I have reservations about being able to go to any voting location in the riding instead of your assigned one.
Why is this change thought to be necessary, and will it lead to people possibly voting twice or more?
They must think it gives them an advantage, if they put it in there. What advantage, I don't know. Designated polling stations are picked to be the closest an most accessible to the people in a specific area. Why would someone travel so far out of their way to vote at a station not in their area? I can see some instances, like hitting a station near work or while shopping. But those isolated cases shouldn't warrant a change in legislation.
As has been said, when a single party coalition comes back, with ready to go legislation to change the way we vote, it needs to be looked at under a microscope. I would propose a committee of all parties be struck to look at changes or if they are even warranted or needed. The coalition government can then table their amendments for discussion and prove the need for them.
My biggest concern is that these proposals almost mirror current legislation in the US that caused so much angst and mistrust in their last election. There is zero need, here, for extended voting days. We already have more than enough ways of satisfying voter needs, without spending three days watching numbers go up and down while accepting loads of mail in ballots over the period.
Our system allows for scrutinized, hand counted paper ballots. We have been shown capable of counting and determining winners and losers in one day. I see no need to change that.
The one thing I would change is that no winners or numbers should be identified or televised nationally, until the last vote in BC is cast and their polls closed. There is nothing stopping polling stations from counting, so long as all the numbers, covering the whole nation are all released at one time, the next day.
torontosun.com
globalnews.ca
338canada.com
