Mar 212012
 

The “robocall scandal” may be important—time and facts will tell—but it’s certainly not the most important danger to our democracy. Protecting the individual citizen’s right to vote matters… but protecting the integrity of that vote, itself, is far more important.

Elections Canada works hard—maybe too hard—to ensure that everyone gets to cast a ballot; but it doesn’t seem to value the integrity of that ballot nearly as much.

Here are some examples:

Elections Canada sends agents to shelters and under bridges to sign up homeless voters; but it’s not nearly as diligent about ensuring that the person who casts the ballot is qualified. You don’t really need to prove your identity; you can vote by mail, for example. You can vote on the basis of another registered voter vouching that you are who you say you are. The possibilities for fraudulent voting are enormous.

And to go back to those homeless voters for a moment: how many homeless people actually care about being able to vote? How many would be happy to swap their registration cards to an agent of one of the many Left-wing “social justice” campaigns for a mickey of rye? Yes, such an exchange would be illegal; but who is watching? Can Elections Canada guarantee it doesn’t happen?

Voter Identification Cards are often left in bundles in the lobby of apartment buildings, rather than being delivered into individual mailboxes; that’s manna from heaven for any irresponsible and overzealous campaign workers; they can do more with a few of those VICs than with thousands of robo-calls.

In their admirable zeal to ensure that they don’t deny a ballot to anyone who’s qualified to vote, Elections Canada has lowered the standards for verifying that eligibility. And I think they’ve lowered the standards too far.

I’m Ron Gray, and that’s how I see it.

Mar 182012
 

Taxing SEX!

Gangsters, Robocalls,

PC=InSaNItY, Sick Courts &

Part 3: The VPD fails!

 

RKR Flash Drive with Mark Hasiuk

Monday, March 19, 2012 at 7:30 pm:

 

This Day In History: Glorified Gangster Guns Himself Down

  

   Mark Hasiuk recounts the rise and ignominious fall of Frank Nitti, Al Capone’s muscle man, and draws parallels between Nitti and many of today’s pop icons. Why are so many people drawn to criminals and thugs as objects of admiration? Why are kids targeted as an audience for such poor examples of human achievement?

 

   How can we expect more from our children when we stand on the sidelines and cheer their adulation of today’s Frank Nittis?

 

RoadKill Radio News

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 at 7:30 pm:

 

Culture Guard SpecialVPD Fail #3: Prejudices and Special Protection from the VPD

 

This is the third of our 3-part series dedicated to Vancouver Police Chief Constable Jim Chu, whose police force has once again shown its bias and unprofessionalism in dealing with serious complaints from citizens.

Culture Guard President Kari Simpson presents to Ron Gray inter-office emails from the VPD that prove a personal bias against Mrs. Simpson. Inspector Mario Giardini clearly tells others inside and outside the police department that Mrs. Simpson is a liar, which alone is an actionable case of libel unless he can prove his statements to be true. Click here to view Kari’s demand letter.

To compound his error, Giardini calls on “the community” to send “a strong message” to Kari. Isn’t it punishable by law to incite someone to commit acts of violence against another?

All the while, the VPD was conducting a sham “investigation” of charges that they made up and attributed to Kari Simpson, further impugning her integrity.

Chief Chu, is the Vancouver Police Department completely out of your control, or do you endorse this behaviour by your subordinates?

 

RKR Flash Drive with Ron Gray

Wednesday, March 21, 2012 at 7:30 pm:

 

Zeal versus Voting Standards; Robocalls Are the Least of the Problem

 

  Ron Gray questions Canada’s ability to preserve the integrity of the ballot. While Elections Canada goes to great lengths ensuring that everyone registers to vote, does it apply nearly the same effort to ensure that votes are cast and counted legally?

 

  Does voting by mail or by voucher taint actual voting results? Are voting vouchers being sold for a quick buck? Who benefits from such time-tested and underhanded tactics? Certainly not democracy!

 

  Who needs “robocalls” when Elections Canada is too lax to monitor and prevent more obvious avenues of voter fraud?

 

RKR Flash Drive with the National Absurder!

Thursday, March 22, 2012 at 7:30 pm:

 

 When Political Correctness Bites Its Own Tail

 

RoadKill Radio’s National Absurder, Jim Lawter, makes a few observations about the recent INSANE trend of Gender Switch Days in our public schools. Why not just call them “Ridicule” Days? Better yet: stop wasting time and teach our children how to read!

 

RKR Flash Drive with Kari Simpson!

