I'm sure there's some legal precedent indicating why materially encouraging people to vote in general is considered as bad as getting them to vote for a particular candidate, but I'm not sure how significant it is and if it still holds water today.
This is proof that there is no such thing as common sense. There is learned sense and clearly she has not learned it....
(10-19-2018, 08:19 PM)KevinL Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sure there's some legal precedent indicating why materially encouraging people to vote in general is considered as bad as getting them to vote for a particular candidate, but I'm not sure how significant it is and if it still holds water today.
I think the obvious answer is that you can target citizens likely to vote for your preferred candidate depending on what incentive you offer.
So while it is easy to beat up on a city staffer because they sent an email, let me give you some perspective....
I used to work with someone who was the one in charge of the election. That person is PERSONALLY responsible for the election under the Act. They are open to lawsuits, etc. IN ADDITION to the city. So they can choose to ignore The Museum (which I agree was a creative marketing ploy that really stood to do zero harm to the election), however, if a candidate who lost decided to sue the Chief Elections Officer for failure to ensure that the Act was complied with, his/her life would be complicated in ways I wouldn't want to deal with. Much easier to send a cease and desist letter. The current holder of the job (Christine Tarling) is a city solicitor, so I don't blame her one bit for covering her "legal" butt.
Coke
(10-26-2018, 10:03 AM)Coke6pk Wrote: [ -> ]So while it is easy to beat up on a city staffer because they sent an email, let me give you some perspective....
I used to work with someone who was the one in charge of the election. That person is PERSONALLY responsible for the election under the Act. They are open to lawsuits, etc. IN ADDITION to the city. So they can choose to ignore The Museum (which I agree was a creative marketing ploy that really stood to do zero harm to the election), however, if a candidate who lost decided to sue the Chief Elections Officer for failure to ensure that the Act was complied with, his/her life would be complicated in ways I wouldn't want to deal with. Much easier to send a cease and desist letter. The current holder of the job (Christine Tarling) is a city solicitor, so I don't blame her one bit for covering her "legal" butt.
Coke
Good comment. I would add that often people just assume that they can do whatever, when in fact there are long-standing rules governing how things have to be done. This is especially true around important procedures like elections. The Museum should have checked on the legality of their proposed promotion before beginning it. They are a big enough organization that they can be expected to do some due diligence; they aren’t a kid’s lemonade stand.
Isn't that a provincial issue though?
(11-13-2018, 12:50 AM)Spokes Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't that a provincial issue though?
Unless, through some miracle, the federal government figures out how encourage federally regulated railways (ie who operate across provincial boundaries) to better accommodate passenger operations.
I think there was some discussion about Bill 66 elsewhere, but I can't remember which thread. In any case, I've seen referenced that the open-for-business by-law would only apply if it can be shown that 50/100 jobs will be created (depending on the size of the municipality). I've read the proposed legislation, and I can't seem to find this in there. Does anyone have anymore insight into that condition?
(12-13-2018, 04:11 PM)jamincan Wrote: [ -> ]I think there was some discussion about Bill 66 elsewhere, but I can't remember which thread. In any case, I've seen referenced that the open-for-business by-law would only apply if it can be shown that 50/100 jobs will be created (depending on the size of the municipality). I've read the proposed legislation, and I can't seem to find this in there. Does anyone have anymore insight into that condition?
Regulation 013-4239:
https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/013-4239
Claiming it would "unnecessary overreach on our parliamentary democracy," Cambridge MPP - and Progressive Conservative - Belinda Karahalios voted against Bill 195, which includes giving the government powers to enact changes without legislative approval.
As a result, she is no longer with the party.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener...-1.5658084
One would be wise to prepare for suffering regardless of who wins the upcoming provincial and next federal election. Dark days ahead ...