Site MenuFindings from the October 2020 By-election Survey of Election Officers: Experience of Working an Election in a Pandemic
PACE Research, February 2021
Introduction
On October 26, 2020, Elections Canada (EC) conducted two by-elections in the ridings of Toronto Centre and York Centre. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, EC implemented new safety measures and a single poll worker model at polling places for the first time in the by-elections. Following the by-elections, EC conducted a special edition of the Survey of Election Officers in order to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of these safety measures from the perspective of election officers. Of the 761 election officers invited to participate, 386 (51%) completed the survey. footnote 1
This research focus provides an analysis of selected survey results on how satisfied election officers were with the COVID-19 safety measures and protective equipment at the polls and how their experience with the safety measures might have impacted their overall satisfaction with the work experience, in comparison with the 2019 general election (GE), or their willingness to work in another election in a pandemic context.
Additional topline results not used in the analysis are provided in Appendix 1; a set of tables with all survey results, broken down by electoral district, are provided in Appendix 2.
Summary of Findings
- Election officers had largely positive views on their experience with the COVID-19 safety measures that were put in place for the by-elections: They felt informed about the safety measures before they went in to work at the polls (96%), they were satisfied with the protective personal equipment provided to them (92%), the safety measures made them feel safe (94%), and they thought the safety measures were effective for reducing the spread of COVID-19 (89%). That said, election officers were more split on whether they felt very safe (56%) or somewhat safe (38%), and on whether the safety measures were very effective (49%) or somewhat effective (40%).
- Election officers were very satisfied overall with the conduct of the by-elections (64%) and said they were very likely to consider working again (84%); however, they were not quite as likely to be very satisfied with the working conditions as were election officers from the 2019 GE (48% versus 54%).
- Election officers' views on the quality of the working conditions depended considerably on their opinions of the safety measures: Those who had a less than very positive experience with the safety measures were much less likely to think the working conditions had been very good, compared with those who had a very positive experience with the safety measures. In particular, 67% of those who said the safety measures made them feel very safe said the working conditions were very good, compared with 23% of those who felt somewhat safe or less.
- However, election officers' willingness to consider working in another election during the pandemic were only somewhat impacted by their experience with the safety measures or the working conditions: Diminished, but still large majorities of election officers said they were very likely to consider working again, even when their opinions of the COVID-19 safety measures or working conditions were less than very positive. In particular, 93% of those who said the safety measures made them feel very safe said they were very likely to consider working again, compared with 72% among those who felt somewhat safe or less.
Findings footnote 2
Experience with COVID-19 Safety Measures During the By-elections
Election officers had largely positive views of the COVID-19 safety measures that were put in place at the polls for the by-elections, although they were split on whether they thought the measures were very or somewhat safe and effective:
- 96% said they felt informed about the COVID-19 safety measures when they first went into the polls, with 71% saying they felt very informed.
- 93% of election officers were satisfied with the personal protective equipment (PPE) provided to them, with 69% saying they were very satisfied.
- 94% said that the safety measures put in place by Elections Canada for COVID-19 made them feel safe, with 56% saying they felt very safe.
- 89% of election officers thought that the safety measures in place at the polls were effective for reducing the spread of COVID-19, with 49% saying the measures were very effective.
Figure 1: Election officer views on the COVID-19 safety measures at the polls
| Felt informed about the COVID-19 safety measures when they first went into the poll |
|
1% |
|---|---|---|
| Were satisfied with the PPE provided to them |
|
2% |
| Felt safe with the safety measures in place for COVID-19 |
|
2% |
| Thought the safety measures were effective for reducing the spread of COVID-19 |
|
2% |
Base: all respondents; n=383.
Source: Survey of Election Officers for the October 2020 By-elections.
