On February 4, the Harper government unveiled its proposed Fair Elections Act, which, among other things, claims to simplify regulations, give law enforcement more autonomy, and increase the donation limit to campaigns. One of the more notable provisions would significantly strengthen voter identification requirements and dispose of the previous provision that allowed for voters to take an oath and present a witness in lieu of a government-issued document. These events have attracted controversy, with a lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Witold Walczak, warning that the reforms could pose a serious threat to the civil rights of many Canadians. Last month, Walczak helped to overturn a similar law in Pennsylvania, where a judge declared the reforms unconstitutional.

Walczak’s comments are best understood in context of America’s long history of conflicts over voting rights. In the U.S..suffrage was not effectively realized until 1965, with the implementation of the Voting Rights Act. In the months leading up to the November 2012 presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, several states enacted new, more restrictive voter ID laws allegedly aimed at combating voter fraud. However, many observers, especially those on the left, interpreted these measures as a thinly veiled attempt by Republican lawmakers to depress turnout among certain demographic groups; after all, those most greatly impacted by the laws were students, recently naturalized citizens, and those in poverty—all of whom are crucial elements of the Democratic voter base.

Now, similar accusations are being made against the Conservative Party in Canada. It’s important to note, however, that the proposed changes in Canada are far less restrictive than those of their American counterparts. Under the Canadian version, voters will still be allowed to present 39 different forms of official identification, including phone bills or bank statements. By comparison, the Pennsylvania law required a document issued by the State Department of Transportation, making obtaining acceptable proof of identity significantly more difficult.

In assessing the necessity and appropriateness of these measures, it is crucial to consider the prevalence of voter fraud in both countries. In the United States, the question of whether voter fraud is a real issue is widely disputed, but most sources claim that there is little evidence of significant deception by voters themselves. In fact, one study even claims that from 2000 to 2012, there were only 10 documented cases of voter impersonation, a microscopic number in a country with average voter turnout of more than 100 million. In Canada, there has been at least one documented event involving voter impersonation; during the 2011 Canadian federal election, a polling division officer and clerk in Ontario knowingly vouched for several voters illegally.

While reforms like the Fair Elections Act have the potential to bring about marginally cleaner elections, they also may yield damaging effects that must not be brushed aside or discarded. These include a likely decline in turnout, as indicated in an analysis published in the Harvard Law and Policy Review, and a general sense of alienation among targeted minority groups.

One of the groups most directly impacted by these reforms in Canada is Aboriginal Peoples—particularly those who live on reserves and lack government-issued documents proving their place of residence—as well as seniors who reside in nursing homes and students, who often relocate seasonally. For these groups, the changes will be significant, and may cause logistical problems for interested voters, as well as loss of interest in political participation for many others.

Despite the fact that Canada’s reforms are milder than those passed in the United States, it is always better to err on the side of caution than run the risk of denying hundreds of thousands of people a basic right, enshrined in Section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Strengthening electoral laws will not increase the integrity of elections if it disenfranchises specific groups of people. Because of the relative lack of conclusive evidence that voter fraud is a major problem, pursuing this cause so forcefully is a misguided step for the Harper administration. Ultimately, any democracy that celebrates its commitment to the protection of civil rights should recognize that nationwide voter suppression is a far greater threat to liberty than voter fraud has ever been.

I was sitting in a conference in the basement of the Birks building, staring through the floor as the TA mumbled something about critical thinking… and I suddenly noticed that one of my classmates was still wearing his boots.

As a rule-following person in general, I’ve followed the Birks rule of removing my shoes upon entrance since hearing about it in first year. I had assumed it was to protect what look to me like nice marble floors in a beautiful building, but it wasn’t until earlier this year that I noticed the posters about the risk of slipping on wet stone floors and the ambulance ride that might follow. “Ah,” I thought to myself, “how sensible! If all of us wear our boots inside, the floors will be slippery from the snowmelt, and someone could break their neck while coming down the stairs. What smart staff we have.”

The risk of slipping and the clearly-displayed posters about it make the decision to remove my boots obvious, to me. So, why hadn’t my classmate? There, in my political science conference, the economics side of my brain switched on and delivered the answer: moral hazard.

After the 2008 financial collapse, everyone was talking about moral hazard. Technically speaking, moral hazard is the “lack of incentive to guard against risk where one is protected from its consequences.” In other words, if I’m gambling with someone else’s money, I will care less about the risk of losing it than I would if it was my own.

This is especially true where there is a cost to caution. Taking off your boots takes effort and time, two things not easily parted with for a harried student late to conference. There are also the risks of theft and of stepping in someone else’s icy snowmelt while protected by nothing but soft, absorbent cotton.

At the same time, my still-shod classmate is guarded against the consequences of leaving his boots on. Because few people do so, there isn’t much snowmelt for him to slip on, and slipping on his own wet footprints would require a walk of Monty Python-esque silliness. The discomfort of squelching through cold water in socks is also avoided, as is the risk of theft. So, he saves the ‘costs’ of caution and experiences none of the consequences by clunkily tip-toeing around the rules.

This idea, call it moral hazard or whatever else you will, explains why there are always a few that work against the interests of the whole in group settings. Whether it’s leaving an insured car unlocked in a sketchy parking garage, taking up smoking after taking out health insurance, or selling bundles of worthless loans to elderly pensioners, moral hazard is everywhere. It is enabled by global commerce and perpetuated by self-interested hunter-gatherer brains mismatched with collectively-minded societies—though to be fair to capitalism, it also makes communism unworkable.

To solve moral hazard, we need to catch transgressors, whether red-handed or red-booted, and punish them to dissuade further offences. Monitoring can be tricky; thankfully, punishment is quite easy. Legal measures may spring to mind first, but public shaming is sometimes even more effective—hence historical combinations like stockades and tomatoes. Modern forms of shaming exist as well, though usually in more whimsical forms. For example, the aptly-named Antanas Mockus, former mayor of Bogota, hired mimes to ridicule jaywalkers and litterers. His program was a massive success, dramatically improving traffic flows and tidiness in the city.

Once we have that sorted out, maybe we could take off our boots without fear once again.