Laserfiche WebLink
order to maintain public confidence elections should be accessible, transparent, secret, <br />accountable and secure from fraud. Internet voting may not adhere to some of those principles <br />raising the question of whether or not it is important enough to dispense with one or more <br />principles for the sake of convenience and other possible positive outcomes. It is important that <br />decisions with respect to introducing internet voting, take into consideration the need to balance <br />these competing principles. <br />This report will attempt to bring together information from various papers, reports, data and <br />documents on the subject to assist council in making a decision on whether or not, internet <br />voting is an acceptable and appropriate voting method for the City of Kitchener to introduce in <br />2014. <br />The Internet Voting Experience <br />Internet voting has been trialled over the past decade by several countries and jurisdictions <br />throughout the world. In all cases except one, this voting method has only been offered on a <br />local or jurisdictional level, not on a national level. In addition, except for some Ontario <br />municipalities in 2010, internet voting has been offered as a voting option along with others such <br />as paper ballot, phone voting and mail-in; in other words, internet has not been the sole method <br />of voting. <br />Europe and Australia <br />Several European countries have investigated and piloted internet voting and Estonia and <br />Switzerland appear to have embraced this method having conducted several elections with <br />internet voting as an option. Estonia is the only country to have offered internet voting on a <br />national level. Norway conducted its first pilot in 2011 on a limited municipal level and pending <br />the outcome of an extensive post-election report, there are plans to introduce internet voting on <br />a national level in 2017. <br />Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom have used electronic counting equipment <br />and have trialled internet voting but all three have moved away from these voting options based <br />on certain democratic voting principles not being met. Both Germany and the Netherlands have <br />gone so far as to decommission all electronic voting methods citing lack of transparency, <br />accountability and the fact that equal and free voting could not be verified. The United Kingdom <br />also cited transparency and security issues and found that the majority of internet users would <br />have voted using the other available methods raising questions with respect to cost and value. <br />Australia piloted internet voting in 2007 but deferred further trials in 2009 citing cost as the major <br />impediment in offering this voting option. <br />North America <br />The United States have trialled internet voting but only in limited uses such as primaries and <br />overseas/military voters. Security and risks to voting integrity have been cited as concerns and <br />as such, no internet program has been established on a federal level. According to one <br />researcher, a national policy on internet voting is not expected in the near future. Certain <br />individual States have used internet voting again mostly for military and absentee voters <br />however; security remains an issue with some and there is evidence that a few states are <br />moving back to a paper ballot to be counted either manually or by optical-scan machines. <br />In Canada, the Federal and several Provincial governments have commenced their <br />investigations into the use of the internet as an optional method of voting. On the federal level <br />the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer has completed the terms of reference for internet voting <br />and if approval is given, will offer the option for a by-election in 2013. It is also expected that if <br />the pilot is considered successful, a federal policy on internet voting including security and <br />ë ó î <br />