Wednesday, May 13, 2009

The Day After The Night Before...How Does That Disenfranchisement Look Now?


Do you, by chance, happen to remember a little thing called "Bill 42" that Gordon Campbell's government rammed through the legislature last spring by invoking closure to cut off any and all meaningful debate?

If you do, you probably remember that it was called 'The Gag Law'.

But what you may not remember is that it also contained those egregious ID laws whose potential effects Jody Paterson described thusly:

Certainly some of the proposed changes to the (British Columbia) Election Act ought to give us pause, as they'll disenfranchise an estimated five per cent of potential voters -- some 170,000 people. The revised act prevents people from voting unless they have a home address and government-issued photo ID to prove it.

Obviously, those changes will be felt disproportionately by poor people: Those living on the streets; people who can't afford ID; people who change residences frequently......"

All of which, when you have a herd media that doesn't care about things that actually matter, is, apparently, neither here nor there.

But, one remaining question is why?

Why did we and/or Gordon Campbell need such a law?


The reactionaries and the screamers amongst love to shout stock retorts like:

"To Stop Voter Fraud, You Nincompoops!"

Which, of course, is codswallop.

And Ms Paterson called it out as such last spring:

You could argue that requiring voters to have ID listing their current address is necessary to prevent fraud. But as the (2006-07) Elections B.C. annual report also points out, there's no fraud going on.

The agency combed through the 1.7 million votes cast in the 2005 election and deemed 44 worthy of more investigation.

But all they found when they took a deeper look were confused elderly people, mistakes by Elections B.C. staff and a few folks who were too sick to know they'd made a mistake.

"Elections B.C.'s conclusion is that there was no intention to vote fraudulently," concluded the report......



If fraud was demonstrably not the driver, why did Mr. Campbell do it?


Think about the following for a moment....

What if half of those folks, say 80,000 poor, sick or elderly had voted yesterday?

And if they had, which way do you think they would have swung....

....Dipper or LINO?




Next time out we'll give you another reason 'why'....A reason that it, in my opinion at least, contributed to the overall popular turnout falling to 50%.


No comments: