“Mr. Speaker, one of the proposed measures in the bill stipulates that voters may not sign nomination papers for more than one candidate. In other words, they may sign only one paper. However, this could have an unintended consequence, because, up until now, signing a candidate’s nomination paper has not necessarily been seen as an endorsement of the candidate, but rather as support for their right to run for office. If we limit this to a single person, it will effectively become an endorsement of the candidate. On the one hand, this raises concerns about ballot secrecy. Voting would no longer be secret. On the other hand, it will somewhat limit emerging parties. Do we really need this measure? We do not think so, and we believe the other measures will be sufficient to address the high number of nomination papers.”
Statement grade
C+
The average of Signal, Relevance and Clarity.
Average 66 / 100
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Procedure 10%Anecdote 38%Claims 25%Reasoning 27%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 8 wordsto me this is not really a problem.ProcedureAnecdote · 29 wordsI once signed a nomination paper for a candidate who was running against me.It was the Green Party candidate in my riding.I did vote for myself though.AnecdoteClaims · 19 wordsI heard that, in 2011, NDP candidates in Quebec stopped people in the street to sign their nomination papers.Unearned certaintyReasoning · 21 wordsThat tells me that people are prepared to sign these papers to express their support for the process, not the candidate.
