There was absolutely no effect you could hope to influence outside of your local representitive. - Keith Talent

That's not all bad. People should be paying more attention to their specific canidates and not only the party line - especially if there starts to be more free votes as Harper promises (not that I'm counting on this becoming the case).
posted by raedyn at 9:20 AM on January 23, 2006

SSinVan: I thought that law was gone?

It was temporarily suspended, I believe.
posted by Kickstart70 at 9:22 AM on January 23, 2006

HERE is a link from the CBC about the recent history of the law. We were able to watch the results stream in LIVE last election due to the temporary suspension of the law (as mentioned by KS70)
posted by SSinVan at 9:42 AM on January 23, 2006

As an American I like this law and wish we had something similar. Especially given the number of electoral votes that California has, winning the state can be a big boost for one party or the other. When the elections were first set up, nobody heard the news for weeks, as it took that long to count the votes. This instant "we have 1% reporting and X has won the election!" garbage makes me mad; I wonder if it contributes to the low turnout in the US, as people flip on the TV, see the projected winner, and decide not to go stand in line as the guy on TV said it's already over, and what good can one vote do?

Wait until the following day to report it, and there would be time to double-check the final counts before prematurely announcing a winner.
posted by caution live frogs at 9:50 AM on January 23, 2006

It sounds like people are confused. Here is the deal:

329. No person shall transmit the result or purported result of the vote in an electoral district to the public in another electoral district before the close of all of the polling stations in that other electoral district.

To make the windows of time in which this is possible as small as possible, polling times are staggered across the country:

RegionTimes (EST)Times (Local)Newfoundland7 AM - 7 PM8:30 AM - 8:30 PMAtlantic (NS, PE, NB)7:30 AM - 7:30 PM8:30 AM - 8:30 PMPacific (YT, BC)10 AM - 10 PM7 AM - 7 PMEverywhere Else9:30 AM - 9:30 PM(varies)

So, between 7 and 10 Eastern, British Columbians aren't supposed to be told how Newfoundland voted, for instance. And yes, the mainstream media has to follow this rule as well, even in television broadcasting -- CBC Newsworld's signal will be blacked out in the Pacific time zone between 6:30 and 7 PM local.

Anyway, I agree that it's ridiculous. But the appeal has yet to work its way to a final conclusion, and until then, §329 applies.

Now over to Andrew Coyne's blog where I can read & write about a pretend election to pass the time...
posted by blacklite at 10:00 AM on January 23, 2006

Well shit, that looked fine on live preview.

Oh well, whatever.
posted by blacklite at 10:02 AM on January 23, 2006

But what is the answer to the obverse? Why should voters know the results as soon as they're available?

In order to base their vote on whatever factually correct information they deem relevant. For people who don't deem results from other places relevant, knowing them can have no effect. For people who want to in some way strategize based on already-in results, knowing the results gives them the ability to do so. Whether or not that's a smart or wise or fair criterion on which to partially base their vote is nobody's business but their own, and certainly not the State's business.

The idea that things will be improved if people are intentionally denied accurate information seems risible to me. Information improves decisions, bringing them closer into line with the decision-maker's actual preferences. If electoral outcomes alter following the dissemination of accurate information, then the changed results should be considered better than the original.

There is no right or democratic ethos at stake by making them wait for 3 hours

Of course their is: a press that's free to deliver any factually correct material it chooses to deliver, to anyone who wants to receive it.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:57 AM on January 23, 2006

the changed results should be considered better than the original

Where "better" means only "more in line with the actual preferences of the voters."
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:58 AM on January 23, 2006

Why should anyone's vote be based on the results of someone else's vote?

To be "more in line with the actual preferences of the voters," you should support the blackout. That way, people vote on whomever they want to vote for without the taint of someone choosing not to vote because it is a lost cause or choosing to vote for someone because they are winner (or opposing someone because they appear to be winner). Such votes do no show the voters' policies preferences; they only show how reactionary or conformed the voter is.

Lemming behavior is not voter behavior that shows "the actual preferences of voters."

Of course their is: a press that's free to deliver any factually correct material it chooses to deliver, to anyone who wants to receive it.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:57 PM CST on January 23

Perhaps you are a free press absolutist. I tend to think there are considerations that mediate against a purely free press, not the least of which is responsibility on the part of the press. I would value a clean election over the right to print the news at the earliest moment. After all, they are still free to deliver the news, just not at a particular time. And there is nothing magical about that time. Indeed, the "factually correct" condition is one that informs on waiting. The rush to be the first one to announce can lead to inaccurate announcements which might have a grossly deleterious effect on those in a different time zone.

Why not value a clean election over the press's right to do whatever it wants whenever it wants? What good to society is achieved by having press rushing to be the first to announce something moments after the polls close? What harm befalls society by making the press wait until a particular time? Might there be some benefit in accuracy? Might their be more democratic virtue in preventing inaccurate election than in the free press as an end unto itself?
posted by dios at 11:13 AM on January 23, 2006

Such votes do no show the voters' policies preferences; they only show how reactionary or conformed the voter is. - dios

People are free to vote however they wish to, for whatever reasons they deem appropriate. If you decide you want to vote a particular way because of the Numerology of the leader's name, that's your right to do so. I may not like your choice or your reasons for making that choice, but I respect that it's none of my business. With that in mind, the arguements in favour of the secrecy fall apart.

