0
Time to scrap the mail-in ballot?
11 November 2009
[indent]
Quietly nestled inside last week's consent agenda was a letter that may prove a ticking time-bomb for Collingwood's election process. The letter, from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, informed - warned? - council about upcoming changes to Ontario's Municipal Elections Act.
Changes that could seriously affect the way we hold elections. One of the things that may be on the chopping block is our mail-in ballot. Is it our electoral ball-and-chain? I'll address that further below.
The letter listed several proposed amendments to the Act, suggesting they would "strengthen the integrity of local elections." They'll certain upset the apple cart, since they will come into effect in early 2010, before the next municipal election. These changes included:
The changes don't mention anything about changing the date of inauguration, just advancing the election date by about three weeks. Will that be good - as in allowing existing councils to finish their business in a less-time-restrictive manner? Or bad as in having three more weeks of lame-duck councils? Or worse: a council that, knowing that it's doomed to be deposed, wreaks havoc with new bylaws, new spending and new policies. Common sense would seem to me to dictate moving the inauguration ahead by the same time span.
From the MMAH website, I found this:
Sure, everyone wants more accountability and transparency, especially after this term.
The site further referred readers to the proposed Good Government Act - an ugly compilation of dozens of bits and pieces of legislation conflated into one bill that, I suspect, hides a few sneaky bits inside its overwhelming bulk.
Our mail-in ballot has already come under some fire from residents over its lack of security. After all, it is difficult if not impossible for the returning officers to guarantee that the person who submitted the ballot is actually the voter to whom it was sent. It has also been criticized after the last election when a special-interest group galvanized non-resident but eligible voters to cast their votes for their slate of seven candidates (all but one of whom was elected, by the way). Traditionally, the part-time resident vote was minimal because few made the effort to be here during either an advanced poll or election day to ensure they could vote.
In other areas of the province, similar complaints have been raised. A ratepayers' group called the "Voices of Central Ontario" (VOCO) has a website criticizing the mail-in ballot in general, noting, among other concerns, that, "...There was no provision for privacy or security: for example, there was nothing to prevent anyone voting for a spouse, parent, child or tenant. Despite a wildly inaccurate voters list (eg. duplicate names, out-of-date addresses, and deceased voters), all ballots were sent in the mail, so could be used by whomever received them."
Both concerns apply to our own mail-in ballot.
Problems seem to have been the norm in the 133 Ontario municipalities using a mail-in system. In 2006, CBC News ran a story about the issues, stating that, "A growing number of errors in mail-in civic election ballots has the Ontario government warning municipalities that they need to consult their lawyers.
According to provincial figures, more than a quarter of Ontario municipalities don't set up any polling stations or online voting. Instead, they require all voters to submit their ballots using mail-in kits.
But this year, municipal elections staff are baffled by the high number of mail-in ballot bungles that have made thousands of votes across the province — including about 20 per cent of those in Smiths Falls — invalid."
Twenty per cent is startlingly high. Town of the Blue Mountains got 3,670 ballots and rejected 500 because they didn't have the appropriate paperwork with them. That's close to 20%.
According to a story in the Collingwood Connection, Nov. 7, 2006:
Collingwood's total percentage of spoiled or unusable ballots was much less. It started with approximately 15% of the ballots under suspicion. But 400 ballots were deemed acceptable when the declaration was found included in the ballot envelope (which, however, means these could not be a secret ballot). Of roughly 7,600 ballots received, 700 had to be destroyed as "invalid" (declarations not included). That's still 9%.
Put it another way: 700 Collingwood residents who thought they had voted legally and properly had their ballots destroyed instead of counted because of a procedural gaffe or an oversight.
It shows how fraught with problems and prone to errors a mail-in system is, even in its third run. And it shows how easily a person's democratic rights can be eliminated by a simple oversight.
One of the key proposals in the new legislation for accountability is: "Require voters to provide identification at a voting place." Which could mean that mail-in ballots are disallowed, simply because there is no effective way to guarantee that the person filling out the mail-in form and the eligible voter are the same. Nor is there any way to ensure the secrecy of the ballot - a cornerstone in our electoral system - is respected. Who can guarantee that ballots sent to, say, house-bound seniors or absentee property owners aren't opened and filled in by someone else?
On the positive side, a mail-in ballot might mean a larger turnout, and gives people with mobility challenges greater opportunity to participate. It means property owners and seasonal residents who aren't here during an advance poll or on election day can still vote.*
According to an AMCTO paper, the average turnout for Ontario municipalities in our population group ranged from 8.8 to 58.3% (average 42.2%). Collingwood's turnout was about 46%, which puts it at the top of the average, but still less than half the eligible voters felt motivated to vote.**
Perhaps we had more people voting than we might have had, thanks to the convenience of the mail-in ballot. So it has some advantages if your measure of value is in simple numbers.
