May 6, 1999

To:Corporate Services Committee

Budget Committee

FromCity Clerk

Subject:Voting and Vote-counting System - Municipal Elections

Purpose:

This report responds to a request from Budget Committee and Council to report on the costs and benefits of alternative voting and vote tabulation options, both financial and other, permissible within the new legislation governing municipal elections.

Financial Implications:

The Elections Voting and Vote Tabulation System was approved as part of the 1999 - 2003 Capital Works Program, $1.00 million was approved for expenditures in 1999 and $12.05 million was committed for 2000.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council approve the use of voting place vote-counting machines in the City of Toronto elections.

(2) Council approve the use of touch screen voting machines in the City of Toronto for institutional voting and the advance voting program.

(3) The City Clerk report on the results of the Request For Proposal together with recommendations on the award of contract to the Administration Committee meeting in July 1999; and

(4) Authority be granted to introduce the necessary bill in Council to give effect to Recommendations number (1) and (2).

Council Reference:

On March 2, 1999, City Council adopted the following recommendations in Report No. 3 of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee with respect to the Elections Voting and Vote Tabulation System:

"(2) The 1999 Capital Budget for Clerk's consisting of one project, as recommended in Appendix A, totalling a 1999 cash flow of $1.00 million be approved. Commitments totalling $12.05 million are made for 2000, from the approval of this project;

(3) The Clerk's Program be directed to prepare a comprehensive report including the updated costs of a recommended voting and vote tabulation system for Council approval;

(4) The recommended 1999 expenditure of $1.00 million, be subject to Council's direction on the Election 2000 process, and approval of a specific voting and vote tabulation system;

(5) That the above-mentioned report discuss, in detail, the costs and benefits of alternative voting and vote tabulation options, both financial and other, permissible within the new legislation governing municipal elections."

This report responds to the foregoing recommendations of Council. It outlines key principles in considering any voting or vote-counting systems; discusses the pros and cons of the various options on voting and vote-counting systems and recommends an option for consideration by Council.

Background

Municipal election legislation contemplated alternatives to the paper ballot election as early as 1976 when punch card voting was first introduced. Since 1976, the legislation has continually expanded to provide for the use of alternative voting methods, even so far as to suggest mail-in or telephone voting in the writing of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.

The five former municipal jurisdictions using optical scanning equipment in 1997 chose to do so because of the burden that composite paper ballot elections present. Historically, composite paper ballot elections have been prone to human error, particularly:

a) subjective discretion applied when deciding valid votes;

b) tallying votes when the deputy returning officer is communicating votes to the poll clerk orally; and

c) transposition errors when carrying figures from tally sheets to final statements.

In addition, the operating costs associated with composite paper ballot elections is as much as three times that of an automated election. The increase in costs include;

a) the requirement for more voting subdivisions with fewer voters to ensure the manageability of the counting process;

b) the employment of staff at the voting places and additional staff to count ballots at the close of voting; and

c) the associated recount costs.

The 1997 municipal elections were conducted in the City of Toronto using various forms of automated vote-counting equipment in five of the six former local municipalities. In all five cases, optical scanning equipment was used, including: central tabulators in Scarborough and Etobicoke (purchased in 1988); poll tabulators in North York (purchased in 1988 and 1991); and poll tabulators in East York and York (rented for 1997).

The equipment owned by the City has successfully been used for four elections, however, the central tabulators have become obsolete and are no longer supported by the manufacturer. The poll tabulators have also become increasingly more difficult to maintain. These tabulators may have a small trade-in value.

There are currently several different voting/vote-counting systems available. These include; mechanical lever machines, punchcards, optical mark reading (optical scan), direct recording electronic (touch screen), telephone and mail. Other systems being developed include the use of automated terminals or kiosks and the internet.

Considerations:

The size and scope of the 2000 municipal election will create numerous pressures that should be considered when choosing a voting/vote-counting system. The voters, approximately 1.7M will most likely be electing 57 councillors, 1 mayor, 22 English public school board representatives, 12 English separate school board representatives, 1 French public school board representative, 1 French separate school board representative, and determining the outcome of any question placed before them by the Minister, Council or the Boards of Education.

