What is the most efficient, cost-effective, inclusive and reliable means of voting in municipal elections? At their March 1 General Committee meeting, Huntsville councillors accepted staff assurances that technology, rather than paper ballots, ticks all of those boxes and should be used for the next municipal election.
A report presented to committee by Manager of Legislative Services, Tanya Calleja, recommended the use of internet and telephone voting for the 2018 municipal election.
Municipal Clerks in Muskoka’s six municipalities worked together on the collective report which has already been presented to councillors in the other five municipalities. Of those, Bracebridge, Gravenhurst and the Township of Lake of Bays have already approved the recommendation and passed bylaws; the Townships of Georgian Bay and Muskoka Lakes are expected to follow suit on March 13 and March 17 respectively.
All six of the region’s municipalities used mail-in ballots for the 2014 municipal elections. In Huntsville’s 2014 Vote-By-Mail election, 7,004 of 12,846 eligible resident voters and 1,207 of 5,005 eligible non-resident voters cast ballots, a participation rate of 46.33 per cent.
In the previous election in 2010, Huntsville used internet voting. A breakdown of resident and non-resident voters wasn’t provided in the report but there were 8191 ballots cast – 46.4 per cent of eligible voters. Of those, 82 per cent voted on the internet and 18 per cent by telephone.
There were issues during that election, which Calleja acknowledged after Councillor Nancy Alcock asked if similar problems were possible again. A mailing snafu by the company hired to provide the internet voting system had some voter PIN numbers visible through the envelope’s address window and the PINs had to be reissued. The system also got bogged down for almost an hour on election day, requiring voting to be extended for an extra hour to compensate. Calleja said that the 2010 provider of the internet voting system was not among the four companies that responded to an initial RFI issued by the Muskoka municipalities for 2018, and that there would be safeguards in place to help ensure there are no issues again. In particular, she noted that the systems have extensive audit capabilities and that voter credentials are deactivated as soon as their vote is cast to prevent a second vote by the same person.
Councillor Bob Stone asked about procedures for a recount. Under the Election Act, a recount must occur by the same method. When paper ballots are cast, they are physically recounted. In internet and telephone voting, the system query that tabulates the votes would simply be run again.
The issue of voter fraud was discussed as well – Councillor Brian Thompson argued that someone could potentially cast a vote for another resident if they had the PIN, to which Town CAO Denise Corry replied, “It is a criminal offence to vote for someone besides yourself… The onus is on the voter to ensure the integrity of their vote.”
Mayor Scott Aitchison ventured that the mail-in ballot seemed to be the ideal solution, noting that its verifiability is fundamental to the fairness of the process and it can be used by non-resident voters who deserve a say as well. But he also acknowledged the need for the municipality to “catch up with the times when it comes to technology.”
Calleja said that part of the impetus for choosing internet and telephone voting was that it allows access for anyone who can’t get to a polling station while requiring fewer staff to administer. Corry added that from an accessibilty standpoint, internet and telephone voting are the only methods that don’t create barriers to a voter’s independent expression of their democratic right.
Municipal staff would be available at Town Hall to help voters who have questions or who would like assistance with voting in a way that still ensures the anonymity of their vote.
You can see the full Muskoka Clerks Report, which outlines the factors considered in their recommendation, here (PDF).
The motion to authorize use of internet and telephone voting for the 2018 municipal election was carried unanimously (Councillor Jason FitzGerald was not in attendance) and will go before Council at its next meeting for ratification.
What do you think, Doppler readers? Let us know in the survey below.
Don’t miss out on Doppler! Sign up for our free, twice-weekly newsletter here.
I had more than one ballot dropped into my mail box , could have voted more than once .
I heard of people who went online and on the phone using same pin number . Dead people who were sent a pin. Under the Ontario with disability ac , one could say they demand accommodation for a paper ballot but were denied . IS this leagal ? Reports by junior hackers that they CAN flip the vote . How were scrutineers able to verify a vote count WE must go back to paper
Very sad to hear after all of the educating our little band did for councillors a few years ago that the next election will have an internet component.
Here’s a short list of entities that have been hacked during the last decade: Microsoft, the Pentagon, the FBI, the US Military, CSIS, (the Canadian Security Agency) the Liberal Party of Canada, the Conservative Party of Canada, the Democratic Party of the United States, the US Congress, the US Senate, Home Depot, Sony, FACC an Austrian Aerospace parts manufacturer, University of Central Florida, US department of Justice, the US Internal Revenue Agency, the Philippine Commission of Elections, Wendys, Dropbox, Oracle, Yahoo, CISCO, Citigroup a bank, Cardsystems a CC processor and on and on. This is a tiny, tiny, tiny part of the list.
How would you do a recount? “… the system query that tabulates the votes would simply be run again.” So if it was wrong the first time, it would be wrong the second time.
Brian Thompson is quite right, with Internet voting you have absolutely no certainty about who is voting. Things might be illegal but that doesn’t mean people don’t do them. Many people in the post office picked up their mail and threw the envelope with the PIN # in it into the trash. There was nothing to stop me or anyone from picking up hundreds of them and voting hundreds of times.
Hacking the town of Huntsville is small potatoes, but if I were a developer and knew that 10 or 20 municipalities were hosting their elections on the same servers using the same software from one company (as happened 2 elections ago) it might be very worth their while to pay to have the election for 20 towns hacked to ensure the election of people favourable to their company’s bids.
If you are concerned about this, use the mail-in voting method. I try to keep informed about this and there is a technology on the horizon which might well ensure a secret and verifiable election process on line. But it is years away and its cost would be beyond that which a town like Huntsville could afford.
Huge mistake. I was on Council when we received similar assurances of performance and security and it was a fiasco and might very well have affected a very close race. Apparently History lesson lost on this Council.
Big mistake.
Many people still are without internet…or sufficiently tech savvy. Too many hacking / wayward ballots
Some without phones..
Mail-in is safe…barring postal strikes…lost mail…but it’s traceable…
Just another example of the sunshine people at Town hall displaying, pardon me, their lack……