|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TO: |
Mayor and Members of Council |
|
|
|
|
FROM: |
|
|
|
|
|
PREPARED BY: |
same as above |
|
|
|
|
DATE OF MEETING: |
2005-09-12 |
|
|
|
|
SUBJECT: |
2006 Election |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TO: |
Mayor and Members of Council |
|
|
|
|
FROM: |
|
|
|
|
|
PREPARED BY: |
same as above |
|
|
|
|
DATE OF MEETING: |
2005-09-12 |
|
|
|
|
SUBJECT: |
2006 Election |
|
|
|
RECOMMENDATION:
That
Council approve the use of optic scan vote tabulating equipment, touch screen
equipment and Internet Voting (Two-Step Process) as alternative methods of
voting for the Town of Markham 2006 Municipal Election;
And
that the tender process be waived in accordance with Purchasing By-Law No.
2004-341 which states:
1)
“The Treasurer and the Manager
of Purchasing may, in consultation with the appropriate Director, negotiate a
contract for the supply of goods and services without a competitive process, which
shall be submitted to the Chief Administrative
….
(b) where there is only one source of supply for the
goods to be purchased;”
And
that a by-law be presented to establish Optic Scan Vote Tabulating Equipment
and Internet Voting as alternative methods of voting in the 2006 Municipal
Election;
And
that the 2005 Election accrual account be increased by an additional $34,100 in
2005, funded from the Operating Contingency account.
PURPOSE:
To
prepare for the 2006 municipal election.
BACKGROUND:
Voters’ List
The
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) is responsible for providing
the voters’ lists to municipalities. In
previous elections, MPAC’s voters’ list would automatically default to Canadian
Citizenship in the absence of an elector’s self-declaration. There were some problems encountered with the
voters’ list respecting both proof of citizenship and residency in the 2003
municipal election.
BACKGROUND:
(CONT’D.)
Alternative Methods of Voting
In
2003 Council approved the use of optic scan tabulating equipment and internet
voting. Staff recommended optic scan
tabulating equipment because of its accuracy and speed. The inability
to
recruit sufficient numbers of poll workers was a contributing influence on the
recommendation.
In
2002 and 2003, staff researched internet voting as an option for the upcoming
election. Internet voting was first used
in
With the increasing demand for
Simultaneously,
The
research project the Town of
Numbers and Outcomes
70% of in-line respondents would vote on-line
if the option is available next time
25% of respondents who voted online did not
vote in the last election
86% said they voted on-line because of the
convenience
99% of the on-line voters were satisfied with
the process
100% who voted on-line said they were likely to
vote online in the future
BACKGROUND: (cont’d.)
There were
in excess of 158,000 registered voters in the 2003 municipal election, and of
that over 11,700
Voters’ List
The
Association of Municipal Managers,
In
addition, election staff will be requiring proof of residency and citizenship
of persons attempting to have their names added at the polls. In the absence of proof, a ballot will not be
issued. The following are the scenarios
that will apply during polling in the 2006 municipal election:
Alternative Methods of Voting
Elections
Systems & Software is a leader in delivering election solutions. They have proven results in integrating
hardware, software, support and security.
ES&S is the only election systems company in
There
are two methods of internet voting, that is a one-step process and a two-step
process. In 2003 a two-step approach was
used because of its enhanced security.
Because the use of a two-step process versus a one-step process was so
controversial, staff engaged the services of Henry M. Kim, Ph.D., Associate
Professor, Schulich School of Business,
OPTIONS/DISCUSSION:
(cont’d.)
Dr.
Kim analyzed A) poll voting only; (B) one-step Internet voting and poll voting;
(C) two-step Internet voting and poll voting; and (D) mail-in voting only. Telephone voting was not analyzed because it
is not user-friendly for a municipality the size of
In
Dr. Kim’s analysis he examined 45 different risk threats and estimated the likelihoods
of occurrence as well as the ability of
Looking
at the Reasonable Risk scenario, the results were as follows:
Poll Voting Only
Poll Voting Only is the least risky of the four options. The largest risks associated with poll voting
are:
·
Access to polls delayed
because of poll worker oversight
·
Mistake in preparing mail out
and wrong package mailed out
Essentially, the biggest risks associated with Poll Voting Only are
internal and non-deliberate ones.
