Over the life of this column I have tried to explain the underpinnings of the world views held by Canadian political parties. I have discussed ideology, philosophy, policy approach, and the nature of our political culture. This week I will draw on some of that discussion to critically assess the Fair Elections Act that the Conservative government has introduced.
Conservatives (and in this case I mean "small c" conservatives who are identified by their ideology and "capital c" Conservative who identify with the political party) tend to be see the state, or government, as the "night watchman." In this view "the state (government) has the responsibility to protect citizens; to protect their "life, liberty and estate (or property)." In Canada our Conservative government has become very good at framing their message to appeal to those who see the state's role as protecting us. I have written about this before in discussing issues like mandatory sentences. But there is a tendency in this kind of political rhetoric to give the impression that our security is more at risk than the facts actually support.
So if you look at the legislation (which you can find at http://www.democraticreform.gc.ca/eng/content/harper-government-introduces-fair-elections-act) you will see there is language that gives the impression that voter fraud is an acute problem. It suggests, by way highlighted text that we need to extend the long arm of the law to wrench back our democracy from those who want to cheat at election time. The Act reads: "The Fair Elections Act [p]rotects voters from rogue calls and impersonation ...; [g]ives law enforcement sharper teeth, a longer reach and a freer hand...; [c]racks down on voter fraud...; [m]akes rules easy-to-follow for all...; [a]llows small donations in, and keeps big money out; [r]espects democratic election results....;[u]pholds Free Speech...;[p]rovides better customer service for voters ..." And the descriptions end with this statement: "The Fair Elections Act will make our laws tough, clear and easy-to-follow," said [Minister of State for Democratic Reform Pierre] Poilievre. "It will make life harder for election law-breakers, and put the focus back on honest people taking part in democracy."
Yikes...so it seems that there are whole bunch of people out there who are evading the law, wreaking my democracy, cheating me out my representation, confusing me, and causing me all sorts of misery when I vote. If all of this were the case then this legislation would make a lot of sense. The problem is that there are not a lot of people out there evading the law, or wreaking my democracy or...well, you get my point....This legislation creates the impression that we need the state to protect us from some mass electoral fraud.
What we really need is for the state to take more care to ensure that agencies that run, staff, and advertise elections have the resources, tools and training they need to make the electoral system secure. How do I know this? Well, I read the report written by Harry Neufeld called the, "Compliance Review: Final Report and Recommendations A Review of Compliance with Election Day Registration and Voting Process Rules" http://www.elections.ca/res/cons/comp/crfr/pdf/crfr_e.pdf This report has been cited a number of times by the Conservative government to support their claim that we need protection. This, despite the fact that even Neufeld himself said that the government has been "misrepresenting and ignoring his recommendations."
An article in the Ottawa Citizen by Joan Bryden entitled, "Author of report touted by Poilievre contradicts minister on voter fraud" made the case that the Minister continues to insist that voter fraud is an issue. Bryden writes, "Poilievre said he assumes Neufeld will be called as a witness before the committee studying his bill. But he made it clear he won't be swayed by his testimony. "The reality is that Canadians believe there should be good voter identification rules to ensure that people vote only once and only in the ridings in which they live," he said."
There is no doubt that a liberal democratic state should ensure that elections are fair and that the public has a high level of trust in the electoral system but the "fair elections act" appears to be built on a straw-man argument. And just a quick note...the Neufeld report is a fairly easy read. It does a great job of outlining the origin of polls and makes some very sensible suggestions for securing our electoral system. I would encourage you to read it as you consider the Fair Elections Act.