As a Westerner, If I don't want my vote to be "tainted" by coverage of the outcomes in the East, I just won't tune in or I'll vote before any results are available. If I want to know what's happening elsewhere, I'll go find out.

Keith Talent, upthread, mentions that in the 70's the elections were already decided before the polls closed in the West. Little has changed. There's still significantly more people in Ontario and Qubec, and will continue to be for the forseeable future. As a result, unless an election is very close, it will always be essentially settled who forms government before Western results are available. So the rest of the country gets to know first and we're supposed to be in the dark. Of course, there's no harm in not knowing, but the whole idea is paternalistic: "Oh, those poor dumb Westerners, can't make a proper choice if they're given too much information. Better protect them so they don't become confused" *condescending pat on the head*
posted by raedyn at 11:36 AM on January 23, 2006

The ideal is to have everyone vote on an equivalent set of information across the country. I think it's a valid goal to try to achieve, but whether or not it might be a defensible idea (I think not), I don't think it's practical to even consider banning the publication of results at this point.

So I think that staggering the poll closing times is an important addition to the way elections are run in Canada, and I would go further and prevent any votes from being counted until all of the polls are closed. Newfoundland can wait a couple of hours, and the law already provides for time off from work to vote if there is no other way for an employee to have three contiguous hours in which to vote during the time that the polls are open.

Before any further changes are made I think it would be important to formally study voter turnout rates in BC under some of the different conditions that have existed, at least to establish some benchmarks for later on.
posted by mikel at 11:44 AM on January 23, 2006

The good thing about counting the votes right away is that there is little opportunity for fraud. It means the ballot box never has to leave the sight of the electoral officers and party scrutineers. You can lock them up, but you're still introducing a new risk. You could count right away, and swear everyone at the polling station to secrecy until the next morning, but that's got its own set of problems.
posted by teg at 11:48 AM on January 23, 2006

Why should anyone's vote be based on the results of someone else's vote?

Because they choose to base it so. For the same reason that someone's vote might be based on a candidate's party, race, height, or astrological sign. None of it is anyone's business but their own.

To be "more in line with the actual preferences of the voters," you should support the blackout. That way, people vote on whomever they want to vote for without the taint of someone choosing not to vote because it is a lost cause

If they choose not to vote for a lost cause, their new vote is more in line with their preferences than their previous vote. They simply place a high priority on "Do not vote for a lost cause" and a low priority on other aspects of a candidate. As is their right.

That is, by discovering information about candidates (such as the performance of other candidates of that party, or their height, or whether they prefer Timmy's, Country Style, or Second Cup) they discover that they did not actually want to vote for one candidate but in fact prefer another.

I might not like that they're basing their vote on party viability or favorite coffee-and-donut chain, but it is emphatically their right to do so. The state should not be in the business of deciding for itself what information is too irrelevant to allow voters to consider.

Perhaps you are a free press absolutist.

Yes. The only time I can honestly support censorship of truthful information is when it will lead almost inevitably to immediate danger to life-and-limb of specific, identifiable people.

Why not value a clean election over the press's right to do whatever it wants whenever it wants?

A clean election is one in which the maximum number of people have the most access to the greatest amount of truthful information. Again, you're arguing that I improve my decision-making through systematic ignorance.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:50 AM on January 23, 2006

The only freedom at stake in withholding results until 10EST is CBC/CanWest/CTV's freedom to reap advertising dollars from the people in Ontario and Quebec that like to sit down and watch the results roll in in real time.

There is really no need to impose a publication ban- Elections Canada can simply withold the results. Does the press have the right to the results as soon as EC has finished a count in a riding? There is a difference between 'instant' and 'timely' access to information.
posted by simra at 11:50 AM on January 23, 2006

ROU, by your reckoning they should count and publicize the results from each box at each polling place as they go, no? So that everyone will know how things are going so far and make their judgement based on that?

If not, what's the difference between that and what you are suggesting?
posted by mikel at 11:56 AM on January 23, 2006

If the people in BC know who's going to form the government, they can vote for said party to ensure, say, cabinet representation. Is that an advantage, and one they should get?
posted by maledictory at 12:06 PM on January 23, 2006

ROU, by your reckoning they should count and publicize the results from each box at each polling place as they go, no?

They don't have to publicize it if they don't want to, just not punish people for making accurate statements about public information.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:22 PM on January 23, 2006

As the system is right now, the ballot box is babysat by the electoral officers and the scrutineers all day and then directly starts having the votes counted. How would they ensure the security over night?

I'd say that they would still count ballots as soon as the poll closes, and be allowed to return the count to the regional election office as soon as it's complete, but provincial counts would not be revealed until all polls have been closed across the country. That way there's no more delay than before, but no need for a media ban. I could care less about exit polls.
posted by furtive at 12:44 PM on January 23, 2006

Do you wish a fair voting system, ROU?

Because it seems to me that your plan would mean that our citizens over in Newfoundland would be voting with less knowledge than our citizens on Vancouver Island, the latter having the distinct advantage of knowing how everyone else voted and thus having more influence over the election results -- by virtue of being able to vote strategically -- than those who voted back on the east coast.