Text version of "Figure 1: Election officer views on the COVID-19 safety measures at the polls"
These four horizontal bar charts show respondents' views on their experience with the COVID-19 safety measures at the polls. The breakdown is as follows:
| Very | Somewhat | Not very | Not at all | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Felt informed about the COVID-19 safety measures when they first went into the poll | 71% | 25% | 4% | 1% |
| Were satisfied with the PPE provided to them | 69% | 24% | 5% | 2% |
| Felt safe with the safety measures in place for COVID-19 | 56% | 38% | 3% | 2% |
| Thought the safety measures were effective for reducing the spread of COVID-19 | 49% | 40% | 4% | 2% |
Discomfort while wearing the face shield and mask was the main difficulty of working at the polls:
A sizable minority of election officers (31%) agreed that the COVID-19 safety measures in place at the polls made their job difficult to do, although they more often somewhat agreed (24%) than strongly agreed (7%). In contrast, election officers more often strongly disagreed (45%) than somewhat disagreed (23%) that the safety measures made the job difficult.
Among the 31% who agreed that the COVID-19 safety measures made their job difficult, the most commonly mentioned difficulty by far was with breathing, seeing, or experiencing discomfort while wearing the face shield and mask (44%), followed at a distance by difficulty communicating with others (8%) and difficulty maintaining physical distancing (6%).
At times, election officers mentioned difficulties with communicating and maintaining physical distancing as consequences of difficulties with wearing the face shield and mask; for example, voters sometimes opted to move closer to election officers in order to overcome communication difficulties due to masks.
Figure 2: Agree or disagree: COVID-19 safety measures at the polls made the job difficult to do
Q. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement: COVID-19-safety measures put in place at the polls made my job difficult to do.
Base: all respondents; n=383.
Source: Survey of Election Officers for the October 2020 By-elections.
Text version of "Figure 2: Agree or disagree: COVID-19 safety measures at the polls made the job difficult to do"
This vertical bar chart shows whether respondents agree or disagree that the COVID-19 safety measures at the polls made the job difficult to do. The breakdown is as follows:
- Strongly agree: 7%
- Somewhat agree: 24%
- Somewhat disagree: 23%
- Strongly disagree: 45%
- Don't know: 2%
Out of those who selected "Strongly agree" or "Somewhat agree" in Figure 2:
Figure 3: Reasons COVID-19 safety measures made working at the polls difficult
| Difficulty breathing or seeing, discomfort wearing face shield and mask |
|
|---|---|
| Difficulty communicating |
|
| Difficulty maintaining physical distancing |
|
| Lack of poll clerk |
|
| Took time to process voters |
|
| Other |
|
| Don't know |
|
Q. How did the COVID-19 safety measures make your job difficult? (Open-ended; multiple responses coded.)
Base: those who agreed strongly or somewhat that COVID-19 safety measures at the polls made the job difficult; n=114.
Source: Survey of Election Officers for the October 2020 By-elections.
Text version of "Figure 3: Reasons COVID-19 safety measures made working at the polls difficult"
This horizontal bar chart shows the reasons respondents thought the COVID-19 safety measures made working at the polls difficult. The breakdown is as follows:
- Difficulty breathing or seeing, discomfort wearing face shield and mask: 44%
- Difficulty communicating: 8%
- Difficulty maintaining physical distancing: 6%
- Lack of poll clerk: 5%
- Took time to process voters: 4%
- Other: 21%
- Don't know: 23%
Overall Satisfaction with the By-election Work Experience
Election officers were very satisfied overall with the way the by-elections went and were very likely to consider working in another election, even during a pandemic:
- 95% of election officers were satisfied with the way the by-election went at their polling station, including 64% who said they were very satisfied. This is higher than the level obtained in the Survey of Election Officers for the 2019 GE, when 90% said they were satisfied and 53% said they were very satisfied with the way the election went at their polling station.
- 96% of election officers in the by-elections said it is likely they would consider working again, including 84% who said it is very likely, even if an election were to be called in the next year while the pandemic is ongoing.
