A Million Voters Could Be Disenfranchised

Thanks for this, as a rural resident whose address consists of a lot & concession number and postal address is an RR#, I wonder exactly what these cityfied folk consider a suitable address. I wonder if getting on the voters list in the first place will also be affected or if , as in the recent Ontario election, a voters registration card and photo ID will be sufficient. Strange they always seem to be able to accept my address on my income tax returns. I will be keeping an eye on this one!

---
When you are up to your ass in alligators it is difficult to remember that the initial objective was to drain the swamp

Elections Canada has only one million voters affected because they don't have civic addresses. However, there is another segment of the voting public that has civic addresses but their photo I.D.s have their mailing addresses not their civic addresses. It is not clear whether these addresses, such as rural routes or box numbers, would be acceptable. My photo I.D. only has my mailing address, not my civic address which is probably the one that Elections Canada would be using.

I just looked at Bill C31 which seems to be the legislation in question and it is not at all clear what this is all about. It clearly says CIVIC address shall be on the voters LIST, but so far as identification at the polls only says "address" without specifying. Same old, same old its all open to interpretation, I did not find any definitions of what they mean by those terms.<br />
<br />
See <a href="http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=2722944&Language=e&Mode=1&File=27">http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=2722944&Language=e&Mode=1&File=27</a><p>---<br>When you are up to your ass in alligators it is difficult to remember that the initial objective was to drain the swamp

The revisions do leave a great deal up to interpretation.

With all the debate over the issue of facial identification it is evident that there are sections of this legislation that are poorly worded. Some MPs have found fault with the idea that people were allowed, in the last election, to use things such as a telephone or cable bill to establish residence.

I wonder whether this legislation was designed be used by the federal government to force us to agree to some form of national identity card?

"... to force us to agree to some form of national identity card?"

My thoughts as well.

There's another use for this poorly worded legislation and the obvious problems for voters without a suitable address. The subjectivity of the interpretation of the law can be used to force out voters that are expected to not vote in the desired fashion. That's one of the tactics used to corrupt US elections.

I don't plan on voting anymore, so I don't care. For myself as an individual, voting is a waste of time under the current system because it makes absolutely no difference if I vote or not. Do the math, look back at every election you participated in, and ask yourself what difference would have been made had you not bothered to show up. If you think that your vote actually counted for something, than I'd like to know which election you tipped over by casting a vote.

Under the current system, I already have no choice but to let others decide the outcome of future elections, an established fact no matter if I participate or not.

There are ways to make individual votes count, but until there's something meaningful in place, that's it for me. One benefit is that my name won't show up on those voter lists which are used for such wonderful things as forced jury duty and who knows what else.

Dont know about that, I think it was simply that they did not understand the complexity of rural addressing. Here in SW Ont I have 3 addresses, Postal, Lot & Conn, and Road / Fire code, and each piece of ID uses or requires different parts of that. This is further complicated by the almagimation of townships in that there may be more than one plot of land with that lot & consession in the municipality! Others in more remote areas may have none of the above.
It may be more like "the place with the red barn just past the old Smith place the other side of Wet Lake". The fact that the barn has faded to brown, the Smiths move 20 years ago and Wet Lake has dried up has no impact upon the directions. LOL

---
When you are up to your ass in alligators it is difficult to remember that the initial objective was to drain the swamp