Also, why on earth do you sell a bare-legged Halloween costume in Canada? These people have been outside in late October, right?

Without getting into the specifics of Ms. Brosseau's case, how about a discussion on the general question of residency? I know U.S. Senators must be residents of the state in question, and I don't think asking candidates to be residents of the riding is too onerous a burden for qualification. The definition of residency would be simple enough to agree to - the prime minister and deployed service members can register to vote in their home ridings, so cribbing from those would be a good starting point.

It's not a perfect solution, but it would at least eliminate the worst cases of token candidates; or, perhaps more accurately, assure the token candidates had at least a minor connection to the people they seek to represent. Parachute candidates typically have greater financial support/investment and would probably not be affected. But it would be a start.

For official polling stations, certainly. And if a scrutineer shows up to a place where ballots are being collected, an EC official certainly doesn't appear to have any grounds under the Act to refuse that person entry - with the single exception being that a candidate already has two representatives present. The two-per rule is firm except for the brief period of time when the candidate enters a polling station to vote.

I was initially a bit perplexed by EC's decision to discourage these sorts of initiatives, but it's beginning to make more sense the more I think about it. Parties might want similar events at senior's residences, town halls, schools, and you can't turn down some requests and accept others for fear of perceived bias. The burden on returning officers would be massive.

A quick point on scrutineers: Candidates are allowed to have up to two representatives at any official polling station, but the presence of these representatives (or scrutineers) is not a legal requirement for the collection of valid ballots. From Section 137 (2) of the Canada Elections Act:

Non-attendance of representatives
(2) The non-attendance of a representative of a candidate at any time or place authorized by this Act does not in any way invalidate any act or thing done during the absence of the representative if the act or thing is otherwise duly done.

If the presence of scrutineers was required then a minor candidate who thought he or she was going to lose could invalidate an entire election by simply not participating in the scrutineering of ballots or the collection process.

This is a fairly common misconception - just thought I'd clear it up.

"Oda licks the fry salt off a used plastic tray" is a Liberal party talking point? Wow, this election is going to be interesting.

No, Jim Maloway wasn't a Member of Parliament then.

Solution: make drones smaller than womp rats.

I don't gain anything either, really, I just think part of the problem with the system in general is that we (and here I'm referring to citizens generally and the media specifically) are so focused on parties and leaders that we keep forgetting that the only people we directly elect are our Members of Parliament. Party policies influence my vote, certainly, but they aren't the only thing I consider. Which is why I find it galling that the vast majority of what's available from professional media outlets covering federal politics comes down to Party/Leader A versus Party/Leaders B, C and D.

We get yearly reviews of ministers of the crown from half the newspapers in Canada. How many do the same thing for their local MPs?

So anyway, I tend to bring this up on occasion, to general annoyance - it wasn't intended to be an attack against you, as I'm still up-voting all of your posts that I see on general principle, given your unfortunate encounter with the followers of the Columnist Who Must Not Be Named.

Far be it from me to interrupt the gleeful savaging of the straw man you've constructed, but I was simply pointing out that we still vote for our MP - who in most cases is associated with the party - not the party itself. So when you said, and I quote, that "you either vote for a party, vote for another or don't vote," I simply thought some clarification was in order, particularly since we've got an MP in the House these days who was elected as an independent by his constituents.

Sometimes. In one provincial election I knew a candidate personally, and voted for him in spite of our disagreements on some policy issues, because I thought he would be a great addition to the legislature in general. He was thoughtful, articulate, and always willing to have his beliefs challenged by a well-stuctured argument. Naturally, he was crushed.