Voters will exercise their right to vote on one of the 285 differing composite ballot styles at one of the 1,850 voting place locations provided on voting day. If they wish to vote early they could attend at their local advance voting location or the continuous voting location in their ward.

Approximately 800,000 voters will vote at voting places around the city on voting day, 75% of them between 5:30 p.m. and 8:00 p. m.. Of these, 100,000 will have to add their name to the voters' list at the voting location.

To accommodate the demand, 8,400 voting place staff will be hired and trained to provide effective customer service in the voting locations, including the managing of scrutineers and the accurate reporting of results.

Also, when considering any voting/vote-counting system for the City certain principles and facts need be examined. The following principles should be examined in any evaluation of a voting/vote-counting system:

a) system ensures the integrity of the electoral process;

b) the system is user friendly and easy to maintain;

c) the system is reliable and accurate; and

d) the system is economical and affordable.

A voting/vote-counting system, in addition to satisfying these principles, should be evaluated based on its ability to satisfy the following concerns of our various stakeholder groups:

Candidates:

(1) Will candidates' names be legible?

(2) Is the audit trail thorough, including the history of the voting place?

(3) Will results be available before ballots leave the voting place?

(4) Which records will be available for recounts?

Voters:

(1) Will access be improved for those with disabilities?

(2) Will voters be protected from mechanical misreads?

(3) How will the learning curve impact the voter?

(4) Voters prefer a ballot to mark?

(5) Voters prefer a voting place to attend?

(6) Will system ensure secrecy of the vote?

Administrators:

(1) Does the system ensure the integrity of the election?

(2) How simple is the system for election workers to use?

(3)What is the impact on the existing infrastructure?

(4) Does the system possess the ability to provide 100% accurate results?

(5) Can election day be recreated in a court room?

(6) What is the strategy when a mechanical failure occurs?

(7) How does this impact customer service?

(8)How quickly does the system generate results?

(9) What safeguards are in place to ensure that the voter knows exactly how they have cast their ballot?

Discussion:

Voting/Vote-Counting Systems

1.0 Mechanical Lever Machines

On mechanical lever voting machines, the name of each candidate or question choice is assigned a particular lever in a rectangular array of levers on the front of the machine. A set of printed strips visible to the voters identifies the lever assignment for each candidate and question choice. The levers are horizontal in their unvoted positions.

The voter enables the machine with a lever that also closes a privacy curtain. The voter pulls down selected levers to indicate choices. When the voter exits the booth by opening the privacy curtain with the handle, the voted levers are automatically returned to their original horizontal position. As each lever returns, it causes a connected counter wheel within the machine to turn one-tenth of a full rotation. The counter wheel, serving as the"ones" position of the numerical count for the associated lever, drives a "tens" counter one-tenth of a rotation for each of its full rotations. The "tens" counter similarly drives a "hundreds" counter. If all mechanical connections are fully operational during the voting period, and the counters are initially set to zero, the position of each counter at the close of the polls indicates the number of votes cast on the lever that drives it. Interlocks in the machine prevent the voter from voting for more choices than permitted.

The first official use of a lever type voting machine occurred in Lockport, New York in 1892. By the 1960's well over half of the United States voted on lever machines. These machines however, are no longer made and the trend is to replace them with more up-to-date computer based optical scan or touch screen systems. It is believed that there are presently no jurisdictions utilizing these machines in Canada, however, 18.6 percent of registered voters (28.6M) in the United States still used these machines in 1998, a decrease of 8.4 percent from 1994.

Toronto would require an average of four machines for each of its 1,850 voting places. This would provide one machine for every 216 voters, with a 50 percent turnout that would give us 108 voters per machine. Generally, 75 percent of these voters will vote between 5:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. Approximate time required to process a voter would be 2 minutes. The approximate cost per machine would be $4,000. Total capital investment required would be $33,600,000.

Advantages:

a)reliable method of counting votes;

b)results are quickly available;

c)complete ballot appears in front of the voter at one time; and

(d) ballots can be produced from memory packs.

Disadvantages:

a) large, cumbersome machines - difficult to transport and store;

b) speed of operation - can be very slow and time consuming;

c) technology outdated and becoming obsolete;

d)no physical ballot - makes recounts difficult;

e) no longer in production - only possibilities would be to acquire second hand; and

f) very expensive method of vote-counting.