But opinions of the quality of the working conditions at the polls were somewhat lower for the by-elections than for the 2019 GE:
- 92% of election officers said that the working conditions they experienced during the by-elections were at least fairly good, with 48% saying they were very good. While the proportion who said working conditions were at least fairly good was unchanged from the 2019 GE, the proportion who said conditions were very good was down 6 percentage points from 54%, according to the Survey of Election Officers for the 43rd GE.
Impact of COVID-19 Safety Measures on Satisfaction with the Work Experience
To determine whether election officers' experiences with the COVID-19 safety measures had an impact on their overall view of working conditions or their willingness to work in another election in similar circumstances, the views of those who reported having a very positive experience with some aspect of the safety measures were compared with the views of those who had a somewhat positive experience or less.footnote 3
Election officers' views on the quality of the working conditions depended considerably on their experience and opinions of the COVID-19 safety measures:
Across a number of measures, election officers were very likely to think the working conditions for the by-elections were very good when their opinions of the safety measures were very positive; however, they were much less likely to think the working conditions were very good when their experience was less than very positive.
- 60% of those who felt very informed about the safety measures before working said the working conditions were very good, compared with 21% of those who felt somewhat informed or less (a 39 percentage-point difference).
- 58% of those who were very satisfied with the PPE said the working conditions were very good, compared with 26% of those who were somewhat satisfied with the PPE or less (a 33 percentage-point difference).
- 67% of those who said the safety measures made them feel very safe said the working conditions were very good, compared with 23% of those who felt somewhat safe or less (a 44 percentage-point difference).
- 69% of those who thought the COVID-19 safety measures were very effective said the working conditions were very good, compared with 29% of those who thought safety measures were somewhat effective or less (a 40 percentage-point difference).
Recalling that election officers were more split between being very positive and somewhat positive on the safety and effectiveness of the safety measures, the larger gaps in opinions on the working conditions for these measures might mostly explain why opinions of the working conditions for the by-elections were lower than for the 2019 GE.
Figure 4: Opinions of the working conditions depended on opinions of the safety measures
| All respondents |
|
|
| Quality of the working conditions according to those with higher or lower views of the safety measures | Felt very informed about the safety measures before working |
|
|---|---|---|
| Felt somewhat informed or less |
| |
| Very satisfied with the PPE |
|
|
| Somewhat satisfied or less with the PPE |
|
|
| Felt very safe with the safety measures |
|
|
| Felt somewhat safe or less |
|
|
| Thought safety measures were very effective |
|
|
| Thought safety measures were somewhat effective or less |
|
|
Q. Overall, would you say that the working conditions you experienced were…?
Base: all respondents; n=383.
Source: Survey of Election Officers for the October 2020 By-elections.
Text version of "Figure 4: Opinions of the working conditions depended on opinions of the safety measures"
This horizontal bar chart shows how respondents viewed the quality of the working conditions, based on their opinions of the safety measures. The breakdown is as follows:
| Opinion of the quality of the working conditions | ||
|---|---|---|
| Very good | Fairly good | |
| All respondents | 48% | 43% |
| Those who felt very informed about the safety measures before working | 60% | 36% |
| Those who felt somewhat informed or less | 21% | 61% |
| Those who were very satisfied with the PPE | 58% | 38% |
| Those who were somewhat satisfied or less with the PPE | 26% | 56% |
| Those who felt very safe with the safety measures | 67% | 30% |
| Those who felt somewhat safe or less | 23% | 61% |
| Those who thought the safety measures were very effective | 69% | 29% |
| Those who thought the safety measures were somewhat effective or less | 29% | 58% |
Election officers' willingness to consider working in another election during the pandemic was only somewhat impacted by their experience with the COVID-19 safety measures:
Election officers in the by-elections were more likely to consider working in another election during the pandemic when their opinions of the COVID-19 safety measures were very positive, rather than somewhat positive or less. However, the impact this had on willingness to consider working again was less pronounced compared with the impact it had on views about the working conditions, with still-large proportions being very likely to consider working again despite having had a less than very positive experience:
- 89% of those who felt very informed about the safety measures before working said they were very likely to consider working again, compared with 71% of those who felt somewhat informed or less (an 18 percentage-point difference).
