Персональные инструменты
Вы здесь: Главная → Regions & Countries → Countries and Territories → Canada
UNDEF Logo

supporting partner of the ACE Regional Centres

Canada

Результаты поиска

Элементов, соответствующих Вашему критерию: 90

Подписаться на всегда обновленным кормов из этих поисковых запросов

Все результаты

ACE Информационные ресурсы

  • Identification of voters wearing a veil
    This question relates to how to reconcile the right to vote on the one hand and the right to wear a veil covering your face for religious reasons on the other. The question was posted on 9 November 2007.
  • Contributors to the consolidated replies
    The ACE Practitioners’ Network is being developed and we are currently preparing for a piloting phase. Our plan is to initially involve in networking activities a limited number of experienced experts known to the ACE Partner organizations. The Pilot is expected to last for 6 to 9 months, after which – based on lessons learned – participation in the Network will be expanded to a broader number of experts, based on a number of qualifications. While developing the technical structure and functions of this website, we have engaged a small group of election practitioners in a pre-pilot phase, with the aim to start testing the "Ask A Question" facility and the generation of consolidated replies.
  • Professional Development for Election Managers
  • Election Administrators: Building Skills and Credibility

Тематические исследования и отчеты

  • Canada: Election Campaign and Party Financing in Canada (2004)
    Case Study by Anthony Sayers and Lisa Young, University of Calgary on new legislation on party funding in Canada and elections expenditure
  • Canada: British Columbia - Empowered Citizen Participation
    This case study presents the unique experiment undertaken by the Canadian province of British Columbia, a process on electoral reform: the government gave a randomly selected group of citizens - the "Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform" - the opportunity and responsibility to independently review the electoral system and have its recommendations submitted to the public for approval at a referendum.
  • Canada: A Case Study on the Electoral System (1997)
    Author: Milner, Henry
  • EMB independence and the origin of independent election administrations
    Question: This question was posed by an ACE user through the "Ask a question" function in Electoral Advice. I am doing research on electoral management bodies (EMBs) and the evolution of the independent electoral commissions. At the moment I’m trying to understand who first adopted the model of an Independent EMB in the world. I know Latin America has a really strong and old tradition of independent EMBs, but reading the Indian debates for the 1950 Constitution I also learned that the Election Commission of India was build looking at the Canadian experience, especially the Dominions Act of 1920. What is the origin of independent EMBs? What country did first adopt and independent electoral management body (EMB)?   Any thoughts you might have on this topic are most appreciated. Reply: Posted on 10 May, 2007. This question received 1 reply from Dickson Bailey . His contributions have been merged into the Facilitators' reply. First of all it is important to define the term “independent EMB”. In the context of electoral management the term independence embraces two different concepts: structural independence and ‘fearless independence’, where: (1) Structural independence: is about an EMB being independent from the executive branch of government. It is a formal independence that can only be found in the constitution or the electoral law and; (2) ‘Fearless independence’ (or behavioural independence): is a normative independence of decision and action that is expected of all models of EMBs in that they do not bend to governmental, political or other partisan influences on their decisions. It is important to remember that an EMB under the independent model does not necessarily act independently in its decisions and actions, and that an EMB under the governmental model may be independent in its actions, even thought it can be difficult and is more unlikely. A ‘fearless independence’ can not be guaranteed only by adopting a structurally independent model EMB, but to some extent the two forms of independence may however be linked as Independent Model EMBs are regarded as most likely to ensure an EMB’s independence of decision and action. The electoral management model used by a country is an important factor in EMB behaviour, but far from being the only one. You can legislate structural independence, but you can’t legislate independence of decision and action. Fearless independence is part of an EMB’s institutional culture and it must be nurtured.  Click here to see factors that influence EMB behaviour. Normally when the term independent EMB is used, it refers to the structural independence.     