In other words, your plan is an inherently unfair system, in that some voters have information regarding the election results that others do not.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:52 PM on January 23, 2006

Right - I don't think the overnight hold is a good idea, but between staggering the poll closing time and then ensuring that the information is released at the same time across the country (the poll closing stagger will make up for most of the difference) would accomplish fairness without the silly media bans and blackouts, which are unsustainable.
posted by mikel at 12:58 PM on January 23, 2006

I've known a lot of people to watch early results and then decide not to vote at all because their party/candidate was declared the winner/loser by the media long before polls closed. As for the media, I don't believe most are in any way concerned with the democratic spread of information so much as they're concerned with ratings. Look at the current ads, especially CTV & Global: election night!!! exciting!!! dramatic!!! watch us!!!.

If he doesn't shut up by the time I post this comment I'm going downstairs to berate him.

This is good. Please keep us posted, zarah.

Ok, so not only did this guy vote NDP and then instantly regret it, he actually worked on the NDP candidate's campaign & did so mainly because of their stand on pot 8) Anyway, after initially going downstairs to tell him to stfu, my mom got him to sign up to do volunteer work for 2 rights orgs she works for, by asking him "So what are you going to do to actively protect human rights in this country, now that you've voted in such a way that puts them at risk?" She also got him to promise to buy a couple of area rugs, heh.
posted by zarah at 1:02 PM on January 23, 2006

Do you wish a fair voting system, ROU?

Such a thing is fundamentally impossible. All methods of preference aggregation benefit some people and disadvantage others.

it seems to me that your plan would mean that our citizens over in Newfoundland would be voting with less knowledge than our citizens on Vancouver Island

Sure. If people in Newfoundland don't like that, they can adjust the hours their polls are open, or vote for people who will alter it. Or, alternatively, to lobby for a unified set of closing times.

I suppose there's a hard limit in that they can't keep their polls open past local midnight, but if a voter in Newfoundland really doesn't like voting first, he's free to move to Vancouver or Edmonton.

I don't have any objection to fiddling with poll-closing times so that this sort of thing can't happen. I don't really have much of an objection to the government trying to keep poll results secret until the next day or until all polls are closed.

I object to the censorship, to telling people who have accurate information that they're not, in fact, free to share that information with others because the government has decreed that people in certain areas must not know certain facts.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:08 PM on January 23, 2006

I see a potential of harm in effecting the election and bunking up the electoral power of those who are merely in a later time zone.

*shakes head* There are 308 seats in the House of Commons you need 155 seats to form a majority but it's not necessary to have 155 seats to form the next government. Traditionally the votes in Ontario, Quebec and the rest of the east have decided which party was to be the next government and the rest of us are screwed if we disagree (which we do often - see reeeefooooorm the conservative party). When the polls closed in Ontario in 2004 the Liberals had 118 seats, in 2000 they had 155 seats and in 1997 they had 138 seats. IIRC there were three close races in the 2004 election, in one riding there was only a 50+ vote difference between the winner and the loser, in another riding there was about a 150 vote difference. As a contrast, in my riding the incumbent received 24,000 votes, the NDP candidate was in second place with a whopping 6,000 (or so) votes and the Liberal candidate got 5,000 (or so) votes. In those ridings where it is a close race it might matter but I think there are too many variables to consider to worry about the media broadcasting live results before the polls close.

BTW I agree with the ban and think everyone should vote without knowing how the election turned out in other parts of the country but as to foreknowledge changing the outcome? It's highly unlikely in my estimation.

There was absolutely no effect you could hope to influence outside of your local representative.

There still isn't. Signed: disgruntled and living in BC

/heads off to cast her vote
posted by squeak at 1:51 PM on January 23, 2006

mikel writes "So I think that staggering the poll closing times is an important addition to the way elections are run in Canada, and I would go further and prevent any votes from being counted until all of the polls are closed. Newfoundland can wait a couple of hours, and the law already provides for time off from work to vote if there is no other way for an employee to have three contiguous hours in which to vote during the time that the polls are open."


Waiting to count makes for a very long day for elections staff. People like returning officers start before the polls open and are there until after the count is in.
posted by Mitheral at 2:37 PM on January 23, 2006

If a voter in Newfoundland really doesn't like voting first, he's free to move to Vancouver or Edmonton

Well, isn't that a practical and generous idea.

Yeesh.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:59 PM on January 23, 2006

More practical and generous than fining or imprisoning someone for disseminating truthful information about elections in Newfoundland to someone in Vancouver.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:26 PM on January 23, 2006

She also got him to promise to buy a couple of area rugs, heh.

First and probably only belly laugh of the day. Thanks, Zarah.

On my way to vote in about half an hour or so.
posted by jokeefe at 4:03 PM on January 23, 2006

How is the fishing in Newfoundland? Has anyone caught any red snapper or blue marlin yet?
posted by angrybeaver at 4:12 PM on January 23, 2006

so, any news yet? (and please don't vote Harper, whoever hasn't voted yet)
posted by amberglow at 4:14 PM on January 23, 2006

She also got him to promise to buy a couple of area rugs, heh.