To the best of our knowledge these machines are no longer being manufactured. If chosen as the direction the City of Toronto wishes to pursue, second hand machines would have to be sought.

2.0Punchcards

Punchcard systems employ a card (or cards) and a small clipboard-sized device for recording votes. Voters punch holes in the ballot cards (with a supplied punch device) opposite their candidate or question choice. After voting, the ballot card is placed in the ballot box, or the ballot may be fed into a computer vote tabulating device at voting place.

Two common types of punchcard are the "Votomatic" card (formerly used in the Borough of East York) and the "Datavote" card. With the Votomatic card, the locations at which holes may be punched to indicate votes are each assigned numbers. The number of the hole is the only information printed on the card. The list of candidates or question choices and directions for punching the corresponding holes are printed in a separate booklet. With the Datavote card, the name of the candidate or description of the question choice is printed on the ballot next to the location of the hole to be punched.

Although many jurisdictions are switching from punchcard systems to more advanced optical scan or touch screen systems, in the United States some variation of the punchcard system was used by 34.3 percent of registered voters (53.9M) in the 1998 election, this represents a decrease of 1.8 percent from 1994. The City of Mississauga (1997) and Borough of East York (1994) were the largest municipalities in Canada utilizing this system.

However, it should be noted that the Borough of East York abandoned this system in favour of optical scan for its 1997 municipal elections. The City of Mississauga is currently looking to move to an optical scan system for its 2000 municipal elections.

Toronto would require an average of four voting booths for each of its 1,850 voting places, and one counter for each of its 57 wards. This would provide one voting booth for every 216 voters, with a 50 percent turnout that would give us 108 voters for each voting booth. Generally, 75 percent of these voters will vote between 5:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. Approximate time required to process a voter would be 2 minutes. The approximate cost per voting booth is $300 and per counter is $15,000. Total capital investment required would be $3,375,000.

Recounts using these counters have historically had difficulty which is associated with the ballot. Ballots dry out and chads drop out of the ballots making them impossible to count.

Advantages:

a)inexpensive materials (i.e., ballots) required to operate election;

b) results are quickly available; and

c) most cost effective method of vote-counting.

Disadvantages:

a) voters find it difficult to visually confirm choice(s);

b) election preparation is very labour intensive and costly;

c) no ballot with names associated - recounts become very difficult (exception is Datavote);

d) technology is being phased out - other voting systems are more advanced;

e) ballots tend to dry out causing voting areas to fall out making it difficult to count the ballots after they've been transferred to a counting centre; and

f) recounts are difficult for the same reason as presented in e).

The City of Toronto would not be well served using the punchcard system considering the age of the technology, the risks associated with recounts, the fact that it is becoming obsolete in most jurisdictions and voters have difficulty visually confirming their choices.

3.0Optical Mark Reading (Optical Scan)

Optical scan systems employ a ballot card on which candidates and question choices are preprinted next to an empty rectangle, square, oval or an incomplete arrow. Voters record their choices by filling in the rectangle, square, oval or by completing the arrow. After voting, the ballot card is either placed in a sealed box or fed into a computer tabulating device at the voting place. The tabulating device reads the votes using "dark mark logic," whereby the computer selects the darkest mark within a given set as the correct choice/vote. Optical scan technology has existed for decades and been used extensively in such areas as standardized testing and statewide lotteries.

Optical scan has a long history of use in the Canadian market, some of the jurisdictions presently using or having used optical scan voting systems include; the former cities of Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough; Burlington, Hamilton, Ottawa, Gloucester, Kanata, Nepean, Kingston, London, Kitchener, St. Catharines, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver. In the United States, some variation of optical scan voting systems were used by 27.3 percent of registered voters (42.1M) in the 1998 election. Optical scan voting is the fastest growing form of electronic voting systems.

The advantages of optical scan technology are primarily its ease of use and its similarity to the current paper ballot environment. Using optical scan allows the voter to visually verify the choices made prior to submitting their ballot. Further, errors (overvotes, undervotes or ballot problems) can be immediately identified at the voting place and the voter can make the necessary changes to ensure that their vote has been cast successfully. Also optical scan has proven to be far more accurate and reliable than most other forms of voting systems. Although the initial capital investment may be substantial, the resulting costs savings (primarily in labour costs) made up over the span of the life of the equipment will more than make up for the investment.

