HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOR-2021-26 - 2022 Municipal and School Board Election - Alternative Voting MethodsStaff Report Iz
Corporate Services Departr7ent www. kitchener. ca
REPORT TO: Finance and Corporate Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING: November 8, 2021
SUBMITTED BY: Christine Tarling, Director of Legislative Services/City Clerk, 519-
741-2200 ext. 7809
PREPARED BY: Cody Boomer, Election Project Manager, 519-741-2200 ext. 7273
WARD(S) INVOLVED: All Wards
DATE OF REPORT: October 28, 2021
REPORT NO.: COR -2021-26
SUBJECT: 2022 Municipal & School Board Election — Alternative Voting
Methods
RECOMMENDATION:
That a by-law to authorize the use of internet voting for advanced polls as a
supplementary voting method for the 2022 Kitchener municipal and school board
election in conjunction with paper ballots/tabulators be approved, subject to the
satisfactory completion of the City's Solution Assessment and Privacy Impact
Assessment.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
• By-law 2006-135 is in place authorizing the use of paper ballots/tabulators for all
Kitchener municipal and school board elections.
• The purpose of this report is to present Council with information regarding potential
alternative voting methods as a supplementary voting method forthe 2022 municipal and
school board election.
• Staff recommends internet voting as a supplementary voting option for advanced polls
only to help improve equity, accessibility, customer service and pandemic planning.
• Staff's recommendation is informed by research on election trends, responses from
vendors to the City's Request for Information (RFI), a municipal scan, and feedback from
the community.
• This report supports the delivery of core services and aligns with the Strategic Plan goals
of caring community and customer service.
BACKGROUND:
The Municipal Elections Act, 1996, (MEA) states that municipal elections are to be held
every four years with the next election day occurring on October 24, 2022.
Previously, decisions on vote -counting equipment or alternative voting methods were
required to be made and ratified by by-law by May 1 the year before an election. Bill 218,
Supporting Ontario's Recovery, 2020, amended the MEA to require this decision be made
by May 1 of the election year. While some municipalities have already approved their voting
method for 2022, many others are using the extended period to research, undertake public
Page 79 of 144
engagement, and assess the best approach for its electors. City staff have done that work
and are now seeking direction from Council because knowing the voting method is
necessary to inform various interrelated decisions (e.g., polling locations, election workers,
candidate packages), which need to be made by early 2022. Most importantly, City staff
need to provide voting subdivisions to the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
(MPAC) by March 2022. This will require time in advance to review the impact of the
alternative voting method(s) on those subdivisions and to work with GIS to establish those
boundaries.
By-law 2006-135 is already in place for the use of paper ballots/tabulators in all Kitchener
municipal elections. The purpose of this report is to present Council with alternative voting
methods to be used as a supplementary voting method for the 2022 municipal and school
board elections.
It should be noted that Council is being requested to decide on a voting method, but as per
the MEA, the City Clerk and staff are responsible for deciding on the means to deliver that
voting method (e.g., mobile voting, super polls, kiosks). Therefore, that decision is out of
scope for the purposes of this report.
REPORT:
Election Principles & Factors
There are several methods by which an elector could cast their ballot in the 2022 municipal
election:
• Paper ballot, which requires in-person voting;
• Internet voting;
• Mail -in ballot; or,
• Telephone voting.
Council may choose to only offer paper ballots/tabulators in accordance with By-law 2006-
135; select another single method to replace paper ballots/tabulators; or pass a By-law in
addition to By-law 2006-135 to permit internet voting as a supplementary voting option for
advanced polls only in 2022.
In reviewing available alternative voting methods, City staff have considered previously
established election principles that align with the MEA, and recognized election best
practices as well as factors that improve the voting experience and election administration.
For 2022, staff has also considered alternative voting methods through an equity lens as
well as pandemic planning.
Election Principles:
• Accessibility — The election is compliant with Accessibility for Ontarians with
Disabilities Act (AODA) and enable all stakeholders who wish to participate to do so.
• Equity — The election is equitable and fair for all stakeholders.
• Security — Ballots cast will be secure from tampering.
• Secrecy — An individual's ballot and personally identifiable information will be
confidential.
• Integrity — Integrity of the voting process and election record will be upheld.
• Verifiability — Election results will be auditable and defendable.
• Legally Binding — The election processes and procedures will adhere to the
requirements of the MEA and other applicable legislation and governing policies.
