The other voting reform.

February 5th, 2006

" It's not the votes that count, but who counts the votes"- Josef Stalin.

There was much outrage expressed in this recent election about the ineptitude of elections Canada. There has been concern about declining voter participation. Calls for the resignation of the chief electoral officer, Jean Pierre Kingsley, were not useful.

Reform of the voting system to produce proportional representation has become an issue in Canada. But reform of the logistics of voting, to keep the vote honest and to encourage the marginalised to vote, is as important. The present trouble with Elections Canada lies in misguided reforms begun in 1997.

Understanding requires an overview of the principles of voting in representative democracies, and heeding the experiential knowledge of people who have been in the trenches for Elections Canada through many years.

The Australian ballot

English speaking people were among the first to develop representative democracy. Some problems with the early practise of elected representation were vote buying and voter intimidation. Voters would stand in public and speak their choices to poll officials, or give them a list, the 'ticket', of their choice for each office. Political organisations would give voters printed 'tickets', and heavies were often stationed at the polls to see who voted the "straight party ticket."

When this got too intense in the Australia of 1857, necessity invented the secret ballot. The key to the secret ballot is verification of the vote. This is achieved with a sealed ballot box, a scrutinised vote count, and by reconciling the vote count with the number of ballots given out.

The Venice Commission

Most European democracies are much younger than Canada's. European memories of struggles for representative democracy are fresher and they generally trust government less. Good practice in running elections interests them more.

The Venice commission was established by the European Union to develop standard practices for elections in EU countries, and for elections monitored by EU delegates. It has become the ultimate authority on managing fair elections. Four Venice commission principles are of particular interest;

1) An enumeration, a listing of qualified voters, is absolutely necessary. The onus must be on the state to get everyone registered. This is as important as proportional representation for insuring that the vote reflects the will of the whole public. 

2) The result must be verifiable. There is no substitute for the "Australian ballot." Venice commission had a team of technical eggheads try to devise a verifiable electronic voting system. After three years they reported unequivocally that it cannot be done.

3) The secret ballot takes a toll on election workers. They cannot leave the polling place from the time they seal the ballot box in the morning until they throw everything back into it and reseal it in the evening. The deputy returning officer (DRO) is legally responsible for the validity of the vote.

4) Voting must be done inside a poll station, to insure against vote buying and voter intimidation.

Enumerate, enumerate.

Saith Venice commission; there are three ways to maintain a voter list; a civil registry, a standing list, and a periodic list. Some countries maintain a civil registry. Citizens are required to register every change in their situation, making it easy to conduct elections and the census, do local planning, draw juries, and so on. In Canada some people see this as a threat to civil liberties.

Canada was almost the only country in the developed world that created a 'periodic list' for every election. This meant hiring over one hundred thousand people at every election to go door to door and register everyone. Elections were several weeks longer because the enumeration had to be completed first.

A standing voter list is one which is kept up to date between elections. It is actually more expensive than a periodic list, although the cost is spread out over several years. The Canadian government turned to it due to some delusion that it would be cheaper.

Its real advantage, when used right, is that it creates a permanent cadre who become expert in the elections process while working on the standing list. They can then organise the election and train workers.

Bright Ideas

There are endless ideas about how to 'improve' voting. Some are sensible, like abolishing election day. We are moving to that already as more people vote in the advance poll. There is no need for everyone to crowd into the polling station at six o'clock on voting day. It could be spread over a longer period with less strain on everyone.

It is often noted that Australians are legally required to vote. But to charge people with not voting you have to know where they live. Australia conducts an enumeration every other year.

Everyone, including Kingsley himself, bewail that returning officers, responsible for hiring and training election workers in each riding, are political appointees unanswerable to the Chief electoral officer no matter how incompetent or biased. A permanent, professional, and responsible cadre is needed to train and lead the election armies.

All the dumb ideas, like machine voting or voting from home, are quickly dispensed with by reference to the four Venice principles above.

"A, ha, ha"

The really bad idea is computerised voting. Honest elections mean the use of paper ballots, so the count can be scrutinised by all parties, and recounts done if needed.

The advent of machine voting in a jurisdiction may be taken as a signal that elections are no longer meaningful there. The Americans have used various sorts of voting machines for over one hundred years. Vote rigging has become part of their political culture; vote early, vote often. We stole the election fair and square. A new low in American elections was the Texas incident where three republican candidates for the legislature won with exactly 18181 votes, using computerised voting. The alphabetical conversion of this is AHAHA.

The unsung army

The essence of representative democracy is not the crazed egos on the TV screen on election night. It is that big pile of folded ballots spilling out over a wobbly table in a school gym or rec centre lobby, to be counted by a bleary eyed DRO, praying that the damned count balances out, as scrutineers from several parties watch, impatient to get the news back to their campaign offices.

So, late one monday in January, a tired wretch finally finished a fifteen hour work day as a DRO. He contemplated the days earnings, not quite exceeding the poverty line when figured hourly. That did not include the quick 'training' session and the time picking up the 'poll kit' and studying the changes to procedure since the last time he did this job.

He pondered why he keeps subjecting himself to the experience. It is a little like a woman who keeps vowing never to get pregnant again, but does repeatedly. It holds the small satisfaction of having done a little to keep the world spinning. It comes from a basic belief in democracy.

As our DRO trudged home, he wondered how many people were still in the polling station, half delirious, trying to balance out. The SRO for his polling station had been superb; everything a leader should be. She solved many small problems that day before they became big ones, but could not be everywhere at once. She would be last to leave the poll station, well after midnight.

Beneath her were several registration clerks, and several polls, each of which required one poll clerk and one DRO. These are the elements of the unsung election army who convert millions of individual notions into 308 collective decisions which become a parliament.

"...does it need to be this hard?"

It is agreed all around that the voter list in this election was a mess. People stormed out of the polling station because they could not wait five minutes for the registration staff to sort out their problem. Or, they were offended to realise that the vote is really on an honour system; anyone can vote more than once if they want to commit a criminal offence carrying a substantial jail sentence.

Much of the poll staff were the welfare/ working poor underclass, desperate to make extra money. Some had not eaten that morning and brought nothing with them. They had nothing to bring. This made our DRO uncomfortable

The reason so many of them had trouble balancing out was that they had not been trained properly, because there was no one to train them. They often could not read manuals because they were poorly educated or had limited command of English.

Our DRO reflected that election days went more smoothly when enumerations were done, until after 1997. More people were attracted because it was several weeks of good work instead of the one long day.

There was time to weed out the incapable and unreliable, and for new people to become familiar with procedures. The Poll clerk and DRO were usually the same people who had enumerated the poll, so there was much less confusion.

This was not perfect; places like rooming houses and garage suites tended to be missed by enumerators.

Real solutions

Before our DRO closes his door on election night, 2006, he has this advice to offer;

1) make life easier and better paid for elections workers.

2) Depoliticise Elections Canada; let Kingsley hire his own employees.

3) However you decide to prepare voters lists, be pro active about registering> everyone, and commit enough resources to do the job right.

TR