3.1Optical Scan - Central Tabulators

Toronto would require one tabulator for each of 57 wards. This would provide a tabulator for every 28,070 eligible voters. All ballots would be transported from the voting places after the close of the voting places to a central location for counting. The approximate cost per tabulator would be $75,000. Total capital investment required would be $4,275,000.

Recounts using this system have proven to be accurate to 99.9%.

Advantages:

a)very similar to a paper ballot election for the voters;

b) voters can visually confirm choice(s);

c) results are very accurate;

d) recounts are accurate; and

e) cost comparative - cost of equipment can be recovered within two elections, based on manual elections.

Disadvantages:

a) security issues of transporting ballots prior to them being counted;

b) ballot errors are not detected until they reach the counting centre;

c) an election official is left with the responsibility of interpreting the marks on these ballots; and

d) large initial capital investment required.

In the past, Scarborough and Etobicoke had bad experiences with central count. Candidates were uncomfortable with ballots being transported prior to being counted. Judges are uncomfortable that election officials are remaking ballots rejected by the tabulators. This system was a fad in the eighties because it was so cost effective. Since then it has lost the interest of municipalities who are drawn to the voting place vote-counters.

3.2Optical Scan - Voting Place Tabulators

Toronto would require one tabulator for each of its 2,100 voting places. This would provide a tabulator for every 865 voters, with a 50 percent turnout that would give us 432 voters per tabulator. Generally, 75 of these voters will vote between 5:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. Approximate time required to process a voter would be 24 seconds. The approximate cost per tabulator would be $5,400 per tabulator. Total capital investment required would be $11,340,000.

Recounts using this system have proven to be accurate to 99.9%.

Advantages:

a)ease of use for voter - voters in Toronto most familiar with this type of ballot;

b) voters can visually confirm choice(s);

c) results are available immediately after election;

d) ballots are counted at the voting place;

e) results are very accurate;

f) recounts are accurate and fairly easy to conduct; and

g) cost comparative - cost of equipment can be recovered within three elections, based on manual elections.

Disadvantages:

a) cost of materials can be higher than other voting systems (i.e., ballots); and

b) large initial capital investment required.

Optical scan voting place tabulators are the most logical choice for the City of Toronto. Its similarity to the paper ballot system, the voter's familiarity with it (based on the fact that East York, Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough and York all utilized optical scan systems for the 1997 municipal elections), technological advances in optical scan and relative cost comparative make this the best alternative for a vote-counting system for the City of Toronto for the next five elections.

4.0Direct Recording Electronic (Touch Screen)

The most recent configuration in the evolution of voting systems is known as direct recording electronic, or touch screen. They are an electronic implementation of the old mechanical lever systems. As with the lever machines, there is no ballot; the possible choices are visible to the voter on the front of the machine. The voter directly enters choices into electronic storage with the use of a touch-screen, push buttons or similar device. The voter's choices are stored in these machines via a memory cartridge, diskette or smart-card and added to the choices of all other voters.

As this is the newest type of voting systems, few jurisdictions have introduced this form of voting. The City of Barrie experimented with touch screen technology during its 1997 municipal election and the Town of Oakville utilized it for advance voting. In 1998, 9.1 percent of the registered voters in the United States (14.1M) used some type of touch screen voting system.

Toronto would require an average of four machines for each of its 1,850 voting places. This would provide one machine for every 216 voters, with a 50 percent turnout that would give us 108 voters per machine. Generally, 75 percent of these voters will vote between 5:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. Approximate time required to process a voter would be 2 minutes. The approximate cost per machine would be $3,000. Total capital investment required would be $22,200,000.

Recounts using these machines have proven to be one of the closest systems to 100%.

Advantages:

a)easiest of all voting systems for the voter;

b) results are quickly available;

c) no extra costs for materials (i.e., ballots);

d) recounts have proven to be extremely accurate; and

e) most technologically advanced form of voting in the marketplace.

Disadvantages:

a) notable large capital investment required; and

b) new voting method for voters - could result in long lineups.