Hah! Thanks for the update.
posted by 327.ca at 4:19 PM on January 23, 2006

I'm afraid I don't understand what's going on. Radio Canada International is telling me current election results (Realplayer link) for ridings in the East. It's 9:30 am in Korea, which means about 5:30pm in BC.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:24 PM on January 23, 2006

...and polls are still open in Newfoundland at this point, apparently. *scratches head*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:25 PM on January 23, 2006

what are the numbers stavros?
posted by angrybeaver at 4:28 PM on January 23, 2006

I'm not listening that closely, and I don't know all the riding names they're flipping out at a rate of knots. Mixed, basically, Lib/Cons in Newfoundland so far.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:30 PM on January 23, 2006

"Jerry Burns and Scott Simms are the first two to be elected..." I have no idea who those two are, nor which ridings they're in, nor their parties.

They've just switched to a CBC feed.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:32 PM on January 23, 2006

Byrne?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:33 PM on January 23, 2006

Thanks stavros. Gerry Byrne. Results are now being posted at the linked sites in the FPP.
posted by angrybeaver at 4:35 PM on January 23, 2006

Can people in Canada not hear this live feed? Am I breaking some arcane law here? No idea.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:36 PM on January 23, 2006

I can't listen to it at work. If people in Canada can hear it, then CBC goofed up. You might get a sternly written letter from Elections Canada.
posted by angrybeaver at 4:40 PM on January 23, 2006

I'm in Ottawa, I'm getting the RCI feed just fine.
posted by bonehead at 4:42 PM on January 23, 2006

Well, crap. I guess I'll stop then.

Don't see why people couldn't just play one of the many, many streams available through a proxy server, if they wanted.

I'm in Ottawa, I'm getting the RCI feed just fine.

On preview : whew. That's me clear, then.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:44 PM on January 23, 2006

I wonder if I've still got some Xanax kicking around from eight years ago.

I doubt it. Sigh.

*holds on tight for next six hours*
posted by jokeefe at 4:49 PM on January 23, 2006

Hmmm. From Pro-Alberta:
Liberal 11
Cons 7
NDP 1

leading/elected

Erm... perhaps I shouldn't be repeating this here?
posted by jokeefe at 4:51 PM on January 23, 2006

The RC1 server seems to have taken a dump, or been killed. Here's a better link to streaming radio from Canada for those overseas, like me.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:57 PM on January 23, 2006

Well, I did my part.

Our system is so damn civilized. I live in a town of about 40k population. We have three election stations. I went to the one I used in the last election, which I figured was probably not going to be the right one, 'cause I've moved.

The right one was less than two minutes away. That's because it takes less than five minutes to drive across the entire town.

We walk in and the nice volunteer asks us if we've got our Elections Canada cards. We don't. She cross-references our home address to the election station 150-something.

We go to station 150-something and present our drivers' licenses. The (paid?) volunteers both confirm our licenses have the same address as their records show and we look more or less like our photos, and hand over a triple-folded sheet.

We go behind the cardboard privacy screen, unfold the chit, put a big honkin' X in the white circle that very clearly corresponds to the local candidate's name, and fold the chit back up.

Come out from behind the screen, hand the folded-up vote to one of the volunteers. She checks that the registration number of our sheet jives with the registration in the vote booklet from which it was torn; then she tears off the registration number strip and puts it into a bag; finally she passes the vote back -- still folded for privacy -- and we get to put our votes into the ballot box.

Meanwhile, election observers from all parties are overseeing the room, keeping an eye on voters, volunteers, and the other observers. There are also a few other scrutineers hanging about, ready to answer questions and guide people to the appropriate stations. Lots of bodies oot and aboot.

Some time tonight the ballot boxes will be brought together in the room and volunteers will begin counting the ballots by hand. I believe the boxes are opened one-by-one, a single vote is withdrawn from the box and unfolded, the volunteer shows it to the observers, and the vote is recorded. There will be scrutineers from each party, plus Elections Canada officials, plus volunteers. Lots of eyeballs.

It would be pretty difficult to fuxxor one's vote by accident, so I can't imagine there's a whole lot of controversy over which way a particular ballot was cast. I do not know what they do if the ballot is not clearly marked or deliberately defaced. Nor do I know what they do in those rare cases when it isn't at all clear what the voter meant to do. (Frankly, I should hope they throw them away: if you can't be arsed to mark a clear X in a big white spot, you probably shouldn't be voting.)

The whole process took us less than five minutes.

I have absolute confidence that my vote will be accurately tallied. I do like our system!
posted by five fresh fish at 5:32 PM on January 23, 2006

I can't get the RCI feed working, I guess it is a server problem. Also, the two sites in the post, neither can be reached....well, pro-alberta *sometimes* but Captains ain't working for me. I suspect a DNS issue.

I voted already. Now for election night pizza, pop & poll results!
posted by Salmonberry at 5:36 PM on January 23, 2006

Continuing coverage on a server in the U.K., for people overseas who want to discuss the election without needing to worry about Canadian media regulations.