- 88% of those who were very satisfied with the PPE said they were very likely to consider working again, compared with 74% of those who were somewhat satisfied with the PPE or less (a 14 percentage-point difference).
- 93% of those who said the safety measures made them feel very safe said they were very likely to consider working again, compared with 72% of those who said the safety measures made them feel somewhat safe or less (a 21 percentage-point difference).
- 93% of those who thought the COVID-19 safety measures were very effective said they were very likely to consider working again, compared with 74% of those who thought safety measures were somewhat effective or less (a 19 percentage-point difference).
In addition, those who thought the overall working conditions were very good were also more likely to consider working in another election:
- 94% of those who thought the working conditions were very good said they were very likely to consider working again, compared with 74% of those who thought conditions were fairly good or less (a 20 percentage-point difference).
Figure 5: Likelihood of working in another election in a pandemic depended somewhat on opinions of the safety measures and working conditions
| All respondents |
|
|
| Likelihood of working again, according to those with higher or lower views of the safety measures or working conditions | Felt very informed about the safety measures before working |
|
|---|---|---|
| Felt somewhat informed or less |
| |
| Very satisfied with the PPE |
|
|
| Somewhat satisfied or less with the PPE |
|
|
| Felt very safe with the safety measures |
|
|
| Felt somewhat safe or less |
|
|
| Thought safety measures were very effective |
|
|
| Thought safety measures were somewhat effective or less |
|
|
| Thought working conditions were very good |
|
|
| Thought working conditions were fairly good or less |
|
|
Q. If an election were to be called in the next year while the pandemic is ongoing, how likely would you be to consider working again?
Base: all respondents; n=383.
Source: Survey of Election Officers for the October 2020 By-elections.
Text version of "Figure 5: Likelihood of working in another election in a pandemic depended somewhat on opinions of the safety measures and working conditions"
This horizontal bar chart shows how respondents viewed the quality of the working conditions, based on their opinions of the safety measures. The breakdown is as follows:
This horizontal bar chart shows the likelihood of respondents' working in another election in a pandemic, based on their opinions of the safety measures and working conditions. The breakdown is as follows:
| Likelihood of working in another election | ||
|---|---|---|
| Very likely | Somewhat likely | |
| All respondents | 84% | 12% |
| Those who felt very informed about the safety measures before working | 89% | 9% |
| Those who felt somewhat informed or less | 71% | 20% |
| Those who were very satisfied with the PPE | 88% | 9% |
| Those who were somewhat satisfied or less with the PPE | 74% | 20% |
| Those who felt very safe with the safety measures | 93% | 7% |
| Those who felt somewhat safe or less | 72% | 19% |
| Those who thought the safety measures were very effective | 93% | 6% |
| Those who thought the safety measures were somewhat effective or less | 74% | 18% |
| Those who thought working conditions were very good | 94% | 5% |
| Those who thought working conditions were fairly good or less | 74% | 19% |
Overall, the most notable gaps in likeliness to work again were between election officers who thought the safety measures were very safe and very effective versus those who said they were somewhat safe and somewhat effective or less. This is because more election officers gave responses of "somewhat safe" and "somewhat effective" than gave responses of "somewhat informed" and "somewhat satisfied with the PPE.footnote 4
In addition, the effect of these gaps on the likelihood of working again was comparable to the effect of having a lower opinion of the overall working conditions.
Taken together, the results suggest that election officers' views of the working conditions and willingness to work again during the pandemic might be improved first and foremost by making sure election officers themselves feel as safe as possible.
Methodological Notes
The special edition of the Survey of Election Officers for the October 26, 2020 by-elections was developed and conducted by the Research Division of the Public Affairs and Civic Education branch, with fieldwork taking place from November 18 to December 3, 2020.