Friday, March 23, 2012 at 7:30 pm:

 

Why We MUST Tax SEX!

 

Here’s a tease!  Log on to hear the rest.  We here at RKR admit this is scary, but strangely sensible!

 

“As Canadians, we’re a tolerant bunch. We’ve embraced the right of individuals to indulge in behaviours and activities that are known to do personal harm.

 

A sex Sin Tax would be great! It is civil, compassionate, tolerant, diverse and fair. If implemented properly it could result in a tax windfall for the government…”

 

RKR Flash Drive with Ron Gray

Saturday, March 24, 2012 at 7:30 pm:

 

 Canada‘s Courts are Sick

 

RoadKill Radio and Culture Guard host Ron Gray identifies a growing and very serious problem in Canada: The Courts are starting to make their own laws! What is the point of the Parliamentary process of making law when any judge can merely toss the law aside and put his or her own spin on it?

 

Ron suggests a simple solution, but it’s up to citizens to tell their MPs that they want this problem fixed NOW!

 

Important Shows that go beyond Talk!


WHERE: Listen/watch – http://www.roadkillradio.com

EMAIL THE SHOW: Roadkillradio@live.ca

Your Calls, Your Thoughts, Your Opinions, Your Outrage is welcome!

ALL SHOWS ARE ARCHIVED, LISTEN FOR FREE!!!

Feb 262011
 

Spending up fourfold, even as fewer voters cast ballots
By Amy Minsky, Postmedia News

OTTAWA, Feb. 18, 2011 (PostMedia) — Spending at Elections Canada more than quadrupled over a decade, growth the agency says is a symptom of major legislative changes and minority governments.
Overall spending, expected to reach $138.6 million this year, is up from $32 million in 1998-1999. If an election is called, the cost will grow by ±$350 million more.

The portion spent on programs—which goes toward enforcing party financing rules, public education and redrawing electoral boundaries, among other things—has swelled more than tenfold since the late 1990s. It’s expected to soar to $30.9 million by the end of this fiscal year, from $2.6 million in 1998-1999.

Ironically, the agency’s spending has grown even as voter turnout at federal elections has dropped. But experts say the spending spurt and the voter drop-off aren’t related. Elections Canada explains the spending pattern by saying it has been responsible in recent years for overseeing several complicated changes to the Canada Elections Act. These have included a ban on corporate donations, limits placed on individual contributions and legislation forcing voters to prove their identity and address before casting a ballot.

Additionally, the series of minority governments since 2004 has forced the agency to “be prepared at all times to conduct a federal election,” Elections Canada spokeswoman Diane Benson said.
Even so, Elections Canada also has consistently underestimated its annual budgeting requirements.

In the past five fiscal years, it has asked for a total of $105 million in extra funding—excluding 2008-2009, an election year that increased the estimated spending by an additional $350 million. Not counting that year, the additional funds requested represented increases of between 14 per cent and 46 per cent compared to the agency’s initial budgetary estimates. “Probably in itself, $100 million is not very much money,” said Conservative Senator Doug Finley. “But in relation to the annual moneys budgeted by Elections Canada, that seems to be an inordinate amount of (extra) money to ask in terms of your annual budget.”

For many federal agenies, requests for additional money must be voted on and approved in the Senate and the House of Commons. Other agencies, such as Elections Canada, however, do not require this sign-off. The agency operates with this independence in order to remove any implication of political partisanship when funds are voted, said Treasury Board expenditure management expert David Enns.

As the costs of programs and elections have ballooned, voter turnout has decreased. In the 1984 election, 75.3 per cent of the electorate cast ballots, while in the most recent election, only 58.8 per cent voted. The 2006 election was the only exception, when turnout increased by roughly four percentage points over the 2004 election. “You can’t really hold any one person or group responsible for the decline” in voter turnout, said Bruce Hicks, an associate with the Canada Research Chair in electoral studies.
“People have become more cynical. We’re seeing self-serving politicians and government corruption. And in Canada, rapid elections have caused fatigue. All of this has tapped into a disengaged voter.”

Regardless of how many people show up to vote, Elections Canada has to run the election. And with the current heightened election speculation, much of the funds Elections Canada requested this year will help prepare for a general election, Enns said. “Also, they use the funding for conducting by-elections, and specifically, this year there were three,” he said.
But federal by-elections are not uncommon.

“Since I have been involved in politics, there have been byelections pretty well every single year,” Finley said in response to Enns’ statement. “I know my party budgets accordingly . Why is it that Elections Canada seems incapable of doing this?”