There is a huge amount of other coverage on various blogs.
posted by sindark at 5:38 PM on January 23, 2006

fff, we need that system, but probably don't have enough volunteers to make it work.

most people live in and around Toronto and Montreal, no? Won't it be clear who won by the time the polls close there?
posted by amberglow at 5:49 PM on January 23, 2006

fff, we need that system, but probably don't have enough volunteers to make it work.

most people live in and around Toronto and Montreal, no? Won't it be clear who won by the time the polls close there?
posted by amberglow at 5:49 PM on January 23, 2006

If I understand the rules and timezones properly, the polls in Ontario and Quebec should close at 3:00am GMT.
posted by sindark at 5:51 PM on January 23, 2006

Continuing coverage on a server in the U.K.

I note that it's also your server. There's nothing wrong with self-linking in comments, but it's probably a bit more good-faithy to mark it as such.

Interestingly, all the CBC feeds and the Radio Canada International feed, none of which I've ever had trouble getting to from Korea, for years now, are all down, as far as I can tell.

I have to assume that's deliberate. The fact that I got in before means perhaps that someone did screw up.

Interesting.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:53 PM on January 23, 2006

@stavrosthewonderchicken

Apologies. At least there is no advertising on the site.
posted by sindark at 5:55 PM on January 23, 2006

oops--sorry about that.

i noticed in Montreal all week that the signs most defaced were both Lib and Conservative.
posted by amberglow at 5:57 PM on January 23, 2006

Well, I think I'm off to the Liu Institute at UBC to watch the results. I'll be the blonde guy with glasses and the black leather jacket if anyone else goes and wants to say "hi".
posted by solid-one-love at 6:04 PM on January 23, 2006

Yep, I was right. The English RC1 service still throws an error, but the French RC3 nows pops up with "Le service est suspendu jusqu'a 22 h HNE. Le Loi electorale du Canada interdit le diffusion de resultats avant la fermeture de tous les bureaux de scrutin."

Anglophone-only types can probably guess what that says. (Sorry about the missing accents -- I'm lazy.)

Of course if I'd RTFL in the original post, I'd have seen this, from the CBC

Because CBC.ca is available everywhere, we can't publish results until 10 p.m. EST (7:00 p.m. PST), when the polls close in British Columbia and the Yukon. It also means all live radio streaming for CBC Radio One and Two, normally available 24/7 on CBC.ca, will stop at 7 p.m. EST, when the polls close in Newfoundland and results start to come in, and won't resume until 10 p.m.

They cut it off, just a few minutes late. Fair enough. If they're as good as their word, the streams will resume at noon Korea time (7:00 p.m. PST)-- in about 40 20 minutes.

I also note from the CBC blog that "The Act [ Section 329 of the Canada Elections Act] doesn't apply to websites, or broadcasters, outside of Canada" so I'm not too worried about my letting slip those coupla numbers upthread, especially since the CBC themselves broke the law by letting me hear them. Heh.

(Of course, MeFi's down at the moment, so I'm typing this into Notepad2 while I wait....)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:42 PM on January 23, 2006

cspan is showing the CBC coverage now--so far it's 50, 38, 11, 7
posted by amberglow at 6:50 PM on January 23, 2006

@solid-one-love

Are you a UBC Poli Sci or IR student?

---

In general, the best numbers right now seem to be coming from The Surly Beaver, in London.
posted by sindark at 6:51 PM on January 23, 2006

From CBC: "The only reported election glitch on Monday occurred in Eastern Canada. At a polling station in New Glasgow, N.S., a man took off with a ballot box.

Just after noon, the man ran into a polling station in the town's stadium and tried to grab two boxes. An election official snatched one, but the man made it out with the other one under his arm.

"The suspect actually went to the parking area, placed the box down on the ground and actually used his own personal vehicle [and] drove over the Elections Canada box," said Const. Ken MacDonald of New Glasgow police.

The man sped away. However, officers picked him a little while later.

Although the box was flattened, no ballots were destroyed. Scrutineers watched as the deputy returning officer transferred all of the ballots into a new box."
posted by five fresh fish at 7:11 PM on January 23, 2006

CBC is now reporting a Conservative minority, which is very depressing. It's nice that the NDP is doing well.
posted by purephase at 7:14 PM on January 23, 2006

A Conservative minority isn't nearly as depressing as a Conservative majority. And, besides, it'll give us the opportunity to go back to the polls yet again this year or next.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:17 PM on January 23, 2006

Harper will be in a very strange position in this parliament... If he wants to stay in charge for any length of time he is going to have to move strongly to the centre-right where the Liberals live. If he does a good job of it he will get a majority next time out, if he bungles it we will have a second incarnation of Joe Clark...
posted by Chuckles at 7:21 PM on January 23, 2006

Don Martin (CBC Newsworld political specialist): Remember, the parties will get $1.75 for each vote. So, the Liberals are going down to defeat, but they are still picking up a lot of the cash.

Funnier than Rick Mercer!
posted by Chuckles at 7:24 PM on January 23, 2006

Ok, where do we emigrate to now?
posted by orthogonality at 7:35 PM on January 23, 2006

orthogonality writes "Ok, where do we emigrate to now?"

Sweden is supposed to be a nice place to live. Not sure what their immigration policies are though.
posted by purephase at 7:39 PM on January 23, 2006

A Conservative minority isn't nearly as depressing as a Conservative majority.