All election officers who completed their training to work at the ordinary and advance polls during the October 26, 2020 by-elections held in Toronto Centre and York Centre were invited via email to complete a 5- to 10-minute online survey hosted on the Voxco platform. Up to two reminders were sent to maximize response rates. An attempt was made to invite 761 election officers, although invitations to eight email addresses (1%) were found to be undeliverable.
In total, 386 election officers responded, for an overall response rate of 51%. The response rate for Toronto Centre was higher at 55% (204 of 370) than for York Centre, where it was 47% (182 of 391).
No random procedures were used to select survey participants, so the results have no margins of sampling error. There is a possibility of non-random errors that may cause bias in the results, although the degree of bias from non-response is expected to be low, given the above-average overall response rate, and because results across electoral districts were found to be comparable, notwithstanding their different response rates.
Appendix 1: Additional Topline Results
Training for working during the pandemic
- 89% of election officers for the by-elections agreed that the training they received prepared them to do the job effectively with COVID-19 safety measures in place, including 53% who strongly agreed.
- Those who did not feel prepared by the training (11%) tended to suggest that more hands-on training and more information on the COVID-19 safety measures and equipment would have improved the training.
How well electors observed COVID-19 safety measures when voting
- 96% of election officers said that electors understood the instructions on how to vote safely, including 59% who said that electors understood the instructions very well.
- 94% of election officers said that electors practiced physical distancing well while in the building, including 60% who said that electors practiced physical distancing very well.
- 98% of election officers said that electors did well at wearing masks while inside, including 83% who said electors did very well.
- 88% of election officers thought electors did well at using the hand sanitizer provided, with 53% saying electors did very well.
- 88% of election officers thought the building where they worked offered enough room for electors to practice physical distancing.
Voting services and counting process under the new operational model
- 89% of deputy returning officers (DROs) agreed that it was easy to process voters on their own without needing support, with 45% saying they strongly agreed.
- On the other hand, 63% of central poll supervisors (CPSs) agreed that they often had to step in to support the DROs as they processed voters, with 29% saying they strongly agreed.
- Among those involved in the ballot-counting process, 96% said that the process went well, including 76% who said it went very well.
General concerns about COVID-19
- 72% of election officers said they are concerned about personally becoming sick from COVID-19, with 28% saying they are very concerned.
- 80% said they are concerned about friends or family becoming sick, with 46% saying they are very concerned.
- 80% also said they are concerned about people in their community becoming sick, with 40% saying they are very concerned.
- 27% of election officers said they consider themselves or someone in their immediate circle to be at high risk for COVID-19.
Appendix 2: Survey Results by Electoral Districtfootnote 5
| Table 1: Experience Working During the October 2020 By-elections | Total (n ≤ 386) | Electoral District | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Toronto Centre(n ≤ 204) | York Centre(n ≤ 182) | ||
