open Secondary menu

What We Heard on Demonstration Day

Detailed Findings: Demonstrations and Simulations

Participants experienced three different demonstrations: voting by special ballot (which was presented as a campus polling station), using technology at the polls (TAP) at advance polls, and going through the optimized paper-based process that will be in place on polling day.

Voting on campus using the special ballot

Participants experienced the new service model that will be offered on select campuses as well as in local Elections Canada offices. While many had experienced demonstrations before, for some this was the first time to vote using a special ballot. It is notable that the Voting on Campus simulations took significantly less time to complete than anticipated. On the one hand, this provides a clear example of how fast and easy the new special ballot process is; on the other hand, it meant that most participants had up to an hour of unexpected free time.

Accessibility issues

Overall, this method was deemed to be the least accessible out of all those experienced by participants over the course of the day. Elements that were problematic included:

  • Electors have to know and write the full name of their preferred candidate, which can pose a problem for electors with low literacy, limited fine motor skills, low vision, memory or cognitive disabilities, and for those with limited access to the internet. For many, there is no way to cast a ballot independently with the write-in ballot.
  • Voting by special ballot entails a lot of new information, which can make the process intimidating and even overwhelming if the room is busy – as would be the case at a busy time on campus. This is not ideal for those with a cognitive disability or low literacy, or anyone who needs extra time to ask questions and process the new information.
  • The crowded, noisy room was a challenging environment for those with a hearing aid. Further, staff needs to be aware of best practices to interact with electors who read lips.

Other accessibility features mentioned by respondents include offering a hearing loop; a braille list of candidates; having pictures of candidates on the ballots; providing enough space for comfortable wheelchair movement; and having the possibility to bringing their own adaptive writing device.

Concerns

Participants raised several concerns about their experience with special ballot voting.

  • Too much, too fast: Some participants felt like the process was too fast, and they were rushed through a process with insufficient explanations. Others noted that the new process was very smooth on their end, but seemed demanding for the poll worker. The ability to see the computer screen, and having the poll worker explain the steps, would be helpful. It could also prevent some mistakes in registration – for example, spelling mistakes.
  • What & how to share so much information: Participants noted the need to strike a balance between sharing information with those who want to know, while not overwhelming those who are content with going with the flow. Key questions about the process include:
    • Why am I using a write-in ballot?
    • What does it mean to agree to be on the register?
    • Why are there two envelopes?
    • Why do I need to sign the envelope? Will the secrecy of my vote be protected?
    • What happens to my ballot from now? Where does it get sent? Will it arrive on time?

In order to communicate this information, participants suggested creating a place mat with FAQs, which could take the form of a flowchart, which the elector could read while the poll worker is entering information on the computer. They also noted that the timing of information matters; for example, information about what happens to the ballot is best given when the person returns from the voting booth with their envelope.

  • Gender field: More than one participant was told that if their gender expression did not match the gender on their ID, they could be categorized as "Unknown". Participants felt this was unacceptable, and that the third gender category should be labelled "Other". These incidents further indicate that poll workers should be trained on how to handle this situation, and that the polling place setup should allow for privacy when electors need to discuss sensitive topics.
  • List of candidates: Participants appreciated having the list of candidates to help them with the write-in ballot. However, some wondered about the availability of lists from their ED, and about the risk of confusion if a list was left behind the screen at the voting booth by the previous voter. Others asked that lists be easily obtained from the EC website using one's postal code.

In conclusion, participants noted that special ballot voting requires electors to be well prepared, ideally with the name of the candidate for whom they want to vote. While the process was smooth and quick, it is different from a regular ballot, and may not be suitable to all voters.

Technology at the advance polls

Participants experienced the use of technology at the polls (TAP), in the form of e-poll books. These iPad were used by poll workers to find electors, register some of them, sign them in and mark the fact that they had voted. In line with regular procedures at advanced polls, voters were asked to sign a form to attest that they had voted; when using TAP, voters sign the iPad screen with an electronic pen.

Overall, a positive experience

Participants appreciated that the process was fast and easy, even for those who did not have a VIC or who needed to register. Many liked the iPad, a technology that they described as "familiar" and "less intimidating than a computer"; some also praised the "clean" look of the cable-free setup, including the absence of piles of paper which they associate with a risk of human error.