The touch screen voting system is clearly the most technologically advanced voting system available at the current time. However, given the capital allocation that the City of Toronto has provided for election voting systems, a full touch screen voting system is not financially feasible. There may be some use for a touch screen system as an alternative in a limited variety; advance voting and institutional voting may be well served by utilizing this technology.

This technology offers three very attractive benefits. One is the ability to program the election into the voting system immediately following withdrawal of nominations, thereby allowing election officials to provide continuous and advance voting immediately. The second benefit lies in the portability, this asset accommodates election officials working in institutions on voting day that go room to room and bed to bed. The third benefit is that it provides the best solution presently available to assist physically challenged.

To accommodate continuous and advance voting strategies and institutional voting on voting day would require 100 touch screen voting systems. Physically challenged voting would best be served by 28 touch screen voting systems, specially designed and available at each of the Ward Centres for advance voting and on election day.

5.0Telephone

Telephone voting is a variation on the direct recording electronic (touch screen) system, where the telephone is used by the voter to record his/her vote. This system removes the need for voting places. By calling a specific phone number, the voter authenticates his/her identity by entering a Personal Identification Number (PIN) on the key pad of the telephone. The PIN is used to confirm the voter's eligibility and presence on the voters' list. Prompted by a computer-synthesized voice, the voter enters his/her choice by pressing a key corresponding to the candidate or option they wish to vote for. Once this step is completed, the computer asks the voter to confirm his/her choice. The voting results are stored in a computing device (or multiple devices) linked to the telephone network. Results can be instantly counted once voting closes.

Telephone voting is a relatively new phenomenon and has been utilized in the former City of North York during its 1997 Referendum and the Town of Gravenhurst, Town of Severn and Township of Tiny during their 1997 municipal elections.

Telephone voting provides for some significant pros over other forms of voting systems. The ease of use and the ability for the voter to vote at any time, from anyplace make this an attractive method. The capability to customize vote-counting features include: languages, 24 hour voting and voting periods. Further, the cost savings that telephone voting provides are notable - no voting places or election day staff. Telephone voting generates and produce results immediately.

The cons identified with telephone voting center on the fact that it is unsupervised voting. Presently there is no positive mechanism in place to be assured of who has actually voted a particular PIN number. The potential for abuse could seriously jeopardize the integrity of the whole election process. Other problems exist in large urban areas like Toronto where many of the phone lines in older established areas are still based on rotary dial technology making for difficult transmission issues. As well, the size and scope of an election this large would put enormous strain on the telecommunication industry in Toronto and quite probably would not be possible at this time.

Advantages:

a)ease of use for voter - can vote at any time from any place;

b) voting can be offered in a variety of languages more economically;

c) very significant cost savings - no voting places or election day personnel;

d) results are immediately available; and

e) relatively inexpensive method of vote-counting.

Disadvantages:

a) integrity of election cannot be assured - unsupervised voting, no secure way of indicating who has voted;

b) recounts untested with this type of election - no paper ballot, may make this difficult; and

c) technology not currently advanced enough - City of Toronto (size 1.6 M voters) is too large to utilize this voting method.

Two very significant realities make the telephone voting system unsuitable for the City of Toronto. The inability to provide a secure method of assuring the integrity of the election make this system totally inadequate. Secondly, the size of the City of Toronto combined with the current state of telephone technology would not be advanced enough for us to provide an election of this nature.

6.0Mail

Mail-in voting is a form of voting using a standard paper ballot and utilizing the local mail delivery service. Ballot cards are prepared with all candidates and question choices preprinted on them. Based on the voters' list, every eligible voter is mailed a ballot with appropriate instructions on how to mark the ballot and how and when to return the ballot. A prepaid self-addressed envelope is included in the package sent to the voter for the return of the ballot. Based on the jurisdiction and the information maintained by the administration, the voter may be asked to sign either the return envelope, the ballot (not in Ontario) or a corresponding form. Once the ballot is returned the signature of the voter will be checked against a preregistered copy of the voters' signature. Eligible voters' ballots will then be processed through either a manual count or an automated computer tabulating device.

Mail-in voting was used in the former City of Toronto during its 1997 Referendum. Almost all U.S. jurisdictions use some form of mail-in ballot for their absentee voting.

