Well, it's after midnight, so I guess election day is finally here. There didn't seem to be too much interest here in talking about the campaign, but I guess with the quality of the campaign we just experienced, I can see why.
Some conversations have happened, and they were full of vitriol so I decided to take my election comments to other sites.
I post on CBC.ca every day, and am composing a very long post on another forum, since enough people have asked about the conservative parties we've had... which requires a history lesson to explain.
There are also questions about coalition governments and a bizarre couple of posts by a lesbian member who went on a rant about how ineffective minority governments are. So I'm pointing out that the Canadian flag, Canada Pension Plan, Medicare, decriminalization of homosexuality, and same-sex marriage were all brought in during minority governments - the first four under Lester B. Pearson, in the 1960s when the NDP supported the Liberals and Pierre Trudeau was the Minister of Justice (I'm old enough to remember Trudeaumania in 1968). Same-sex marriage was brought in in 2005, when Paul Martin was PM.
It's actually when we get overwhelming majority governments that things tend to get <m>ucked up. Just think back to all the things Harper couldn't do when he had minority governments that he finally did when he got a majority. One of those was the UnFair Elections Act... which is still messing up people in the target demographics.
How's this for messed-up election rules? I'm a physically disabled voter with mobility issues that prevent me from easily accessing a polling station and I absolutely will not trust Canada Post with my ballot. I qualify for an in-home special ballot.
In 2015 I had one hell of a time making the Returning Officer understand this. She asked a series of impertinent questions she had no right to ask, and then said I'd have to get someone to vouch for me. So after trying and failing to find anyone qualified to do this (my neighbor lady didn't mind vouching for me, but refused to register to vote so that was that - the person doing the vouching has to be eligible to vote at the same polling station the disabled voter would vote at if they weren't disabled). And get this: Harper did away with vouching for homeless people, effectively disenfranchising them, but required vouching for disabled people in their own homes.
So I called the campaign office of the person I intended to vote for... and he didn't even know that in-home ballots were a thing (this is something that Elections Canada makes no attempt to tell anyone about unless you happen to count mentioning it in Chapter 12.12.1 of the Elections Officers Manual pertaining to people who don't vote the regular way). He did ask one of his workers who lived in this district to help me, though, and it's thanks to her persistence and willingness to tell off the Returning Officer that I finally got to vote.
Fast-forward to this year... and the vouching bullshit is still there. The reason this is so stupid for in-home special ballot voters is this: Vouching is for people who don't have any of the proper forms of ID and/or can't provide an address. To require vouching for someone who can't get this service
without proper ID and who is clearly voting in their own home is nothing short of a dictionary full of synonyms for "utter stupidity."
The next bit of bullshit makes me absolutely livid. This is new this time, and I would really like to know what moron came up with it. In short, I was denied my right to a secret ballot.
The way in-home special ballots work is that an Elections Canada team comes to the disabled voter's home. The ballot is the same as the mail-in kind, and instead of marking an "X" next to the candidate's name, you have to write the candidate's name down on the ballot, and seal that envelope and insert it in another envelope with your signature that states you've voted so your name can be crossed off the list at the actual polling station (one of the checks against voting twice).
Or at least that's how it worked in 2015. The way it happens this time is that Elections Canada doesn't give a damn what your disability is. You are assumed to be unable to read or write. The Elections Canada workers read the list of candidates to you. You're not allowed to read them for yourself. AND THEN YOU ARE REQUIRED TO TELL THE ELECTIONS CANADA WORKERS WHO YOU'RE VOTING FOR AND THEY WRITE THE NAME ON THE BALLOT FOR YOU. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO WRITE THE NAME YOURSELF. Not even if you're perfectly able to read and write.
When I objected to this, I was told, "That's the rules." I asked who I should contact to make a complaint and they handed me a large piece of paper labeled "Incident Report" and was told I could write out my complaint and they would take it with them to the Returning Officer (in what universe does it make sense that I can write out my own complaint about not being allowed to write my choice of candidate on the ballot?).
I asked them this very thing, and they oh-so helpfully offered to write it for me. I told them, "You don't have the time to wait while I do this, because it's going to be long enough for an essay." They said they couldn't leave the paper with me, but we compromised: They took down my contact information on the report form and said I could email the Returning Officer with my comments, they'd print it out, and attach it to the report form.
So that's what I did, pointing out the sections of the Elections Canada website that state voting in Canada is by secret ballot, which I wasn't allowed to do, the nonsense of having to be vouched for in my own home, and that I understood that the business of reading the list of candidates to the voter and writing the name on the ballot makes sense if the voter is blind or paralyzed or has some other disability that prevents reading/writing. But if that's not the case, the disabled voter should have the
choice to ask for this kind of help, and if they don't need it, that decision should be respected.
When I objected to this earlier, the woman at the Returning Officer chirped, "Well, it
is a secret ballot - it's a secret between the three of you." Um... no. It's not. And while they showed me the ballot to prove they wrote down the name I wanted, it's still unacceptable for them to know it at all. And they went into this song and dance that my actual ballot would be separated from the envelope with my name on it, so the ballot would not be connected with me, but I told them that's not the issue. I used to be a Deputy Returning Officer in the '80s and '90s and the basic procedures haven't changed. I know I can trust the people counting the votes. I just object to the fact that I was required to reveal my choice to anybody, period.