'struth. Nothing even slightly what's happened to America in recent years is going to happen in Canada, of that I'm certain. Canadians simply would not allow it. Warts and all, we've (well, 'we' used loosely -- I've been expat too long to feel completely invested in the process) still got a functioning democracy going.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:39 PM on January 23, 2006

(...slightly like...)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:40 PM on January 23, 2006

ortho--you don't need to--you just need a few million of us disgruntled Dems to move up--Canada is the America we should be, anyway. : >
posted by amberglow at 7:41 PM on January 23, 2006

Further, newspaper headlines in Korea (and elsewhere I assume) have characterized predictions of Conservative gains as a 'swing to the right'. I don't think that that's anything like the truth. It's not about ideology as much as it is disgust with bad (in some measures at least) government -- which is as it should be. Without a major third party that is seen as a viable choice for leading the country (and I've always been an NDP supporter in absentia), it's a matter of the lesser of two-and-a-half evils, at least for this round.

Then again, like I said, after being expat for a decade and a half, I could well be wrong. But I hope I'm not.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:43 PM on January 23, 2006

Looks like Bulte is out! YAY!!!

I wonder what will happen to the copyright issue now... Even without Bulte, it is looking a little scary.
posted by Chuckles at 7:53 PM on January 23, 2006

Hmm, Elections Canada seems to be updating the returns as they come in. 20 minutes ago, it looked pretty close between the Libs and the Cons. Now, the Con's are pulling away (but still nowhere close to a majority).

Will be interesting to see what they'll do, if anything. Bollocks it up too much and the liberals come back into power. Hold a moderate line and maybe get a majority the next time around so they can do what they really wanted to do?
posted by PurplePorpoise at 7:54 PM on January 23, 2006

Watch and see how our media spins a Conservative win of any kind--it'll be nauseating.
posted by amberglow at 7:55 PM on January 23, 2006

123 cons, 32 ndp showing right now....I wonder if Layton will actually get to hold the balance of power? That hope can be the only reason he helped with the non-confidence motion.

Also, Goodale is in. Too funny.
posted by Salmonberry at 8:09 PM on January 23, 2006

The balance of power issue is over emphasized. There isn't going to be a coalition between Conservative and NDP, so...
posted by Chuckles at 8:25 PM on January 23, 2006

Chuckles writes "Looks like Bulte is out! YAY!!!

"I wonder what will happen to the copyright issue now... Even without Bulte, it is looking a little scary."

Liza Frulla was also defeated.

So, Bulte, Frulla, and Pettigrew are out. That, with the increase in NDP seats, is a nice little silver lining to a depressing evening.
posted by purephase at 8:27 PM on January 23, 2006

NDP swept through central Toronto.
posted by purephase at 8:45 PM on January 23, 2006

I'm impressed with the Elections Canada web servers--I couldn't connect to the CBC website shortly after 7 pm (PST), but the Elections Canada website was running fine. Right now it's reporting Conservatives leading in 122 ridings, Liberals in 106, BQ in 50, NDP in 29, 1 Independent.

So same-sex marriage should be okay: even if Harper holds a free vote, there won't be enough anti-SSM votes to win.

Same for Kyoto, I think. (Not sure, since the rules for foreign policy may be a little different.)

One silver lining: the Conservatives are leading in 10 ridings in Quebec. So we now have two national parties instead of one, which is healthier for our political system. It also reduces the risk of another referendum on Quebec separation in the near future. (So far the BQ has 42.4% of votes cast.) There was a considerable shift of anti-Liberal votes away from the BQ to the Conservatives.

Thanks to fff for the detailed description of the Canadian voting process. The poll clerks are working for Elections Canada, they're not volunteers. I agree that it's a very straightforward, well-run, and non-partisan process. (I volunteered as a Liberal scrutineer in the 2004 election--each party can send a volunteer to watch the voting process and the counting of the votes.)
posted by russilwvong at 8:54 PM on January 23, 2006

Wow. I just checked the Election Prediction Project (an FPP-worthy site, IMHO): they were predicting Conservative 118, Liberal 104, BQ 56, NDP 29, Independent 1. Not bad!
posted by russilwvong at 8:59 PM on January 23, 2006

Paul Martin speaking now.
posted by orthogonality at 9:04 PM on January 23, 2006

Paul Martin will not be representing the Liberal party in any upcoming election.
posted by purephase at 9:17 PM on January 23, 2006

The election isn't won by Ontario and Quebec - the West have swayed it before, by a lot. What about Reform as a huge chunk of the opposition, with no seats outside the west? even up to this election, the Conservative Party (aka Reform under a different name) was mostly Western.

I don't want the West getting results. 1) because their votes matter just as much, and 2) because when they think they are sending "protest" votes against the incumbants (usually a more central party), lots of people suffer.

I'd rather the crooks than the ideologues. "God Bless Canada", indeed! Why not just get David Frum to write your speeches.
posted by jb at 12:12 AM on January 24, 2006

Interesting, British Columbia bucks the trend. The Cons lost 5 seats here, and the NDP almost doubled their's.
posted by btwillig at 7:04 AM on January 24, 2006

I don't know what the right answer is exactly, but this election shows one of the weaknesses of our current system.