Accessibility issues

Participants noted that the setup did not seem to take advantage of the iPad's accessibility features, and asked to build accessibility into the process from the start. Participants noted that some features on the screens seen by voters could be larger, and that the electronic pen did not work well for people with limited dexterity. The signature in itself meant that some participants with a disability were not able to vote independently, and had to ask for assistance from poll workers.

Finally, one participant stressed the need for EC to ensure that poll worker jobs that involve TAP remain accessible to people with a variety of disabilities. Further work with stakeholders on this issue may be warranted.

Concerns

Despite feedback that was positive overall, participants raised several concerns that EC will need to address as it rolls out TAP and communications about TAP.

  • Contingency plans: participants wanted to know what plans were in place if the technology failed, or if some voters refused to sign the iPad. They were also concerned about making sure that any glitch at advance polls would not affect voters' trust on Election Day. One participant noted the very low tolerance among some electors for any risk related to "electronic gadgets".
  • Privacy and protection of personal information: participants in most groups noted that EC should communicate about the security features of the iPad, for example that they are not connected to any wireless network, that extensive tests have been conducted and that all political parties have been consulted. Someone noted that if people ask a lot of questions to poll workers, it could slow down the process and create line-ups.
  • Communications about TAP: Participants debated what, how and how much to communicate with Canadians about TAP ahead of the election. While no consensus was reached, most agreed that EC communications should make sure that people know what to expect, including those who prefer not to use TAP. They should also not create unnecessary concern among electors who may have used similar technologies in provincial or municipal elections.
  • New to some: not everyone is familiar with iPad. Low-income and elderly voters, in particular, may have no experience of using a tablet. Poll workers should be prepared to explain things in simple terms, and not pressure people to rush through the steps.

The use of TAP draws attention to procedures that are common to all advance polls, most notably the signature requirement. Participants raised the possibility that for those who are voting for the first time at advance polls, there is a risk of confusion between those standard procedures and the innovations that come with TAP. In other words, they may think that the signature is new due to TAP, when in fact all advanced polls (TAP or not) require a signature.

Optimized ordinary polls

Participants experienced a demonstration of the optimized process for ordinary polls. This included a demonstration of the new Online Polling Place Locator feature on the EC website, as well as information kiosks explaining improvements in the process.

Overall, a positive experience

Participants generally felt that their experience was positive; they used words like quick, efficient, seamless and easy. They also noted very few differences with previous experiences of voting in a federal election. Those who visited the kiosks noted that the process was easier for the poll workers, but that little had changed for the voter.

  • Excellent service: Many remarked on the warm and welcoming service they received. They liked having someone greet them and provide information as they arrived, and felt like valued customers. Someone noted that each election (municipal, provincial and federal) is slightly different, and even experienced voters may have questions.
  • Explanations: Participants appreciated when poll workers explained the steps, which was reassuring. The list of steps that was available on a desk was also noted as a good idea.
  • Improved forms: Participants appreciated the redesigned forms, which were easier to read. This included the revamped privacy statement which they thought was clear and helpful.

The few participants who experienced problems (see below) said that these glitches made the simulation more realistic.

Accessibility issues

Participants noted the following accessibility problems:

  • Braille voting template: several issues were noted: the template has squares and the ballot has circles; the ballot slipped under the template; there is no way to confirm one's vote.
  • Secrecy of the vote: some blind participants felt that poll workers could look at their ballot.
  • Need for training: participants noted ways in which poll workers could better communicate for universal access, including: speaking slowly and facing voters, avoiding acronyms, being comfortable with naming disabilities, and asking voters if they need assistance.
  • Line-ups: standing up for a long time is challenging for many people, including some with a disability and the elderly. There should be priority seating to improve their experience.

Concerns

Despite the fact that most participants felt little had changed, they raised several minor concerns:

  • Confusions linked to the process: some wondered why they had to wait in line while another table was free; some thought there were too many steps, and that the process was confusing. More than one person asked to make it more obvious where one should sign.
  • Questions about the use of the VIC: Some participants expressed surprise that electors without a VIC were going to the same table as those who did have a VIC.
  • Tearing the counterfoil: this step felt very counterintuitive to some participants, who were left wondering why the poll worker was ripping their ballot.
  • Clarifications about spoiled ballots: one participant suggested adding information about spoiled ballots, and letting voters know that they can ask for a new ballot if they make a mistake.