Advantages:

a)ease of use for voter - can vote at any time from any place;

b) voting can be offered in a variety of languages more economically; and

c) significant cost savings - no voting places or election day personnel.

Disadvantages:

a) unsupervised voting brings into question the integrity of the election;

b) logistics problems - valid ballots not delivered within specified time frames;

c) significant labour costs to count ballots - the resultant manual count introduces inconsistent interpretations of marks and votes; and

d) recounts and administrative problems currently are unproven in courts.

The use of mail as an option for the City of Toronto would present some of the same difficulties as described with the telephone system. Unsupervised voting, the inability to ensure who actually votes a ballot seriously jeopardizes the integrity of any election operating this type of system. For this reason and the several logistical and philosophical dilemmas presented by a mail system, the City of Toronto would not be well served to adopt a mail voting system.

7.0Automated Terminals or Kiosks

Increasingly, kiosks are being used by all levels of government to better serve Canadians in terms of quality, access, efficiency and convenience. There is the potential to use kiosks or automated technology to allow voters to cast their vote during elections. These kiosks could also be used between elections to support other government functions, such as tourism, providing government information, applying for different government services, or in conjunction with private sector partners in the delivery of services.

Kiosks are currently in use by a number of provincial governments and are extensively used at the federal level by Human Resources Development Canada for business purposes.

Advantages:

a)accessibility to the electorate; and

b) results are quickly available.

Disadvantages:

a) unsupervised voting - similar problems to telephone and mail;

b) cost to develop new method of voting - not currently used for electoral purposes; and

c) ownership of technology, do we own? or do we contract, costs not known at this time.

8.0Internet

With the explosion of the Internet combined with the advances in cryptographic techniques, the design and implementation of a practical, secure and private system for conducting elections over computer networks is a challenge that has been taken up by a number of different organizations around the world. Electronic voting over the Internet can be convenient for voters with easy access to networked computers, even if the voters are geographically dispersed. As well, electronic voting can provide much faster results and be inexpensive to administer.

While no government to date has actually conducted an official vote over the Internet, the Republic of Costa Rica, Bosnia, Macedonia, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and Russia are currently proposing incorporating this method into their current voting system.

Advantages:

a)easy to use for those with Internet access - can vote from anywhere at any time;

b) results can be immediately available; and

c) inexpensive method of counting votes.

Disadvantages:

a) unsupervised voting - similar problems to telephone and mail;

b) not universally available to the electorate - not currently practical; and

c) not currently developed to an acceptable workable standard.

A system has not been developed at this time. Do enough homes have access to a computer to make this worthwhile in the next five years?

Conclusion:

After reviewing all of the current voting/vote-counting systems available to the City and examining them in relationship to the principles established, it is recommended that the best voting/vote-counting system for the City of Toronto would be a combination of optical scan - voting place tabulator and direct recording electronic (touch screen). The optical scan - voting place tabulator provides the best practice available given its reliability, integrity and similarity to paper ballot. The electorates' familiarity and acceptance with this type of vote-counting equipment ensures the greatest likelihood of continued success utilizing this type of system.

The advancement in technology makes direct recording electronic (touch screen) a viable alternative in a limited variety. Its portability provides greater flexibility to employ these units for specialized needs (i.e. institutional voting, physically challenged voting and an advance voting program). By employing the use of these units the advance voting program could support an additional 500 potential advance voting locations.

Request for Proposal:

In order to comply with Council's request to provide updated costs of a recommended voting and vote tabulation system, and to ensure sufficient lead time for the delivery of the system in time for Election 2000, a Request for Proposal (RFP No. 3412-99-01464) was issued for an Optical Scan Voting System and Touch Screen Voting System in February 1999. The purpose of this Request For Proposal was to provide updated figures for the Capital Works Program and determine the most effective Optical Scan Voting System and Touch Screen Voting System in the marketplace.

Subject to the approval by Council of this report, the results of the Request For Proposal together with recommendations on the award of contract will be forwarded to the Administration Committee for consideration in July, 1999.

Novina Wong

City Clerk

Contact Name:

John Hollins, Director, Elections, City Clerk's Division

Telephone: (416) 392-8019E-Mail: jhollins@city.north-york.on.ca