The Bloc got 11% of the popular vote, and 51 seats while the NDP got 17% of the popular vote, and only 29 seats. More people voted NDP, but the the Bloc got substantially more seats.

No wonder the NDP favours porportional representation.
posted by raedyn at 7:34 AM on January 24, 2006

why isn't it proportional?
posted by amberglow at 7:36 AM on January 24, 2006

most people live in and around Toronto and Montreal, no? Won't it be clear who won by the time the polls close there? - amberglow

It's not quite that simple. A majority government requires 155 seats, and Montreal and Toronto each have only 22 seats. All of Ontario has 106 seats and Quebec 75, so they certainly have most of the seats, but it's not like every seat in each province goes to the same party (except Alberta this time, and Saskatchewan was close).

I heard Ralph Goodale on the local CBC station this morning. He sounded very upbeat for the future of his party talking about rebuilding and looking forward to working with a new leader. But about the allegations re: the possible income trust leak, he said "reasonable people can reasonably disagree on policy and have a good ding dong arguement"* but that when it came to baseless personal attacks on his integrity that was uncalled for and hurtful. And he really did sound hurt. CBC's coverage last night was correct - he's very well regarded and popular in his own riding.

* Yeah, he really said "ding dong arguement"
posted by raedyn at 7:53 AM on January 24, 2006

I'm not sure what you're asking, amberglow. It worked out that way because the Bloc's votes, while fewer than the NDP's, were concentrated all in one province, giving them a majority in more ridings whereas the NDP's votes were spread all over the country so they didn't win as many seats.
posted by raedyn at 8:00 AM on January 24, 2006

What in gods' name is up with Alberta? You look at the vote proportions and every other province has balance.

Alberta elected only Refoooooorm, and when you look at the %age take of the vote, they're way out of whack compared to other provinces. Even Quebec, which leans heavily BQ, has about 50% of its population voting non-BQ. In Alberta, there's almost no one voting non-Tory.

Bizarro.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:15 AM on January 24, 2006

Also, is it possible to launch a lawsuit against Bulte now, for misrepresenting her electorate?
posted by five fresh fish at 9:16 AM on January 24, 2006

According to this morning's paper, the Conservatives didn't pick up a single seat in metropolitan Toronto, Montreal, or Vancouver. Shades of the red/blue divide in America (not that I'm trying to read too much into this).

I'm just relieved it's a minority. And after the NDP gained 10 seats, I'm ready to admit that maybe Layton knew what he was doing by forcing the election.

And of course Libby Davies won my riding by a comfortable 12,000 votes or so. Heh.
posted by jokeefe at 10:23 AM on January 24, 2006

Also, is it possible to launch a lawsuit against Bulte now, for misrepresenting her electorate?

No. MPs are protected by parliamentary privilege; an MP or former MP cannot be sued for activities performed as an MP, including campaigning.

Thank goodness.

While I dislike Bulte, if current or former MPs could be sued for the way they vote or the legislation they introduce, nobody would dare run for office.
posted by solid-one-love at 10:26 AM on January 24, 2006

According to this morning's paper, the Conservatives didn't pick up a single seat in metropolitan Toronto, Montreal, or Vancouver."

Depends what you mean by "Metropolitan". They picked up several seats in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, including seats in Delta, Pitt Meadows and Port Moody.
posted by solid-one-love at 10:32 AM on January 24, 2006

What in gods' name is up with Alberta?

I had to work in Calgary & Edmonton last summer and found that a lot of the people I met don't think of themselves as Canadians at all, they consider themselves Albertans first and foremost. I have to admit I hated it there, it didn't feel like home at all, and I've never felt that way about any other Canadian region I've worked in. It was much more like being in the States.
posted by zarah at 10:41 AM on January 24, 2006

what's so great about Alberta that they feel that way?
posted by amberglow at 10:46 AM on January 24, 2006

Interesting quotes from Bulte this morning:

Meanwhile, Bulte, driving home with her family, had little to say about her defeat.

"What do you expect me to say? I have no thoughts. You run on your record and the people decide for change," she said.

When asked about her thoughts on a minority government, she said, "To be frank, I don't care. I dedicated my life to the people and to the riding and they decided. It's great; it's a democracy."

"According to everybody, I did nothing. You work so hard and devote your heart and soul and the people have chosen. So good luck to the NDP. Good luck to Peggy Nash and good luck to the country."
posted by purephase at 11:24 AM on January 24, 2006

why isn't it proportional?

Because of an archaic idea called representation by population combined with the first past the post voting system. The idea was/is: every 10 years a census is done on the population of each province then a formula is applied to the numbers collected. (the site does a better job of explaining it than I ever could and at the bottom of the page is the current formula)
posted by squeak at 11:28 AM on January 24, 2006

Women in parliament down from 65 to about 60.

amberglow, you are asking all the right questions...

Proportional representation isn't politically convenient for the people who win, after all, they have won because the system is broken. When PR is taken seriously the media likes to cling to the "it's too complicated" tripe. Finally, there is a fairly strong voice out there that thinks that majority governments are the only way 'to get things done'.

Why is Alberta so different? I have no idea. They are very different in some respects, but less different than they seem in others...