The origin of independent electoral management structures Independent electoral management bodies were first developed during the 20 th century in the Americas. In Uruguay, Chile, Colombia and Costa Rica, for example, the transition from oligarchic governments to more liberal democracy in the first quarter of the 20 th century saw the emergence of new electoral structures which became known as the fourth branch of government because of their constitutionally guaranteed wide ranging powers and responsibilities which among other things included the resolution of electoral disputes. For example, the Uruguayan independent electoral authority, Corte Electoral, was created in 1924 and enshrined in the Constitution of 1934.   A similar structure was also established in Canada in 1920. A key measure of the Dominion Elections Act of 1920 was that it established the office of the Chief Electoral Officer to replace the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. The Chief Electoral Officer was given substantial guarantees of independence and can since the introduction of the Act only be removed for cause on address of both houses of Parliament, in the same manner as a Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada. This was a measure that among other things forged the independence of the office and allowed the CEO to carry out his work impartially, professionally, without fear and favour, and without immediate political pressures. In 1927 the Act was amended to specify a statutory appointment by resolution of the House of Commons. Instead of being appointed by the government of the day all incumbents since then have been appointed by unanimous resolution of the House of Commons.   As for the case of Asia, India was the first country to set up an independent Election Commission in 1950. Election Commission of India is a permanent Constitutional Body which over the years has become well known and gained good reputation for its ‘fierce independence’ and impartiality.   Other countries that established independent electoral commissions before the 1980s include Kenya and Malta (1960), Ghana (1968) and Bangladesh (1973). However, due to democratic retrogression in Kenya, Ghana, and Bangladesh, the independent EMBs were politically compromised and never exercised their independence until these countries introduced democratic electoral reforms in the 1990s.   The independent Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), for example, was established in 1984. Before that the Australian Electoral Office and was established as a branch of the Department of Home Affairs.   The second half of the 20 th century also saw many former colonies around the world gain independence and hold first elections based on universal suffrage. Unfortunately, many such countries, especially in Africa and Asia, did not stay the democratic course and reverted to authoritarianism and one-party rule. Despite this democratic retrogression, these countries together with the communist-ruled Eastern Europe, continued to hold elections even under authoritarian regimes. But such elections were ‘show elections’ which only fielded and returned candidates from the governing party. Such elections were staged (or stage managed) to present the facade of popular support for the governing party when in fact fair elections could have ousted the incumbents. The executive, through the ministry of interior, was responsible for managing elections in countries which were under authoritarian rule as in Eastern Europe, Eurasia, the pacific and Africa.   Despite the democratic setbacks in said parts of the world, regions such as the Caribbean and also a handful of African countries such as Botswana, Gambia, and Senegal, have since independence in the 1960s remained under democratic rule and have held successive credible elections. Until recently, elections in these countries were run by the executive, such as through the office of the supervisor of elections in the case of St Vincent and Grenades, and Botswana, or the election directorate in the case of Senegal, Gambia, and Jamaica.   Beginning in the early 1990s, the end of the Cold War and the reduction of military and economic aid from developed countries brought a new wave of democratization, popularly known as the ‘third wave’ of transition elections, especially in parts of the African and Asian regions. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 also fomented political reform which led to the breakup of the Soviet Union and the establishment of democratically elected governments in Eastern Europe, the Caucus and central Asia.    Democratisation in many of the countries which for a long time were under authoritarian and military rule meant the introduction of, among other things, institutional reform, which included the writing of new constitutions, change of electoral systems, rules, and structures.  Widespread citizen distrust in the ability of government ministries to administer elections without favoring the government parties – many civil servants were seen as corrupted by previous undemocratic regimes - led to persistent calls for independent bodies to run elections in these newly-founded democracies. This period saw the setting up of independent EMBs in countries such as:      Indonesia (1999) Cape Verde (1999) Nigeria (1999) Antigua and Barbuda (2001) Georgia (2001) Yemen (2001) Afghanistan (2003) Iraq (2004) South Africa (1994) Uganda (1995) Burkina Faso (1995) Thailand (1996) Fiji (1998) Ukraine (1998) Cambodia (1998)     The only part of the world which remained impervious to the wave of democracy and elections which hit the world during the late 20 th century is the Arab World. With the exception of a few countries (such as Turkey, Albania, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Nigeria, Mali, Senegal, Niger, Djibouti, Afghanistan and recently Iraq).    