OPTIONS/DISCUSSION:
(cont’d.)
One-Step Internet Voting and Poll Voting
This is a process where one
card is mailed to every name on the voters’ list. The recipient would simply go on-line and
vote. This option inherently has the same
risks as poll voting as well as additional Internet-only risks such as a denial
of service attack or mishaps in testing or operation resulting in the Website
going down. Also, with this option there
are further additional risks associated with vulnerability of the mail
system. The largest risk is that
notification cards could be stolen which would allow the perpetrator to cast a
vote for each of the cards. Under the
Reasonable Risk Scenario, the total risk score for this option is 16.7. The Risk Score is just a score, not a percentage. Essentially,
there is no limit to how high a risk score could be. The only way to make
any sense of the score is to compare it to the other options. Since the
Poll Voting option is 5.9, the only thing you can say is that the one step and
Poll Voting option is up to approximately 3 times as risky as poll voting alone.
Two-Step Internet Voting and Poll Voting
This process involves two steps, a card is delivered to every name on
the voters’ list. The recipient goes on-line
and registers. The registration process
includes the voter choosing one of a number of different questions and
answering it. A second card is then
mailed to those who registered on-line.
This step has another set of numbers.
That set of numbers and the answer to the question allows the individual
to vote on-line. This option has the
same risks as the One-Step Internet and Poll Voting with a much lower exposure
to mail related risks. Essentially, in
the two-step process, even if the thief registers to vote for each of the
stolen cards, s/he must then check each of the mailboxes to again steal the
second notification cards that are needed in order to vote. Under the Reasonable Risk Scenario, the risk
score for this option is 12.5. So while
there are still risks associated with Internet voting, the two-step process is
the least risky of the two options.
Mail-In Voting Only
Mail-In Voting Only is approximately three times riskier than the Two
Step Internet Voting and Poll Voting option.
The largest concerns are with the potential unreliability of Canada Post
in getting all the completed ballots to the town prior to vote tabulation and
mail theft of notification cards. An
error in the preparation of the mail out could result in additional expenditures
in the amount of $200,000.
In
summary, under the Reasonable Risk Scenario, the one-step process is riskier
than the two-step. More importantly, any risk assumed must be
balanced by public perception of the integrity of the vote. Various ways of manipulating the Internet
voting were raised during the 2003 election and the two-step process was able
to alleviate the associated fears. A
two-step process may seem cumbersome but it does not suggest any compromise of
the integrity of the vote and it still affords residents easy access to voting,
enabling them to vote from their homes or while on vacation, etc. Staff are of the opinion that the high level
service of Internet voting is worth the risk and are recommending a two-step
process.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
An
election utilizing optic scan poll counting equipment is estimated at
$628,100. Including Internet voting will
result in additional costs in the amount of $156,000:
Total $
156,000
The
projected cost of the 2006 Election, including optic scan poll counting
equipment and two-step internet voting, is $784,100 ($628,100 + $156,000). Each year the Town accrues funds for Election
costs to be incurred every three years.
The balance in the accrual is expected to be $750,000 by 2006 ($150,000
in 2004, $300,000 in 2005, $300,000 in 2006).
The shortfall in funding for the 2006 election is projected to be
$34,100 ($784,100 - $750,000). It is
recommended that an additional $34,100 be accrued in 2005 for the election with
funding from the Operating Contingency account.
ACCESSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS:
The
recommended alternative voting method will provide easy access for seniors and
the disabled.
ENGAGE 21ST CONSIDERATIONS:
Engage 21st organizational values and service principles
include innovation…continually
striving to develop and apply new ideas, products and services, technologies
and skills.
Engage 21st also identifies the Town’s corporate goals of organizational excellence…to achieve
excellence in managing and delivering quality services through quality people.
BUSINESS UNITS CONSULTED AND AFFECTED:
IT
has been consulted and is in agreement with this project going forward.
ATTACHMENTS:
Schedule
“A” – Executive Summary of Kim Report
Schedule
“B” - Graphs Illustrating Risk
|
|
|
|
|
Sheila
Birrell, Town
Clerk |
|
Andy
Taylor, Commissioner Corporate
Services |
