There are no dead voters in Newfoundland!

For the past few days I've been thinking quite a bit about the enforcement of electoral law at the federal level in Canada.  Consequently I've been reading about the offences that have been investigated/prosecuted over the past 20 years.

While after every election we tend to find that there are a handful of financing/advertising related cases, I was pretty shocked to see that duplicate voting seems to be one of the most common offences (and even as one of the most common offences there are only, at most, a handful of cases dealt with by Elections Canada after each general election).

Finally today, and I really don't know why it took me this long to make it here, I decided to see if provincial electoral laws had similar conviction/infraction patterns.  Not surprisingly, I decided to start my investigation in Newfoundland.

After quickly skimming Newfoundland's Elections Act and finding the relevant sections I made my way over to CanLII to see if any of the relevant sections have been cited in any cases in their database (I had to use this imperfect approach because unlike Elections Canada, Elections Newfoundland and Labrador does not have a section of its website that includes such information).

Anyway, the CanLII information was quite revealing.  Apparently there are no cases that cite the passage about duplicate voting (which I feel I must include here for its humour value)

193. (1) A person is guilty of an offence who, at an election,(a)  applies for a ballot in the name of some other person, whether that name is that of a person living or dead, or of a fictitious person;(b)  having voted once at that election, applies at the same election, for another ballot; (c)  votes in more than 1 electoral district; or(d)  aids, abets, counsels, procures or endeavours to procure the commission by a person of an act described in paragraph (a), (b) or (c). 

As it turns out, there weren’t even any cases citing s. 194:

194. A person is guilty of an offence who, at an election, votes or attempts to vote knowing he or she is disqualified from voting or not qualified to vote at that election.

I thought it was also noteworthy that while one of the offences common at the federal level (the failure include a statement from the official agent authorizing the publication of election material) is also against the law in Newfoundland (s. 198) it seems that that section has not been cited in any cases included in the CanLII database.  Overspending expense limits is another potential violation that has come up from time to time federally but not once provincially.

I can’t help but wonder if it is really the case that those involved in the electoral process in Newfoundland are really more law-abiding than those involved in the analogous processes federally?

Or, maybe, it’s not that the case that these infractions aren’t taking place, but that they aren’t necessarily being investigated to the same extent.  If one takes a look at the organizational chart for Elections Newfoundland and Labrador there it isn’t obvious that any of the positions mentioned would conduct investigations into such matters after an election’s results had been made official (though the Elections Act does confer such an investigatory power upon the Chief Electoral Officer, at least in relation to the examination of records relating to party or candidate finances).  And I hope I’m mistaken, but I did not see anything in the act that would conclusively give the Chief Electoral Officer the authority to investigate potential infractions committed by individuals or entities other than parties or candidates (ex. voting for a dead person).

And in case you’re curious, if you ever are found guilty of voting for a dead or fictious person the punishment can be severe. 

208. A person who is guilty of an offence under section 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198 or 199 is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both a fine and imprisonment. 209. A person who is guilty of an offence under this Part that is not an offence referred to in section 208 and for which no other penalty is specifically provided, is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months, or to both a fine and imprisonment.

So I’m not really sure where all of this gets us, but I do feel it’s at least something to know that there isn’t much evidence of Elections Newfoundland and Labrador going after people in the courts for election finance violations, advertising violations, or voting violations.

Referendum day in British Columbia

If my understanding is correct, tomorrow will be both referendum and election day in British Columbia. Unfortunately, I haven't been following the election quite as closely as I would have liked so I don't really know is expected to win, but a third Liberal victory doesn't seem particularly unlikely.

Possibly more important than the election is the referendum on electoral system reform. If approved, by 60% of the voting public with majority support in at least 51 ridings, the result would be the adoption of the single transferable vote (STV) system by British Columbia. Not only would this be a big change for British Columbia voters, who would in future elect MLAs from multi-member districts rather than single member districts, but it would also be an opportunity for other North Americans to see a proportional representation system up close.

While I am not a particularly big fan of STV (for a number of reasons that I won't get into here) I becoming more and more convinced that it would be good for most of North America to see such a system in action (whether it is good for British Columbia is an entirely different matter).

Unfortunately it seems that there has been a great deal of misinformation surrounding this and other PR proposals in North America. This is rather unfortunate as it focuses the debate on matters of relative importance and allow more substantive issues to go undebated. Generally it seems that many of the boosters over state the potential positive impacts, while those opposed to the reforms attempt to spread fear about the danger of the system. While it is likely that such a system would result in more proportional results, it will certainly not eliminate all problems of representation that are experienced in British Columbia at the moment, nor will it lead to a complete collapse of the political system. This system has been used successfully in Ireland for almost 100 years and doesn't seem to be particularly problematic (nor does it seem to be a problem in a number of the other jurisdictions where it is used).

In particular, I feel that it also important to point out that while STV systems are not presently used in a large number of national elections, it is one of the older PR systems and was developed in the 1800s and was supported by John Stuart Mill. So while it may not be as prominent as mixed-member proportional or various list systems, it has a long history and reputable supporters. This is not some new fangled invention without a track record (whether you want what it has to offer is another matter).

I guess my main belief is that we shouldn't blindly use the single member plurality system simply because it is what we have used. After reflection and examination it may turn out that this system, which provides each individual and region with a single elected representative, is the one desired by the majority of the population, but such a decision shouldn't be made before at least considering a few of the alternative systems, some of which seem to work rather effectively in a range of countries.

So I guess for selfish reasons I hope that the referendum passes tomorrow, and I wish that I had put a little more time into this post as I think some of the ideas aren't quite as clearly articulated and developed as I might like. Anyway, I guess by some time late tomorrow evening we will know whether BC has a new government and whether or not they will be making the switch to STV.