open Secondary menu

Returning Officers Post-Mortem Sessions 41st General Election

4 – Service to Candidates

4.1 – Nomination process

Signature Requirements

The confirmation of signatures online worked well. ROs would like to see put in place a process to verify all witnesses from the electoral district; this could be done by adding a section for phone numbers next to the signatures for easier verification, moving to a system like what Purolator uses with an electronic pen, or having people text in their signature.

Nomination Papers and the submission process

The online nomination form worked well; it should be the only way this is done. Electronic receipts worked well as did the booklet for candidates. It was mentioned that Page 6 of the nomination papers is a bit complicated, and that we need to look into simplifying the documents. It was also suggested to have the candidates make appointments to submit their nomination papers at the RO office. Overall, ROs mentioned that the submission process is well documented and worked well, and that the candidate support line was very good; but there is a need for a structured method for determining the legitimacy of the nomination, for example, a better way to determine if the auditor is original, the tax receipts, the signatures, the police check, etc., all need to be verified. The process for filing electronically vs. in person needs to be clarified. ROs are having a hard time understanding the process especially in regards to the signature of the Justice of the Peace. The role of the RO needs to be better defined in this process.

Information/Support for Candidates

ROs propose preparing a package for the candidates that would include: a properly completed witness list, information on our Web site, guidelines on how to complete nomination papers, a checklist, as well as any reminder documents that they find helpful.

4.2 – Candidate's Briefing

ROs agree that the candidate’s meeting is an important way to build relationships between the RO and the candidates and their representatives, and their contact information for polling day. Most ROs mentioned that few or no candidates actually attend the briefing, and suggest considering calling it “meeting with political parties”. The agenda provided by EC is useful. Some ROs said that they would need a more structured agenda so that all ROs cover the same things. It should be received earlier in the electoral calendar so that we can advise the candidates early on about the date of the meeting and agenda topics.

ROs suggest that this time be used to educate the candidates on things like procedures at the polls and other basic rules. Also, to clarify things like the Statement of the Electors Who Voted (on polling day and at the advance polls), management of complaints, recruitment of workers or any concerns they may have. The agenda should also cover the role of the RO and the RO office vs. that of the candidate. Finally, any unusual circumstances should be covered, i.e. Manitoba flooding. It would also be helpful to provide candidates and their representatives with a manual, and use the time to train their representatives, and review the Statement of the Vote (this is especially useful for new candidates). Finally, ROs mentioned that using e-mail to invite candidates worked well, and it also worked well to have the parties sign off on not providing names of poll officials during this meeting.