With the exception of Yemen, Palestine, United Arab Emirates, Afghanistan and Iraq, which set up independent electoral management bodies between 1992 and 2004, elections in the Arab World are run directly by the executive ( governmental model ). In Djibouti elections are run by the executive under the control of a supervisory commissions ( mixed model of electoral management ).   As for the rest of Asia, most of the countries have independent electoral management structures. Japan, Laos, Vietnam, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Timor-Leste and the Maldives are the exceptions.     Quote from the ACE Encyclopaedia on Independent EMBs:  "Institutional or ‘structural’ independence can only be found in the constitution or law. The simplest way to promote independence of decision and action in an EMB is to create a legal framework that embeds EMB independence, as provided in the constitutions and principal EMB laws of many countries. This may or may not be feasible, depending on the EMB model, but to merely cherish and respect the independence of an EMB without further measures being taken to safeguard that independence is in critical times often insufficient. Links to related resources: ACE Encyclopaedia: “What an Independent Model EMB is, may be and is not” Electoral Management Design handbook (International IDEA) Canada: Stability, Independence and Public Trust (case study from International IDEA’s ‘Electoral Management Design’ handbook) India: The Embodiment of EMB Independence (case study from International IDEAs ‘Electoral Management Design’ handbook) Uruguay: The Electoral Court - A Fourth Branch of Government (case study from International IDEAs ‘Electoral Management Design’ handbook) Electoral Management Bodies as Institutions of Governance by Professor Rafael López-Pintor (UNDP) Comparative Election Administration in the Pacific – an article on the electoral management structures in the pacific and the legacy of the colonial power. Bringing Democracy to the Arab World (article in FrontPage Magazine)   Contributions were received from: Dickson Bailey Joram Rukambe   THANKS TO ALL WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED! The opinions expressed by members of the ACE Practitioners' Network do not necessarily reflect those of the ACE Partner organizations.   ACE PRACTITIONERS' NETWORK
  • Voting by homeless citizens
    Original question This question was asked by an ACE user from Japan. Under the Japanese constitution, every Japanese citizen over the age of 20 has voting rights. However, in order to vote, the person has to be on the “resident register” (which is the basis for voting rights, as well as social insurance and many other rights linked to citizenship) and last year, in the city of Osaka, the city administration took more than 2000 people off that register on the basis of them not having a fixed address. This has thus in practical terms disenfranchised homeless people. I would like to know about examples of how countries have solved this problem and made it possible for homeless people and others with no fixed address (e.g. a nomadic population) to register and vote.   Introduction: Voter Registration and homeless citizens   Quote from the ACE Encyclopaedia : "Voter registration is the process of verifying potential voters, and entering their names and other substantiating information on a voters list. For registration to be fair, comprehensive and inclusive, potential voters must be aware of the registration process and have reasonable opportunity to complete it."   According to the Guiding Principles of Voter Registration stated in the ACE Encyclopaedia, voter registration exercises must be inclusive - in other words equally accessible to all eligible citizens. However, it might be more difficult to get information about and to carry out voter registration among certain groups of citizens, such as citizens living in rural areas, people with low literacy, economically or otherwise disenfranchised citizens as well as people with no formal address, i.e. homeless citizens (homeless citizens include persons with no shelter living on the street, people living in emergency and temporary shelters and hostels, and so-called couch surfers – people who move regularly, staying for short periods with family or friends). Special measures may be required to break down barriers and make the registration system truly open to such groups, enabling them to take part in the democratic process.   