You can’t just say, “I think that polling-worker and/or that voter are cheating, and I think that because I have a very strong feeling about it.” Or, at any rate, you can, but you shouldn’t expect to be taken very seriously. If you have a reason to suspect a specific person is engaging in voter fraud, of course you should make a fuss.

I really don’t understand the mentality behind a comment like this. You are saying I have a right to complain if I have evidence to suspect that fraud is occuring. But, at the same time, advocate arranging things so they they are done in private such that I can’t be a witness to any fraud that occurs. There are some rather obvious difficulties with this line of reasoning. You obviously appreciate the right of the public to make complaints, but you don’t see that this right is useless unless they can observe behaviour of which they may wish to complain.

“Are you saying that polling workers are generally tolerant of voting fraud, or generally dishonest? If so, God help our democracy.”

There’s some willful ignorance behing this comment. Of course I don’t believe polling workers are tolerant of voting fraud. Why not? Well, no-one believes poll workers stuff ballot boxes – because they are sealed in public. And no-one believes counts are rigged – because they’re performed in public. Can you see where this is going? People have a lot of trust in poll worker because they do their job in public and people can go along and check their performance. You’re clearly aware of this. So it’s rather perverse or you to use trust which has been gained from the job’s publicness to argue for making aspects of it private.

Was this story primarily a ploy to stir up the less tolerant voters?

That’s exactly what it was.

The Gazette had a few interviews with women who wear the niqab. Their comments were all along the lines of “Of course we’ll show our faces to be identified. It only makes sense. If anyone would have asked us, we would have told them that.”

Le Journal de Montreal manufactured this controversy (not for the first time, either) by asking about women who refuse to remove their niqab, when it seems there are no women who would refuse to do so. They understand that is the law, and are happy to comply with it.

The only problem that could arise is that the government can’t guarantee that a female worker will be available at all times at all polling stations.

The question I have is why are so many people upset by this law if the women you claim are being oppressed or disenfranchised don’t feel that way?

This is all semantics. You either believe that a simple accommodation can be met or you can’t. No grand conspiracies, no secular mongering, no Jihadist movement to take over Quebec…

Just simple basic ettiquette…

Having worked as a scrutineer, I also know that if I witnessed something dodgy, I would have the right to challenge that person. But the final authority would be the head official at the polling place, and if I, say, challenged somebody’s right to vote here on the grounds that, say, I didn’t think they lived in this catchment area, it would be the top Elections Canada person present who would have the right to look at that voter’s ID and verify that they do indeed live where they say they do. If, that is, they objected to me seeing their address. And it isn’t entirely improbable that a voter would rather show their private information to a poll-worker rather than a scrutineer from a party. And it’s certainly not improbable that a voter would object to showing their private information to Random Other Voter.

Let’s get the loaded issue of religion aside and look at this another way. Say when you’re at the polling place casting your vote, another voter comes in wearing enormous sunglasses which obscure much of their face. It’s not unreasonable for the poll worker to ask that person to take off their sunglasses for checking against their photo ID, and if they don’t, it’s not unreasonable for you to notify an official that this polling worker didn’t do so. It’s not even entirely unreasonable to directly ask the sunglasses-wearing voter to take off their glasses, although it is rude (from an etiquette POV, it’s only justifiable if there is no other poll-worker available at the time to whom you can submit your complaint. But while it’s very rude, it’s also legal).

Now, let’s say this person responds by saying they have a problem with their eyes, this room is very bright, and it would be painful to do so. It’s entirely appropriate for a polling worker to ask them to come over to a darker place and take off their sunglasses there. It’s not appropriate for you to demand that you be allowed to come too. The polling-worker is handling it properly.

In your position as a Random Other Voter, you personally don’t have the right to check up on other voters’ bona fides. You absolutely have a right to notify another Elections Canada official if you see a voter engaging in suspected shenanigans, and/or a polling worker not doing their job properly. And if the top official present doesn’t deal with the issue to your satisfaction, you absolutely have the right to phone the Elections Canada toll-free number and complain, or to submit a written complaint, or to go to the media. But you still don’t have the right to make that person prove to YOU that they’re not engaging in shenanigans. They have to prove it to the officials who have sworn to uphold the law.

Are you saying that polling workers are generally tolerant of voting fraud, or generally dishonest? If so, God help our democracy. You can’t just say, “I think that polling-worker and/or that voter are cheating, and I think that because I have a very strong feeling about it.” Or, at any rate, you can, but you shouldn’t expect to be taken very seriously. If you have a reason to suspect a specific person is engaging in voter fraud, of course you should make a fuss. But “she only let that female official look at her face, not me” doesn’t count as a good reason. That’s the official’s bloody job. Let them get on with it, unless you have reason to think they’re betraying their oath and opening themselves up to criminal prosecution.

My point is that many provisions have been made to ensure all voters will be able to vote, whether on election day, in advance polls, or by mail. No one is being disenfranchised. These policies were adopted only after electors with different needs pointed out the problems in the system. I’m sure that this issue will spur Elections Quebec into finding a way to accommodate voters who wear the veil. Elections workers are already trained to accommodate voters with special needs and they can easily be trained to identify a voter wearing a veil without causing offense to the voter. It may not happen by tomorrow, but I have no doubt it’ll be fixed the next time around. Have a little more faith in our electoral system and our poll worker friends, will you?

And in response to nik, before rambling about whether the public should or shouldn’t be able to ensure that the election is being conducted properly, maybe you should do a little reading on how elections in Quebec and Canada are actually conducted. We have scrutineers from each party at all the polling stations. There are a lot of safeguards in place, and relatively low incidences of voter fraud. It’s certainly not Florida.

Anyone care to suggest a reason? There’s a strong case that electoral procedures should be open and subject to public scrutiny. Why is some hocus pocus religion more important than this?