When they arrived at my place and said they were going to read me the list of candidates, I told them, "Don't bother." I had the Elections Canada website on my laptop, on the page for my riding. I pointed to the list on that page, and said, "You don't have to read me anything. That's the list right there, and I can read it for myself." And when they wanted me to tell them the name, I handed them a piece of paper. I told them that I'd prefer to write it on the ballot myself, but since I wasn't allowed to, I'd written it down anyway - and they could just copy
that.
I did get my objections sent to the Returning Officer, who emailed back to say he agreed with me that it didn't make sense to have to be vouched for in my own home, when I had proper ID and that he understood my frustration over not having any choice of marking the ballot myself. He said he would pass my comments along to Elections Canada.
In the meantime, I've been spreading the word on CBC.ca about disabled voters' rights (as I did in 2015) and explaining some things that new Canadians don't know or new voters (kids just turning 18) don't understand. Some of my home care nurses aren't citizens yet (they're from the Philippines) so they're asking lots of questions about how it all works and how I decide on who to vote for. It'll still be a few years before they're allowed to vote, but it's good to see the interest. The apathy from Canadian-born citizens is appalling.
It should be entertaining to see what shenanigans might get pulled. There were plenty in 2015, including a poll supervisor who decided not to bother opening the polling station until 11 am rather than 8 am, the supervisor who ordered the Canadian flag flying outside to be taken down because it "might influence voters to vote Liberal" (the polling station was in a school), and the one who threatened to fire any of the workers wearing a maple leaf or flag lapel pin unless they removed them (2015 was the 50th anniversary of our flag). Apparently in 2011, a poll supervisor kicked a scrutineer out because her hair was dyed red (obviously intended to influence people to vote Liberal, right? The joke was on the supervisor, once it was revealed that she'd booted out the scrutineer who was working on behalf of the Conservatives.)
The most recent polls I've seen show still almost a statistical tie between the Liberals and the Conservatives, which is pretty much where we were back at the beginning of the campaign. The Conservatives apparently have a slight edge in popular vote, but the Liberals have a slight edge in seat count. And the consensus seems to be that no one has a real chance at a majority. But polls have been wrong before, and, of course, it all depends on who actually gets out to vote. So I guess we'll see what actually happens in less than 24 hours.
At least this is one election when I'll turn on the TV when the polls close here and not know who actually won. Mind you, the rules have changed now as far as revealing results in time zones where the polls haven't closed yet. The internet age means it's impossible to prevent influencing voters in the Central, Mountain, and Pacific time zones because we'll already know the results from the other three time zones. On the news tonight, the anchors were saying that it might actually come down to British Columbia this time.
It's interesting to think that we may end up with a prime minister who is an American citizen. Has that ever happened before?
Not an American. We did have one modern-era PM born in the UK (John Turner).
I really don't like Trump having any possible leverage over a Canadian Prime Minister like this. Scheer should have renounced his American citizenship years ago. Actually, he should have renounced his Canadian citizenship and moved to the U.S. since his attitudes are more like theirs.
Happy voting, for those of you planning to vote (if you haven't already done so at an advance poll). And for all of us, well, good luck. The next few years could be bumpy.
Some cities are offering free transit today, so more low-income people might vote. My city is, but at first they said that the disabled transit service was exempt from the free rides. I called City Hall and told them this wasn't fair, that disabled people vote, too, and some did take the Action Bus to the polling station. If regular transit was free, the Action Bus should be free as well.
I'm happy to say that's one argument with City Hall that I won. Not that I need it myself since I've already voted, but it might help some other people.
As for who I hope will win... yikes. Somebody, please build a time machine so we can go back enough years to make sure Jack Layton never got cancer and died. If he was still alive, he's the only one I'd definitely want to be the Prime Minister.
My predictions: Unless the people who responded to the polls were lying, it will be a minority government. Who it will be in favor of, I have no idea. I'm really hoping that if the Bloc gains seats, it will be at the expense of the Conservatives, rather than the Liberals or NDP. A Liberal minority, supported by the NDP is what I'm hoping for.
As for specific candidates... please let Jody Wilson-Raybould get tossed off her extremely self-entitled high horse. I can't stand her, and that constant whining from her family that any time anyone says something negative about her, they're obviously a racist/colonizer. Why can't we dislike her just because she did a lousy job of coming up with legislation regarding MAiD? Or that it's unethical to record phone calls without the knowledge of the person on the other end of the line? Or how about her sitting on files pertaining to wrongfully convicted prisoners for months, when her successor dealt with them inside of a week? When I read about that, I had to wonder if the affected prisoners were native or non-native.
Ours goes to the Children's Health Foundation, which I was more than happy to support!
At least if she stays an independent, she can't do any more damage.
I can't believe she said that! 
TBH, I wasn't really familiar with the in-home ballots either, but the way they're choosing to handle it certainly doesn't sound right.