Summary of responses: One common method to enable homeless voting is to allow homeless citizen to use another address  (for example the address of a shelter) when registering. This method is used in countries such as Australia , Canada and the US . With regards to other groups of citizens with no fixed address, Afghanistan employs special measures to ensure that nomad tribes have the opportunity to register and vote, while countries such as Nigeria and Cambodia allow citizens to register with no fixed address as long as they are tied to a specific location (a village or a city). In the US, homeless voting is frequently debated and the National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH) has run a You Don’t Need a Home to Vote campaign since 1992. The campaign focuses on five areas: registration, public education and training sessions, get-out-the-vote efforts, litigation, and state and federal legislation reforms. The NCH also introduced the National Homeless Voter Registration Week with various campaigns to encourage homeless citizens to register to vote.   Allowing homeless citizens to use another address Australia, Canada and the US all employ regulations that allows eligible citizens with no formal address to register to vote by providing an opportunity to register themselves at another address. Australian Electoral Legislation includes provisions for 'itinerant electors', which allows citizens with no fixed address to register, re-register or remain registered for the last address that they were entitled to be registered at. There are also a specific provision for homeless citizens, who can fill in a specific form in order to be registered. More information is available at the website of the Australian Election Commission . The US legislation varies from state to state, but many states (for example Massachusetts) allows registration of homeless citizens if he/she can prove an address where he/she could receive mail. Such addresses could be the address of a shelter or the address of a social institution or charity. The US Veteran Party provides a list of legislation related to homeless voting in various US states . In Canada, an elector must provide proof of identity and an address in order to register to vote. Citizens unable to do so can provide an attestation of residence by the administrator of a local shelter,  provided that the shelter has provided food, lodging or other social services to the elector. This provision has generated some concern among shelter managers that police forces could access the voters lists to find people with outstanding warrants or tickets. Elections Canada has responded that the voters list is not a public document and will only be shared with those who require it for electoral purposes.    Mobile registration centres and polling stations According to Frik Olivier , Afghan nomads (or Kuchis) with no fixed address can register to vote. In order to enable nomad registration and voting, the registration period is normally set to cover the period where the Kuchis travels less. Mobile Registration Stations are set up and Kuchi representatives are consulted when determining the location of these stations. The location of the registration stations is  then conveyed to all Kuchis through various means. There are also polling stations designated for Kuchi voters.   Allocating voters to cities or villages instead of streets Frik Olivier states that in Nigeria and Cambodia , many citizens did not have a formal address either because they did not have a house or because street names were non-existent. For registration purposes, citizens were placed at a location (a village or a city), but without a specific address such as a street name. In order to be placed in a location, the citizen could either provide a legal and valid citizen document (birth certificate, national ID card, passport etc), be listed in any other kind of register (in Cambodia Family Registers maintained by the Head of the house were used) or being vouched for by the Chief of the Village (or similar) and a number of witnesses.    Replies were received, with thanks, from:     Peter Williams Ammar Al-Dwaik Frik Olivier Livianna Stephanie Tossutti   Links to related resources:    On homeless citizens, registration and voting ACE Encyclopaedia: Targeted Registration Case study: Homeless Voting 2008 - Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless Website: National Coalition for the Homeless Website: Information about enrolling and voting for people experiencing homelessness (AEC) Electoral Materials: Canada: The Electoral Participation of Persons with Special Needs On Voter Registration ACE Encyclopaedia: Voter Registration ACE Encyclopaedia: Guiding Principles of Voter Registration    Image: flickr/ All Halley's Eve
  • Electronic Voting Systems - UNDP DGP-NET Consolidated REPLY
  • Links Relevant to Effective Electoral Assistance
    Originally Annex 2 of the paper, this is a hyperlinked collection of further readings.
  • Professional Development for Election Managers
  • Enhancing Women’s Participation in Electoral Processes in Post-conflict Countries
    The report "Enhancing Women’s Participation in Electoral Processes in Post-conflict Countries" by the Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women, Department of Political Affairs, 20 February 2004, EGM/ELEC/2004/ REPORT

Номер и источники

Практикующие Сеть

Не нашли то, что вы искали?

Задайте вопрос к членам практики Сеть ask an election related question - get professional advice
Действия с Документом

© 1998-2009 ACE project

Powered by Plone CMS, the Open Source Content Management System