But is quantity better than quality? What is democracy worth if someone can't make the effort to vote if it's inconvenient or too much trouble to actually got to a polling station? I think we need to seriously re-evaluate the mail-in ballot. And allow public input in the debate.
The big question is, of course, how our council will make a decision about mail-in ballots. Our track record on changing anything in our electoral process is pretty dismal. The last time an issue was raised - to institute a ward system - it was squashed by council without allowing a word of public input***. Perhaps changing to a ward system or changing from a mail-in ballot would run counter to some vested interests. Those who were elected by large margins in great part thanks to a special interest mail-in campaign might be reluctant to change anything that could reduce their chances of getting back in.
~~~~~
* Prior to the mail-in process, there were systems in place to try to ensure mobility-challenegd people and shut-ins had some method of getting to the polls. They would need to be resurrected.
** Which, I suppose, proves the truism that, in a democracy, people get the government they deserve.
*** I wrote about this stunning, self-serving lack of openness and accountability in an earlier blog post, and about the mayor's opposition to it in another. I don't hold out much hope that the debate over a mail-in ballot will be any more democratic or open to the public.
[/indent]
Changes that could seriously affect the way we hold elections. One of the things that may be on the chopping block is our mail-in ballot. Is it our electoral ball-and-chain? I'll address that further below.
The letter listed several proposed amendments to the Act, suggesting they would "strengthen the integrity of local elections." They'll certain upset the apple cart, since they will come into effect in early 2010, before the next municipal election. These changes included:
Quote
- Move the election date forward to the fourth Monday of October, beginning October 25, 2010
- Create a new contribution limit of $5,000 per contributor in each jurisdiction, in addition to the existing limit of $750 per candidate
- Clarify campaign spending limits
- Eliminate the carrying forward of surplus campaign funds by candidates from one election to the next (current surpluses will be maintained for the next election)
- Improve the accuracy of voters’ lists
- Require voters to provide proof of identity and residence
- Strengthen compliance and enforcement measures through firm deadlines for submitting financial statements and harmonized penalties.
The changes don't mention anything about changing the date of inauguration, just advancing the election date by about three weeks. Will that be good - as in allowing existing councils to finish their business in a less-time-restrictive manner? Or bad as in having three more weeks of lame-duck councils? Or worse: a council that, knowing that it's doomed to be deposed, wreaks havoc with new bylaws, new spending and new policies. Common sense would seem to me to dictate moving the inauguration ahead by the same time span.
From the MMAH website, I found this:
Quote
The proposed legislative changes would:
Specifically, the legislation would:
Stakeholders and the general public were consulted as part of a review of the 2006 municipal election and the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.
The Act is reviewed after each municipal election.
- make local elections more transparent, accountable and efficient.
- create a more level playing field for all candidates.
- promote greater accessibility for voters and candidates with disabilities.
- apply to the election of municipal officials and school board trustees.
Specifically, the legislation would:
- move the election date forward to the fourth Monday of October (October 25, 2010).
- improve the accuracy of voters' lists by providing the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and municipalities with potential access to additional information.
- require voters to provide identification at a voting place.
- ensure that each voting place is accessible to voters with disabilities.
- a new contribution limit of $5,000 per contributor in each jurisdiction, in addition to the existing limit of $750 per candidate.
- for future elections, candidates would not be able to keep surplus campaign funds - surpluses instead would go to municipalities.
- expenses related to a candidate's disability would be campaign expenses excluded from candidate's spending limit.
- a firm deadline for filing financial statements.
- municipalities and school boards required to appoint audit committees to hear and decide on applications for compliance audits.
- strengthened penalties for contravention of the Act (up to $25,000 fine for individuals and up to $50,000 for corporations and trade unions).
Stakeholders and the general public were consulted as part of a review of the 2006 municipal election and the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.
The Act is reviewed after each municipal election.
Sure, everyone wants more accountability and transparency, especially after this term.
The site further referred readers to the proposed Good Government Act - an ugly compilation of dozens of bits and pieces of legislation conflated into one bill that, I suspect, hides a few sneaky bits inside its overwhelming bulk.
Our mail-in ballot has already come under some fire from residents over its lack of security. After all, it is difficult if not impossible for the returning officers to guarantee that the person who submitted the ballot is actually the voter to whom it was sent. It has also been criticized after the last election when a special-interest group galvanized non-resident but eligible voters to cast their votes for their slate of seven candidates (all but one of whom was elected, by the way). Traditionally, the part-time resident vote was minimal because few made the effort to be here during either an advanced poll or election day to ensure they could vote.