| Where did you learn about the opportunity to work in the federal by-election? (n = 386) | |||
| Elections Canada brochure or leaflet | 1.3% | 2.0% | 0.5% |
| Radio | 1.8% | 1.0% | 2.7% |
| Television | 7.3% | 5.4% | 9.3% |
| Newspaper | 2.3% | 2.0% | 2.7% |
| Elections Canada website or social media platforms | 28.0% | 31.9% | 23.6% |
| Word of mouth (friends, relatives, colleagues) | 33.4% | 30.9% | 36.3% |
| Another election officer | 15.8% | 11.8% | 20.3% |
| Other Internet website (other than Elections Canada website) | 4.7% | 3.9% | 5.5% |
| Candidates and political parties | 2.8% | 3.9% | 1.6% |
| Worked in a previous election | 49.0% | 50.5% | 47.3% |
| School | 1.3% | 1.0% | 1.6% |
| Other | 2.8% | 2.0% | 3.8% |
|
What positions did you hold at the polls during the by-election? (n =383) |
|||
| Central poll supervisor (CPS) | 23.5% | 20.7% | 26.7% |
| Information officer (IO) | 24.8% | 26.6% | 22.8% |
| Registration officer (RegO) | 18.0% | 17.7% | 18.3% |
| Deputy returning officer (DRO) | 40.7% | 40.4% | 41.1% |
|
What was the main appeal of working in the by-election for you? (n = 386) |
|||
| Participating in democracy | 32.6% | 40.2% | 24.2% |
| Being involved in the community | 24.4% | 23.0% | 25.8% |
| The opportunity for paid work | 37.6% | 31.4% | 44.5% |
| Other | 4.7% | 4.9% | 4.4% |
|
Some people were unable or decided not to show up for all of their scheduled shifts for a variety of reasons. Which of the following best describes you? (n = 386) |
|||
| I was absent for at least one of my scheduled shifts | 2.6% | 2.5% | 2.7% |
| I was present for all of my scheduled shifts | 96.6% | 97.1% | 96.2% |
|
Which type of polling station did you work at? (n = 383) |
|||
| Advance poll | 5.7% | 3.0% | 8.9% |
| Polling day | 78.1% | 81.3% | 74.4% |
| Advance poll and polling day | 16.2% | 15.8% | 16.7% |
|
As an election officer, how would you rate your overall level of satisfaction with the way the by-election went at your polling place? (n = 383) |
|||
| Very satisfied | 64.2% | 63.5% | 65.0% |
| Somewhat satisfied | 30.3% | 31.0% | 29.4% |
| Not very satisfied | 3.1% | 3.0% | 3.3% |
| Not at all satisfied | 2.3% | 2.5% | 2.2% |
|
Agree/disagree: As a DRO, it was easy to process voters on my own without needing support. (n = 156) |
|||
| Strongly agree | 44.9% | 37.8% | 52.7% |
| Somewhat agree | 43.6% | 45.1% | 41.9% |
| Somewhat disagree | 7.1% | 11.0% | 2.7% |
| Strongly disagree | 4.5% | 6.1% | 2.7% |
|
Agree/disagree: As a CPS, I often had to step in to support the DROs as they processed voters. (n = 90) |
|||
| Strongly agree | 28.9% | 28.6% | 29.2% |
| Somewhat agree | 34.4% | 40.5% | 29.2% |
| Somewhat disagree | 21.1% | 14.3% | 27.1% |
| Strongly disagree | 14.4% | 16.7% | 12.5% |
|
If you were involved in the ballot-counting process, would you say that process went…? (n = 383) |
|||
| Very well | 76.1% | 77.0% | 75.0% |
| Somewhat well | 20.3% | 20.2% | 20.4% |
| Not very well | 2.1% | 1.6% | 2.6% |
| Not well at all | 1.5% | 1.1% | 2.0% |
|
How satisfied are you with your hourly rate of pay? (n = 383) |
|||
| Very satisfied | 31.1% | 34.0% | 27.8% |
| Somewhat satisfied | 48.6% | 47.3% | 50.0% |
| Not very satisfied | 14.9% | 13.3% | 16.7% |
| Not at all satisfied | 4.4% | 4.4% | 4.4% |
|
Overall, would you say that the working conditions you experienced were…? (n = 383) |
|||
| Very good | 48.3% | 47.3% | 49.4% |
| Fairly good | 43.3% | 44.8% | 41.7% |
| Not very good | 6.0% | 5.9% | 6.1% |
| Not good at all | 2.3% | 2.0% | 2.8% |
|
Agree/disagree: The training I received prepared me to do the job effectively with COVID-19 safety measures in place. (n = 386) |
|||
| Strongly agree | 53.1% | 46.6% | 60.4% |
