apanter@kawartha.net
Return to Kawartha Internet Users' Group
Panters' home page
Bobcaygeon
Canadians, we are told, are world leaders in the use of technology. We now use debit cards more often than cash. We close real estate sales with faxed signatures. We pay bills and buy stocks on the internet.So we would probably vote, from the comfort of our homes, for the chance to vote from the comfort of our homes. According to a recent National Post article, companies selling voting software have already conducted online voting trials in the US. Why not? Privacy and security don't seem to be a concern. And since voter turnout for the Federal election was at an all-time low, maybe we need to make the process more convenient.
Well, here's why not. Democracy is worth a little inconvenience. After an election, there must be no questions in anyone's mind about the veracity of the result. The simpler the process, the fewer the complications. Having participated in the election process as a voter, a scrutineer, a Deputy Returning Officer, and, most recently, a poll clerk, I have concluded that this is one thing our Federal Government has got right. The current debacle in Florida, and the controversy surrounding our recent mail-in Municipal election (which was governed by the Municipal Elections Act) have confirmed my opinion.
Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. Voting must be done in secret, but also in public. In some traditionally male-dominated cultures, men and women vote at separate polls, not to ensure segregation, but to ensure uninfluenced voting. Our federal Elections Act also attempts to eliminate any influence. Voters may be assisted, but such an "assistant" can help only one voter. As one lady stepped up to vote, her daughter said "I'll go along to help Mum". "That's all right, dear", said the mother. "I can manage on my own". I suspect her vote might have been different had her daughter been allowed to "help". With computer voting, or mail-in ballots who knows what "help" might be offered from parents, children, spouses, or even candidates? Regardless of whether this happens, the fact that it is possible makes the results suspect.
Most of the problems we are seeing in Florida result from the use of voting machines. The only advantage to these is that votes can be counted faster. I suggest people would have preferred to wait a bit longer for an uncontested result. At the poll where I served in this last Federal election, 238 votes were cast, and only two rejected. All four people reviewing the results agreed on the rejections: one had two candidates marked, the other had just a pencilled scratch in the left margin.
I heard a blind voter in Florida testify that he had never been able to cast a secret vote. Presumably, the "ballot and stylus" system cannot accommodate the sight-impaired. Elections Canada supplies a template which allows blind people to vote exactly the same way as everyone else: the clerk or DRO reads the candidates in order, folds the ballot so that the template is properly in place, and the voter can then go behind the screen and mark his ballot in secret.
Ballot counting must also be public. We were told we were not allowed to start counting the ballots until at least four people were present: the DRO, clerk and at least two scrutineers. The DRO checked each ballot to ensure it had her initials, then held it up for all to see as she read that vote aloud. The clerk and each scrutineer marked it on separate tally sheets. When all votes had been counted, all tally sheets had to match. In the recent municipal election, mail-in ballots arrived and were counted at various times before the final closing time, and we cannot be certain that scrutineers were always present.
The argument for mail-in ballots (which would also apply to computer voting) in the last municipal election was that this allowed non-residents to participate . However, in the Federal Election, people who couldn't be present on election day could vote at advance polls, or by special ballot. Also, the polls were open until 9:30 pm, late enough to accommodate commuters or cottagers who were motivated to vote. Employers are required, by law, to allow employees time off to vote.
Computer-voting has also been suggested as a means of handling referenda. But we don't need to move to computer voting to have direct democracy.. The Charlottetown referendum was probably the high point of Canadian democracy in the 20th century, and the fact that we know, and trust the results can be attributed to the method by which it was handled: precisely the same as any Federal election.
In fact, this is one issue I would like to see put to a referendum: I'd vote for the original computer: the pencil.