In other areas of the province, similar complaints have been raised. A ratepayers' group called the "Voices of Central Ontario" (VOCO) has a website criticizing the mail-in ballot in general, noting, among other concerns, that, "...There was no provision for privacy or security: for example, there was nothing to prevent anyone voting for a spouse, parent, child or tenant. Despite a wildly inaccurate voters list (eg. duplicate names, out-of-date addresses, and deceased voters), all ballots were sent in the mail, so could be used by whomever received them."
Both concerns apply to our own mail-in ballot.
Problems seem to have been the norm in the 133 Ontario municipalities using a mail-in system. In 2006, CBC News ran a story about the issues, stating that, "A growing number of errors in mail-in civic election ballots has the Ontario government warning municipalities that they need to consult their lawyers.
According to provincial figures, more than a quarter of Ontario municipalities don't set up any polling stations or online voting. Instead, they require all voters to submit their ballots using mail-in kits.
But this year, municipal elections staff are baffled by the high number of mail-in ballot bungles that have made thousands of votes across the province — including about 20 per cent of those in Smiths Falls — invalid."
Twenty per cent is startlingly high. Town of the Blue Mountains got 3,670 ballots and rejected 500 because they didn't have the appropriate paperwork with them. That's close to 20%.
According to a story in the Collingwood Connection, Nov. 7, 2006:
Quote
In early ballot returns as many as 25 per cent were found not to have declaration forms, evident and signed, alongside the secrecy ballot. Voters who think they may have made the error, should contact the town hall where the returning officer may issue a new ballot.
Collingwood's total percentage of spoiled or unusable ballots was much less. It started with approximately 15% of the ballots under suspicion. But 400 ballots were deemed acceptable when the declaration was found included in the ballot envelope (which, however, means these could not be a secret ballot). Of roughly 7,600 ballots received, 700 had to be destroyed as "invalid" (declarations not included). That's still 9%.
Put it another way: 700 Collingwood residents who thought they had voted legally and properly had their ballots destroyed instead of counted because of a procedural gaffe or an oversight.
It shows how fraught with problems and prone to errors a mail-in system is, even in its third run. And it shows how easily a person's democratic rights can be eliminated by a simple oversight.
One of the key proposals in the new legislation for accountability is: "Require voters to provide identification at a voting place." Which could mean that mail-in ballots are disallowed, simply because there is no effective way to guarantee that the person filling out the mail-in form and the eligible voter are the same. Nor is there any way to ensure the secrecy of the ballot - a cornerstone in our electoral system - is respected. Who can guarantee that ballots sent to, say, house-bound seniors or absentee property owners aren't opened and filled in by someone else?
On the positive side, a mail-in ballot might mean a larger turnout, and gives people with mobility challenges greater opportunity to participate. It means property owners and seasonal residents who aren't here during an advance poll or on election day can still vote.*
According to an AMCTO paper, the average turnout for Ontario municipalities in our population group ranged from 8.8 to 58.3% (average 42.2%). Collingwood's turnout was about 46%, which puts it at the top of the average, but still less than half the eligible voters felt motivated to vote.**
Perhaps we had more people voting than we might have had, thanks to the convenience of the mail-in ballot. So it has some advantages if your measure of value is in simple numbers.
But is quantity better than quality? What is democracy worth if someone can't make the effort to vote if it's inconvenient or too much trouble to actually got to a polling station? I think we need to seriously re-evaluate the mail-in ballot. And allow public input in the debate.
The big question is, of course, how our council will make a decision about mail-in ballots. Our track record on changing anything in our electoral process is pretty dismal. The last time an issue was raised - to institute a ward system - it was squashed by council without allowing a word of public input***. Perhaps changing to a ward system or changing from a mail-in ballot would run counter to some vested interests. Those who were elected by large margins in great part thanks to a special interest mail-in campaign might be reluctant to change anything that could reduce their chances of getting back in.
~~~~~
* Prior to the mail-in process, there were systems in place to try to ensure mobility-challenegd people and shut-ins had some method of getting to the polls. They would need to be resurrected.
** Which, I suppose, proves the truism that, in a democracy, people get the government they deserve.
*** I wrote about this stunning, self-serving lack of openness and accountability in an earlier blog post, and about the mayor's opposition to it in another. I don't hold out much hope that the debate over a mail-in ballot will be any more democratic or open to the public.
[/indent]
Dick Hill