ELECTIONS CANADA’S CASH
Program spending at Elections Canada has increased by more than 10 times since the 1990s.

FEDERAL ELECTION TURNOUT
Fewer and fewer eligible voters have shown up at the polling booths.

Feb 182011
 

The Ottawa Citizen reported Feb. 18, 2011 that Elections Canada’s spending has increased four-fold in recent years, at a time when voter turnout is declining.

In the 1984 election, 75.3 per cent of the electorate voted; in Canada’s most recent election, only 58.8 per cent showed up. (The 2006 election was an exception, with voter turnout up four percentage points over the 2004 election.) Overall spending by Elections Canada, $32 million in 1998-1999, is expected to reach $138.6 million this year. In an election year, add another $350 million. Program spending—the cost of enforcing party financing legislation, education, revising electoral boundaries, and improving computer mapping, etc.—has increased more than tenfold since the 1990s. It’s expected to reach $30.9 million this fiscal year, up from $2.6 million in 1998-1999.

Most of those increases are not Elections Canada’s fault. For example, the Conservative government passed a law fixing election dates, then broke its own law. Parliament’s changing regulations on voting—for example, banning the burqa at the polls, while not requiring voters casting absentee ballots to prove their identity—have sometimes tied EC in knots.

Problems surrounding Canada’s elections are the result of a lack of focus. Elections Canada is so determined to ensure that everyone can vote, they send teams to find homeless people under bridges and sign them up. The turnout among those “voters”—whose identity and “residence” are almost impossible to verify—is, of course, appallingly low. But there aren’t enough of them to bring the participation rate down as drastically as it has fallen.

While the four parties in the House of Commons, all chasing the same polls, come closer and closer to convergence—the “Conservatives” policy looks like a reprint of the Chrétien Liberals’ “Red Book”—the downstream media’s exclusive focus on the four parties in the House, that share $30 million a year of taxpayers’ money, leaves voters asking, “What’s the diff?” and staying home.

The media have simply failed to fulfill their responsibility to inform the electorate about all their options.

Meanwhile, Elections Canada should focus less on giving a ballot to anyone who wants to vote, and focus more on protecting the integrity of the ballot, by requiring anyone who wants to vote to prove they are eligible.

What’s required is a Voter Identification Number (VIN). The Social Insurance Number (SIN) won’t work, because Ottawa never gave it the protection needed to protect privacy; the SIN was only supposed to be used for access to government benefits, but Ottawa didn’t make other uses illegal—so when employers and financial institutions found it useful, there was no privacy protection. If you wanted to get a mortgage, you had to give up your SIN. The VIN should only be accessible to Elections Canada—by law, with severe penalties for unauthorized access.

While we’re at it, people who have shown contempt for the law—convicted felons—should not be allowed to help choose those who will have the power to make and revise those laws. Giving convicted criminals the vote was arguably one of the stupidest rulings ever to come out of our Supreme Court. Nor should they be allowed to draw pensions (although dependent families should not be cast into penury when their putative bread-winner is incarcerated; felons convicted of non-violent crimes should to be made to work, so they can pay restitution to their victims and support their families—but that’s another issue).

If carefully pre-qualified voters had an electronic voting card—or better, a biometric identifier—it wouldn’t matter if they wore a suit of armour to the polls. In the meantime, we need to recognize that the burqa is not required by the Qur’an. If Muslim women fear for their modesty, they should be allowed to show their picture ID and their faces to a female poll official.

That’s the least of our electoral problems!

Feb 182011
 

The Prime Minister’s plan to end direct taxpayer subsidies to federal political parties—by which the parties already in the House get almost $30 million a year from taxpayers who may or may not want to subsidize them—is sound. It just doesn’t go far enough in correcting the basic error.

Thomas Jefferson said, “It is tyrannical to compel a man to pay for the promulgation of ideas with which he does not agree.” By that dictum, Canada’s funding of political parties is wildly tyrannical.

But it doesn’t have to be. We can both have public funding and end the tyranny. Here’s how:

Our income tax return forms should include a statement something like this: Two dollars of your taxes will be used to help support the democratic political process in Canada. You may designate which registered federal political party receives your $2. If no party is designated, your $2 will go into a non-partisan fund administered by Elections Canada, to teach students and immigrants how Canadian democracy works.

Under such a plan, the cost to taxpayers would be no more than it is now; but not a penny of any taxpayers’ money would be spent for the support of politicians whom s/he does not endorse.

An ancillary benefit would be that, without waiting for the next election, taxpayers could give politicians an annual “report card” on how well they are representing the electorate.