| Somewhat agree | 36.0% | 38.7% | 33.0% |
| Somewhat disagree | 8.3% | 11.3% | 4.9% |
| Strongly disagree | 2.3% | 2.9% | 1.6% |
|
When you first went in to work at the poll, how informed did you feel you were about the COVID-19 safety measures that were in place? (n = 383) |
|||
| Very informed | 70.8% | 63.5% | 78.9% |
| Somewhat informed | 25.1% | 32.0% | 17.2% |
| Not very informed | 3.7% | 3.9% | 3.3% |
| Not at all informed | 0.5% | 0.5% | 0.6% |
|
When working at the poll, how well would you say electors…understood the instructions on how to vote safely? (n = 383) |
|||
| Very well | 58.5% | 55.7% | 61.7% |
| Somewhat well | 37.3% | 39.4% | 35.0% |
| Not very well | 2.6% | 2.5% | 2.8% |
| Not well at all | 1.0% | 1.5% | 0.6% |
|
When working at the poll, how well would you say electors…practiced physical distancing in the building? (n = 383) |
|||
| Very well | 59.5% | 57.6% | 61.7% |
| Somewhat well | 34.2% | 35.0% | 33.3% |
| Not very well | 4.4% | 4.9% | 3.9% |
| Not well at all | 1.3% | 1.5% | 1.1% |
|
When working at the poll, how well would you say electors…wore masks while inside? (n = 383) |
|||
| Very well | 83.3% | 84.7% | 81.7% |
| Somewhat well | 14.9% | 12.8% | 17.2% |
| Not very well | 0.5% | 0.5% | 0.6% |
| Not well at all | 0.8% | 1.0% | 0.6% |
|
When working at the poll, how well would you say electors…used the hand sanitizer provided? (n = 383) |
|||
| Very well | 52.7% | 49.3% | 56.7% |
| Somewhat well | 34.7% | 36.5% | 32.8% |
| Not very well | 8.1% | 9.4% | 6.7% |
| Not well at all | 2.1% | 2.5% | 1.7% |
|
Did the building where you worked offer enough room for electors to practice physical distancing? (n = 383) |
|||
| Yes | 87.7% | 87.7% | 87.8% |
| No | 11.2% | 11.3% | 11.1% |
|
Overall, would you say that during your working hours the flow of electors at the polls went…? (n = 383) |
|||
| Very smoothly | 68.4% | 66.0% | 71.1% |
| Somewhat smoothly | 28.7% | 30.5% | 26.7% |
| Not very smoothly | 2.1% | 2.5% | 1.7% |
| Not at all smoothly | 0.8% | 1.0% | 0.6% |
|
How satisfied were you with the personal protective equipment that was provided to you? (n = 383) |
|||
| Very satisfied | 69.5% | 66.5% | 72.8% |
| Somewhat satisfied | 23.8% | 27.1% | 20.0% |
| Not very satisfied | 5.0% | 3.9% | 6.1% |
| Not at all satisfied | 1.8% | 2.5% | 1.1% |
|
When thinking about your experience working at the polls, would you say that the safety measures in place for COVID-19 made you feel…(n = 383) |
|||
| Very safe | 55.9% | 53.2% | 58.9% |
| Somewhat safe | 38.1% | 40.4% | 35.6% |
| Somewhat unsafe | 2.6% | 3.4% | 1.7% |
| Very unsafe | 1.6% | 2.0% | 1.1% |
|
Agree/disagree: The COVID-19 safety measures in place at the polls made my job difficult to do. (n = 383) |
|||
| Strongly agree | 6.5% | 6.9% | 6.1% |
| Somewhat agree | 24.3% | 22.7% | 26.1% |
| Somewhat disagree | 23.0% | 23.6% | 22.2% |
| Strongly disagree | 44.6% | 44.8% | 44.4% |
|
How effective would you say the safety measures in place at the polls were for reducing the spread of COVID-19? (n = 383) |
|||
| Very effective | 49.3% | 49.3% | 49.4% |
| Somewhat effective | 39.9% | 40.4% | 39.4% |
| Somewhat ineffective | 3.7% | 5.9% | 1.1% |
| Very ineffective | 2.1% | 1.0% | 3.3% |
|
If an election were to be called in the next year while the pandemic is ongoing, how likely would you be to consider working again? (n = 383) |
|||
| Very likely | 83.6% | 83.7% | 83.3% |
| Somewhat likely | 12.3% | 12.3% | 12.2% |
| Somewhat unlikely | 1.6% | 2.0% | 1.1% |
| Very unlikely | 1.8% | 2.0% | 1.7% |
| Table 2: Concerns about COVID-19 | Total (n ≤ 386) | Electoral District | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Toronto Centre(n ≤ 204) | York Centre(n ≤ 182) | ||
