(Voting is critical to a democracy, but there must be safeguards)
The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.
Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE
Cased in this omnibus bill, C-76 (which Liberals claim they hated while in opposition), is this, which waters down the requirements to vote legally in a Canadian election. From the summary:
Yes, this is what is seems. (e) allows for Voter ID cards to be used as actual ID; (f) without ID, you can just sign an attestation or have somebody vouch for you; (g) means no signatures necessary in advance polling; (h) No oath needed after all?!
Rebutting those claims:
Leftist and social justice types claim that having strict voter ID laws is discrimination, as it makes it harder for poor people, and disadvantaged groups to get their voices heard. These disadvantaged people don’t often have proper ID or paperwork. They also claim that there is no evidence of “voter fraud”, despite what more right leaning people claim. However, these assertions are easily debunked.
(1) How is it discrimination to ensure that everyone voting has photo identification. There is no discrimination for the simple reason that everyone gets treated the same.
(2) Everyone who is a citizen of Canada or a legal resident has some sort of paper trail. They have a birth certificate (if born in Canada), or a citizenship card (if immigrated legally). However, if someone in the country illegally was trying to vote, then they wouldn’t have “documentation”.
(3) Everyone legally in the country is able to get photo ID, and to imply they are unable to is condescending. This seems like a ruse to make it easier for non-citizens to vote.
(4) There is the rebuttal that there are no documented cases of voter fraud. However, if the person is “undocumented”, then there would be no documentation of fraud. Bizarrely, lefties are actually correct about this.
(5) If, as they claim, large groups are unable to get valid photo identification for years on end, should they really be making decisions on the future of the country?
Now, for some of the revisions in the bill:
Alternative proof of residence
143(3) An elector who proves his or her identity by providing two pieces of identification of a type authorized under subsection (2.1) that establish the elector’s name may instead prove his or her residence by taking an oath in writing in the prescribed form — the form including the statement that he or she has received the oral advice set out in subsection 143.1(1) — if he or she is accompanied by another elector whose name appears on the list of electors for the same polling division who
(a) proves their own identity and residence to the deputy returning officer and poll clerk by providing the piece or pieces of identification referred to in paragraph (2)(a) or (b), respectively; and
(b) attests to the elector’s residence on oath in writing in the prescribed form, the form including the statements that
(i) they have received the oral advice set out in subsection 143.1(2),
(ii) they know the elector personally,
(iii) they know that the elector resides in the polling division,
(iv) they have not attested to the residence of another elector at the election, and
(v) their own residence has not been attested to by another elector at the election.
Subsection 143(3) of the Act is replaced by the following:
Name and address corresponding closely to another
146 If a name and address in the list of electors correspond so closely with the name and address of a person who demands a ballot as to suggest that it is intended to refer to that person, the person shall not be allowed to vote unless he or she takes the prescribed oath.
Person in whose name another has voted
147 If a person asks for a ballot at a polling station after someone else has voted under that person’s name, the person shall not be allowed to vote unless he or she takes an oath in writing in the prescribed form. The form is to state the penalty that may be imposed under this Act on a person who is found guilty of requesting a second ballot at an election contrary to section 7 or of applying for a ballot in a name that is not his or her own contrary to paragraph 167(1)(a).
Name crossed off list in error
148 If an elector claims that his or her name has been crossed off in error from an official list of electors under subsection 176(2) or (3), the elector shall not be allowed to vote unless the returning officer verifies that the elector’s name was crossed off in error or the elector takes the oath referred to in section 147 in writing.
Failure to prove identity or residence
148.1 (1) An elector who fails to prove his or her identity and residence in accordance with section 143 or to take an oath otherwise required by this Act shall not receive a ballot or be allowed to vote
Sections 146 to 148.1 of the Act are replaced by the following:
The bill goes on and on. Rather than go through the entire document, here is the takeaway:
The federal government, under the guise of “inclusivity” is watering down the requirements to vote. Demanding photo ID is a necessary step to ensure: (1) that the people voting are who they say they are; (2) that they have the right to vote in an election; (3) that they are not voting multiple times.
This requirement is not excessive, or an unreasonable thing to ask. However, it is an essential step in ensuring the fairness and accuracy of our elections.