From wikipedia's Canadian election summary pages, Alberta's conservative/reform/Alliance support in the last 30 years:

1974 - 61% and all 19 seats Progressive Conservative
1979 - 66% and all 21 seats Progressive Conservative
1980 - 65% and all 21 seats Progressive Conservative
1984 - 69% and all 21 seats Progressive Conservative
1988 - 52% and 25 seats Progressive Conservative (1 seat NDP)
1993 - 52% and 22 seats Reform, 15% Progressive Conservative (4 seats Liberal)
1997 - 55% and 24 seats Reform, 14% Progressive Conservative (2 seats Liberal)
2000 - 59% and 23 seats Alliance, 13.5% and 1 seat Progressive Conservative (2 seats Liberal)
2004 - 62% and 24 seats Conservative (2 seats Liberal)
2006 - 65% and all 28 seats Conservative

Wow! I'm not typing the rest up, but in much of 1960's the numbers were down around 40-50% PC, but that was in the days of Social Credit. Liberal support only got above 25% once, for Trudeau Mania in 1968. If you look at the 1950's Alberta was a Liberal / Social Credit split, each taking 30-40%, with the PCs taking 10-20%.

I believe the Michael Adams book Fire and Ice: The United States, Canada, and the Myth of Converging Values spends some time addressing Alberta differences. I saw a talk by Adams about it, but I haven't read the book. Here's an article by Adams on the same basic idea - Continental Divide. It doesn't mention Alberta though... One of the aspects I remember from the talk is the 'father knows best' question. In Here, Father Doesn't Know Best Adams indicates that Alberta is much like the rest of Canada on that question:

On this issue there’s a consensus across Canada. Regional differences are barely outside the margin of statistical error: Quebec, at 15 per cent, is least likely to think father should be master, followed by British Columbia (17 per cent), Ontario and Atlantic Canada (18 per cent) and Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, all at 21 per cent.

But the United States is regionally divided: New England is least chauvinistic at 29 per cent, followed by the Plains states (36 per cent) and the Midwest (46 per cent). Above the national average are Texarkana (54 per cent) and the Deep South, where 71 per cent believe the gentleman of the house should be master.

I think I will have to add Micheal Adams to my list of posts in development...

So anyway, I trust I haven't actually answered any of your questions :)
posted by Chuckles at 12:06 PM on January 24, 2006

I had to work in Calgary & Edmonton last summer and found that a lot of the people I met don't think of themselves as Canadians at all, they consider themselves Albertans first and foremost. I have to admit I hated it there, it didn't feel like home at all, and I've never felt that way about any other Canadian region I've worked in. It was much more like being in the States.

Just to throw in some contrary anecdotal evidence: I lived and worked in Edmonton from 1990 to 1996 and never met anyone who described themselves as Albertan rather than Canadian. It definitely didn't feel like the States to me. We usually visit friends and family in Alberta for a couple weeks every summer. (We live in Vancouver.)

A minor example: public libraries. While visiting San Francisco several years ago I stopped at the downtown branch of the library, and was quite surprised to find how small and run-down it was. In contrast, the Edmonton public library system appears to be just as well-funded as the Vancouver system.
posted by russilwvong at 4:07 PM on January 24, 2006

why isn't it proportional?

Changing the political ground rules in Canada is extremely difficult and painful, maybe even impossible. We went through a decade or so of constitutional deadlock (Meech Lake, Charlottetown), ending in the 1995 near-death experience: a referendum on Quebec separation that failed by less than 1%. That's one reason.

Another reason is that PR diminishes the weight of less-populated regions (urban areas vs. rural areas, Ontario vs. the rest of Canada). This is particularly problematic for Canada, because of Canadian geography: different regions have different interests.

A third reason is that Canadians tend to be conservative in the literal sense: we're more risk-averse than Americans. The joke is that no matter what the question is, Canadians always vote no.

Personally, my preferred reform would be to make voting mandatory, as it is in Australia, and to hold elections on Saturdays instead of during the week. Maybe introduce preferential balloting, to avoid vote-splitting.
posted by russilwvong at 4:19 PM on January 24, 2006

I strongly support laws for mandatory voting, government-holiday elections, and a preferential voting system.

There is no reason we can not have the best political system in the world. It is merely a matter of willpower.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:22 PM on January 24, 2006

I agree with russilwvong & fff re: preferential balloting, day off to vote, & mandatory voting. These all sound desirable to me.

Part of the challenge of making that happen is that the people in power are ususally the ones that have benefitted from the current system.
posted by raedyn at 6:43 AM on January 25, 2006

Part of the challenge of making that happen is that the people in power are usually the ones that have benefitted from the current system.

I don't think that's the main problem. For example, the Chretien government's campaign finance reform (which capped large donations) wasn't in the interest of the Liberal Party, which tends to rely on a small number of large donors, as opposed to the Conservative Party, which has a large number of small donors. But Chretien went ahead with it anyway. Similarly, the provincial Liberals here in BC launched a process which led to a referendum on proportional representation (it failed by a narrow margin).

No, I think the real problem is that in the Canadian political system, we have a relatively large number of what political scientists call "veto players." They all have to say yes in order for the change to happen; if any one of them says no, it won't happen. Think of what happened to Meech Lake.
posted by russilwvong at 9:39 AM on January 25, 2006