| In general, how concerned are you about …you personally becoming sick from COVID-19? (n = 386) | |||
| Very concerned | 28.2% | 25.5% | 31.3% |
| Somewhat concerned | 43.3% | 42.2% | 44.5% |
| Not that concerned | 13.7% | 16.2% | 11.0% |
| Not at all concerned | 10.9% | 13.2% | 8.2% |
| In general, how concerned are you about …friends or family becoming sick? (n = 386) | |||
| Very concerned | 45.9% | 40.2% | 52.2% |
| Somewhat concerned | 34.5% | 38.2% | 30.2% |
| Not that concerned | 7.8% | 10.3% | 4.9% |
| Not at all concerned | 8.3% | 8.8% | 7.7% |
| In general, how concerned are you about …people in your community becoming sick? (n = 386) | |||
| Very concerned | 40.4% | 38.7% | 42.3% |
| Somewhat concerned | 39.4% | 40.2% | 38.5% |
| Not that concerned | 9.6% | 11.3% | 7.7% |
| Not at all concerned | 6.0% | 6.4% | 5.5% |
| Do you consider yourself, or someone in your immediate social circle, to be at high risk for COVID-19? (n = 386) | |||
| Yes | 26.7% | 26.5% | 26.9% |
| No | 57.0% | 58.3% | 55.5% |
| Table 3: Respondent Characteristics | Total (n ≤ 386) | Electoral District | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Toronto Centre(n ≤ 204) | York Centre(n ≤ 182) | ||
| Gender (n = 386) | |||
| Female | 53.4% | 52.0% | 54.9% |
| Male | 43.8% | 45.6% | 41.8% |
| Age Group (n = 385) | |||
| 16 to 34 years | 21.0% | 21.2% | 20.9% |
| 35 to 54 years | 24.2% | 29.1% | 18.7% |
| 55 to 64 years | 21.8% | 22.2% | 21.4% |
| 65 years | 14.8% | 13.8% | 15.9% |
| Prefer not to say | 18.2% | 13.8% | 23.1% |
| Education (n = 385) | |||
| Completed high school or less | 13.2% | 10.8% | 15.9% |
| Completed college or some post-secondary | 27.5% | 27.1% | 28.0% |
| Completed university | 57.7% | 60.1% | 54.9% |
| Disability or health condition (n = 384) | |||
| Have a disability/health condition | 17.4% | 19.3% | 15.4% |
| No disability/health condition | 76.8% | 73.3% | 80.8% |
Footnotes
Return to source of footnote 1 See the Methodological Notes at the end of this report for details on the survey methodology.
Return to source of footnote 2 Throughout this report, differences identified in the results between elections or subgroups are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level or higher; percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding or, in certain cases, due to multiple responses being accepted.
Return to source of footnote 3 For example, the views of those who said they felt very safe with the safety measures were compared with the views of those who collectively said they felt somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe, or very unsafe. Those who had a "less than very positive experience" should not be construed as groups with a negative view: Considering that only small proportions of respondents gave negative ratings to their experiences with the safety measures, these groups are primarily composed of respondents who had a somewhat positive experience.
Return to source of footnote 4 That is, 49% of respondents thought the safety measures were very effective and 46% thought the safety measures were somewhat effective or less. In comparison, only 29% of respondents felt very informed about the safety measures before working. This means, for example, that the lower willingness to work again among those who thought safety measures were somewhat effective has more weight on overall willingness to work than does a lower willingness to work among those who felt somewhat informed.
Return to source of footnote 5 Certain rows of data may have been omitted from the tables for readability or confidentiality; namely, responses of "don't know" or "prefer not to say," or identifying characteristics where proportions represent a small number of respondents.