Robert Dorey Letter to Editor re Elections

Tuesday, May 19th, 2015
To the Editor:
The recent release of the town staff report to council on the fall municipal election was discouraging, to say the least.
The numerous issues reported by citizens about the new online voting system mean that it was far from “success.”  Frozen computer screens that led people to unintentionally spoil their e-ballot, voters given incorrect information about which ward they live in, large quantities of ballots sent to persons ineligible to vote and in duplicate and triplicate to those who were, and ballots free for the taking in apartment building lobbies and recycling bins.  Rumours persisted around town of someone gloating about voting multiple times.  True or no, the fact is that such a feat could easily have been managed, which is quite different from our traditional paper ballot system, no matter what is suggested by the mayor and town staff when they say that “there are problems with any voting system.”  The problems with this online voting system are different, greater, and identifiable.
The above issues are only the tip of the iceberg, the fallout on the ground of a system that is faulty in its design and likely illegal.  I made a presentation to council when I requested a recount of the votes cast for the mayor’s race in which I outlined how the system we used to elect our municipal government was dismissed as unusable by the City of Toronto for its corruptibility and has been condemned by leading computer scientists and authorities on internet security.  Since that time, I have also heard from the office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario.  He has concluded that, at this point, no online voting system exists that meets the standards and protects the integrity of the electoral process in Ontario.  The online voting system doesn’t even meet the requirements of the Act that authorizes it.  According to the Municipal Elections Act s. 61 (5), I had a right during the recount of the mayoral election to examine each ballot as it was counted and to examine the vote counting equipment.  Both options were denied me upon request.  The Town Clerk doesn’t even have access to that information because it is proprietary to the online voting company, Intelivote.  As unthinkable as it might seem, we have given up public oversight of our democratic process to a private corporation.
All of the above might seem a fair price to pay given, as we have been told, that the online voting system has greatly benefitted our community by making the voting process “more accessible.”  From those who legitimately need help accessing the voting system, I have heard the opposite.  People working with those with cognitive and emotional disabilities have told me that their friends found the new system unfamiliar and bewildering.  Residents of one long term care home were told to return to their apartments until a system error had been fixed with the computer terminal brought to them at their place of residence, only to find that the terminal and the town staff operating it were gone when they returned to the voting place.  Some residents were forced to refuse to vote on principal because of the security risks to their private information.  As far as the claim that the online voting system precipitated the eight percent increase in voter turnout this election over the previous, I am dubious.  No evidence is presented linking the two phenomena.  The increase in voter turnout is more likely due to the fact that all council seats were contested in this election and, in several cases, by three people.  Moreover, if I may make a boastful claim myself, the municipal candidates in this campaign were especially active in meeting and engaging voters and discussing the issues with them.
The town staff report to council concludes that any challenges with the system can be mitigated in the future.  Some of the problems with this online voting system most likely could be addressed by committing more resources to its implementation; however, its greatest faults are beyond our remedy.  I encourage all citizens to contact town council and town staff to let them know that Greater Napanee should not be using online voting technology until the companies providing it are regulated, the systems are fully transparent, and the process is secure.
Tuesday, May 19th, 2015
To the Editor:
The recent release of the town staff report to council on the fall municipal election was discouraging, to say the least.
The numerous issues reported by citizens about the new online voting system mean that it was far from “success.”  Frozen computer screens that led people to unintentionally spoil their e-ballot, voters given incorrect information about which ward they live in, large quantities of ballots sent to persons ineligible to vote and in duplicate and triplicate to those who were, and ballots free for the taking in apartment building lobbies and recycling bins.  Rumours persisted around town of someone gloating about voting multiple times.  True or no, the fact is that such a feat could easily have been managed, which is quite different from our traditional paper ballot system, no matter what is suggested by the mayor and town staff when they say that “there are problems with any voting system.”  The problems with this online voting system are different, greater, and identifiable.
The above issues are only the tip of the iceberg, the fallout on the ground of a system that is faulty in its design and likely illegal.  I made a presentation to council when I requested a recount of the votes cast for the mayor’s race in which I outlined how the system we used to elect our municipal government was dismissed as unusable by the City of Toronto for its corruptibility and has been condemned by leading computer scientists and authorities on internet security.  Since that time, I have also heard from the office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario.  He has concluded that, at this point, no online voting system exists that meets the standards and protects the integrity of the electoral process in Ontario.  The online voting system doesn’t even meet the requirements of the Act that authorizes it.  According to the Municipal Elections Act s. 61 (5), I had a right during the recount of the mayoral election to examine each ballot as it was counted and to examine the vote counting equipment.  Both options were denied me upon request.  The Town Clerk doesn’t even have access to that information because it is proprietary to the online voting company, Intelivote.  As unthinkable as it might seem, we have given up public oversight of our democratic process to a private corporation.
All of the above might seem a fair price to pay given, as we have been told, that the online voting system has greatly benefitted our community by making the voting process “more accessible.”  From those who legitimately need help accessing the voting system, I have heard the opposite.  People working with those with cognitive and emotional disabilities have told me that their friends found the new system unfamiliar and bewildering.  Residents of one long term care home were told to return to their apartments until a system error had been fixed with the computer terminal brought to them at their place of residence, only to find that the terminal and the town staff operating it were gone when they returned to the voting place.  Some residents were forced to refuse to vote on principal because of the security risks to their private information.  As far as the claim that the online voting system precipitated the eight percent increase in voter turnout this election over the previous, I am dubious.  No evidence is presented linking the two phenomena.  The increase in voter turnout is more likely due to the fact that all council seats were contested in this election and, in several cases, by three people.  Moreover, if I may make a boastful claim myself, the municipal candidates in this campaign were especially active in meeting and engaging voters and discussing the issues with them.
The town staff report to council concludes that any challenges with the system can be mitigated in the future.  Some of the problems with this online voting system most likely could be addressed by committing more resources to its implementation; however, its greatest faults are beyond our remedy.  I encourage all citizens to contact town council and town staff to let them know that Greater Napanee should not be using online voting technology until the companies providing it are regulated, the systems are fully transparent, and the process is secure.
Robert Francis Dorey
Updates& Notifications in Your Email As They Happen.

Updates& Notifications in Your Email As They Happen.

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from the directors of the Napanee Rate Payers association.

You have Successfully Subscribed!