In a narrow 4-3 recorded vote, Centre Wellington has decided to use internet/telephone voting for the 2018 municipal election.
Council’s decision on April 24 came one month after its rejection of the mail-in vote option that had been in use since 2003.
In favour of the internet/telephone vote were Mayor Kelly Linton and councillors Mary Lloyd, Steven VanLeeuwen and Don Fisher.
Voting against were councillors Kirk McElwain, Fred Morris and Stephen Kitras.
In March, arguments were made supporting a return to the tradition of casting paper ballots at local polling stations.
When the issue came before council again on April 18, council spent considerable time discussing a revised report that offered three options:
– internet/telephone voting at an estimated cost of $139,500;
– combined internet/telephone voting and paper ballots, at an estimated budget of $165,500; or
– a traditional paper ballot voting system with electronic tabulation, estimated budget $174,000.
Clerk’s report
A report from municipal clerk Kerri O’Kane notes that in 1996, the Municipal Elections Act was amended to permit the use of alternative voting methods and tabulation equipment, in lieu of, or in addition to, the traditional ballot system of voting.
In 2014, survey data from the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario (AMCTO) indicated the use of alternative voting methods by municipalities is growing with the most popular alternative method being vote by mail, followed by internet/telephone voting and touch screen voting.
Councillors were shown a video that detailed the process of internet/telephone voting and how each voter would vote according to their electoral region.
O’Kane stated there are several providers of such a service and all are relatively simple to use. She said council had the option of a hybrid using both internet/telephone votes in addition to paper ballots.
Her report outlined the pros and cons of each option.
Councillor Kirk McElwain asked if the internet voting was limited to only voting day – or done over an extended period of time.
O’Kane said internet voting has opened up to allow voting over a three-week period.
McElwain questioned why the extended time is necessary. He contended the issue of the mail-in votes was that residents had voted even before candidates had the chance to make household campaign visits.
O’Kane explained the three-week period was to allow residents more time to vote. At 8pm on election day, the voting would close.
Councillor Mary Lloyd questioned the additional $25,000 budgeted (in all three options) for staff time to work on the voters’ list.
O’Kane said that during the pre-budget discussions, there was talk about the inaccuracy of the voters’ list. That list, she said, is still provided by MPAC and “is imperfect at best.”
She said other municipalities have brought in a dedicated person to manage the list.
O’Kane agreed the list would never be perfect, because of constant changes in the local population. She recommended hiring someone on a six-month contract – “to get our voter’s list in the best possible shape.”
McElwain asked if the cost of the internet vote was the same as the mail-in vote.
O’Kane said that to date, the municipality only had ballpark quotes but, “The thought is that … the first year is more expensive because of staff training and advertising costs.”
Councillor Lloyd introduced a motion to accept Option 1 – voting by internet/telephone only.
McElwain said even though the hybrid option of internet/paper costs more, such a move would provide time for people to adapt for the following election.
Lloyd, who favoured a two-week voting window, said she is concerned “if we send out too many choices it will add more confusion for the electorate.”
O’Kane clarified, “council picks the method, but staff determines the process.” She added the hybrid version is how municipalities “dipped their toes in the water” before moving to electronic votes.
“The problem is that you are basically running two full and separate elections,” she said. “You need to be prepared for the maximum voter turnout (with either method). That is why the costs are higher.” She explained that under the hybrid version all those showing up to vote on election day would cast a paper ballot.
Councillor Fred Morris did not see offering more options as confusing voters – “They would simply decide how they want to cast their ballot.”
He added, “If we want to give our voters the maximum opportunity to vote in the way they prefer, it would be best achieved by option 2.”
He indicated he understood that would mean running two elections, “But perhaps we need that data to determine which type of system the community favours.”
Morris said it was unfair to assume what worked in other jurisdictions, will automatically work in Centre Wellington.
VanLeeuwen clarified that residents coming into the office would still get assistance. O’Kane said there would be kiosks set up. She said she did not believe the office would be able to offer both internet and paper options on voting day.
VanLeeuwen said it was more important that residents were getting assistance to work at the kiosk.
O’Kane said there is the potential of offering kiosks at the seniors centre, community centres and libraries – all fully accessible buildings.
Fisher said that even if council chose internet voting only, people can still show up at the municipal office until 8pm.
“The only difference is that instead of a paper ballot, they would be using an electronic kiosk,” he said.
O’Kane said she believed the only reason people would come to the office would be that assistance is needed, or they are not on the voting list.
Linton asked if there are any challenges with the PIN numbers and identification.
O’Kane said the PIN is specific to an individual with the identification code being the person’s birth date and other key steps.
She noted the information is encrypted and “the voter identification and ballot are stored on separate computer servers, so they are always separate.” She compared it to the secrecy envelopes used in the mail-in voting.
Kitras remained concerned about residents voting early. He found it troublesome that the voting period is determined by staff.
“I feel [council] should be able to determine the time in which the election happens,” he said.
O’Kane said the extended time is for the benefit of the voters.
McElwain said he understood that concern with the mail-in vote, but stated “internet votes can be done at the final minute. There is no advantage for an early window for e-voting.”
O’Kane said, “this is about the voter – not the candidate.” She said the theory is that lower voter turnout could be to the advantage of a specific candidate. She agreed the extended period could be challenging to candidates who choose to knock on doors.
“You might need to get more creative in your method of reaching voters … or you might have to get out a little earlier.”
Fisher said council does not want to be seen as inadvertently creating a system that favours incumbent politicians. At the same time, Fisher agreed part of the need for the extended voting period do not apply to internet voting, as long as residents are aware of the voting deadline.
Morris said on voting day at the last election, there were long lineups. He asked which would be faster – a tutorial on operating a kiosk – or simply providing one’s name and identification and getting a paper ballot.
“Are we creating a potential gridlock by having electronic voting on election day?” Morris asked.
O’Kane said getting on the voters’ list is what takes the time, noting, “No matter the voting method, that form has to be filled out and authenticated.”
She said bringing in someone to address issues with the voters’ list would keep lineups to a minimum.
Mayor Linton added “for me, the bottom line is to make it as easy as possible for people.”
