Electronic Voting Blamed For Quebec Municipal Election 'disaster'

This was the first time I've heard of voting terminals in Canada.

Hopefully the last too. A bunch of big-brains (including Ed Felten, one of my personal heroes) from MIT showed how the 'Secure' Diebold terminals could be hacked with basic tools (undetected) and that could lead to the introduction of a vote-stealing virus. (Assuming one wasn't present already). These terminals were also allowed to be taken home by election officials overnight!!

Quebec didn't use the same terminals, but it's obvious from the audit that e-voting is no time or money saver. Even the paper-trail enabled e-voting.

---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

I realize this is off-topic but it is marginally related. I understand that Parliament has passed a law requiring government photo i.d. in order to vote. No one I have been talking to shares my concerns but this represents a major change in traditional voting rights in Canada.

In our system the right for a citizen to vote cannot be denied. What many people do not realize is that no one, until the adoption of this law, could prevent someone from voting. A party agent could challenge the vote and have that challenge recorded in the poll book. If there were enough challenges an investigation could be required and the election could be over-turned or allowed to stand in accordance with a public process.

The examples of acceptable government i.d.s given are passports and driver licences. For most of us that would not be a problem but there are potentially thousands of Canadians without that form of photo i.d. The effect is that unless the government provides free i.d.s a fee will be required in order to vote. Would that be constitutional?

The incremental attempts by the establishment to control every aspect of liberal democracy for reasons that are not totally transparent have me extremely worried. It does reveal a distrust of the general public and the previous honours system.

I thought the biggest problem in Canada was the declining propensity of people to vote not that there was a major problem with people casting illegal votes.

"But it's too late to question the results, Blanchet concludes."

Nonsense!

"I understand that Parliament has passed a law requiring government photo i.d. in order to vote. No one I have been talking to shares my concerns but this represents a major change in traditional voting rights in Canada."

Yes, I share your concern. No Elections Canada official had the right to ask you for ID, now it will be manditory.

It is good in some ways - it verifies that the correct person is excercising their social obligations. It also verifies that a specific person voted (ie: it verifies you physically).

---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

"I understand that Parliament has passed a law requiring government photo i.d. in order to vote. No one I have been talking to shares my concerns but this represents a major change in traditional voting rights in Canada."

This is being done probably as a step towards advancing a national id card.

From what I read under the new rules, if you don't have a photo id, then you have to present two approved types of id (what they are is unclear), or if without a photo id or the two approved types of id, you have to swear under oath that you are who you say you are (so no problem if you are homeless or refuse to carry id around or whatever), BUT you will also need to have someone who is a "qualified voter" to vouch for you, so you could be denied the right to vote if no "valid voters" know who you are AND you have no approved ids.

>>This is being done probably as a step towards advancing a national id card.

That and/or harmonization for the NAU. I had no idea this was even being discussed in Canada but in the US, it is (or at least was) a big issue, for exactly the same reasons. Not only does it in effect apply a fee to vote but also possibly excludes many people from voting by putting up barriers to cast a ballot. We've already seen what can happen in a democracy when there are barriers to voting. ie Florida 2000
That's all we need is more reason for people to not vote.
I see no reason for it and do not share your opinion Dr, on the need to ensure that people aren't casting multiple votes. You only get one voter registration card!

---
Everybody got to deviate from the norm