Page 80 of 144
Factors:
• Cost — Administration of the election is cost effective.
• Customer Service — Continue to improve our procedures and processes.
• Efficiency — An easy and facilitated voting experience.
• Counting & Results Reporting — Reliable and timely results tabulation
• Pandemic planning — Ability to provide for a safe and healthy election.
When all of the above principles/factors are taken together, City staff recommends that a
supplementary voting method be considered for the 2022 municipal election, and that the
preferred supplementary method be internet voting since it is the method that most strongly
achieves the above-mentioned principles/factors. Furthermore, in order to afford the best
customer experience for the electors, staff recommends that internet voting be deployed for
advanced polls only and not on Election Day.
If internet voting is used as a supplementary method to paper in 2022, City staff will need
time to develop procedures and processes to implement and conduct testing as well as
prepare an emergency plan. If pandemic restrictions remain in place, City staff will also need
to develop procedures and processes for in-person voting in order to adjust to the
constraints created by the pandemic. The voting method also impacts other important
decisions City staff will need to make with respect to the election. For all these reasons, it
would not be desirable to delay a decision on this issue.
Analysis
This report compares currently available voting methods for the 2022 municipal and school
board election. Efforts to inform this analysis include information gathered from research on
municipal election trends in Ontario, information on alternative voting methods informed by
a RFI the City issued, community engagement, and examines concerns previously raised in
2012 in report FCS -12-191 — Alternative Voting — Internet Voting.
2018 Municipal Election Trends
In 2018, the City of Kitchener saw over 41,000 eligible electors vote by paper ballot,
representing a 28% voter turnout. While this was a decrease of 2% from 2014, it was on par
with the City's 50 -year average. Within the Region of Waterloo in 2018, elections were held
by paper ballot in Waterloo and Wilmot; internet and telephone in North Dumfries, Wellesley
and Woolwich; and, by both internet and paper ballot in Cambridge.
According to the statistics for the 2018 election from the Association of Municipalities of
Ontario (AMO), 178 municipal governments used internet and telephone voting, which is 84
more than the previous election. The survey noted the use of mail -in ballots in the 2018
election dropped by 46% and likely reflects a move to methods that are safe from a postal
strike. While the methods vary, offering electors more than one option to vote is increasingly
more common.
AMO — Ontario Municipal Elections
2018 Voting Methods b Percentage
Internet Voting as primary oroptional
42.3%
Paper ballots only
26.6%
Used Scanners as primary oroptional
17.8%
Mail -in ballots primarily
13.3%
Page 81 of 144
AMCTO received survey responses from 263 municipalities, and 132 indicated they used
internet voting in some capacity. Of those, 117 responded to the question regarding
recommending internet voting — 91% would recommend while 9% said maybe. 116
responded to the question as to why they decided to use internet voting in 2018.
AMCTO — Ontario Municipal Elections
Reasons for Choosing Internet Voting
Improve accessibility
50%
Modernization
27%
Improve voter turnout
15%
Cost
8%
While some municipalities have chosen to implement internet voting to increase voter
turnout, there is no conclusive evidence that internet voting increases turnout, as there are
numerous variables and factors that impact overall turnout in a municipal election.
Of the 118 municipalities that indicated they used internet voting in 2018, 115 responded to
the question as to the risk mitigation methods they used.
AMCTO — Ontario Municipal Elections
Risk Mitigation Methods for Internet Voting
Conduct re -tests and audits 68%
Vendor -provided security measures 19%
Hired cyber -security consultant 5%
Internet voting has been increasingly utilized in Ontario by municipal election administrators.
Currently, it is the most widely used alternative voting method used by municipalities as
either the primary or supplementary method of voting in Ontario.
Impacts of COVID-19
While there was a notable trend towards technology-based voting methods before the global
pandemic, COVID-19 has since created a climate where the City will need to consider the
benefits of a remote voting method at least as a supplementary means of voting for electors.
While vaccination efforts are underway, and health and safety measures have helped to
control transmission, the pandemic has not followed a predictable trajectory. Therefore, it
would be prudent to consider more than one voting method in order to make voting as
accessible and as safe as possible for all electors.
Comparison to the 2012 Internet Voting Report
The 2012 report FCS -12-191 — Alternative Voting — Internet Voting recommended against
utilizing internet voting until a number of concerns had been addressed. Significant progress
has been made to address the issues in terms of security, integrity, verifiability, and cost
since the City last explored the option nearly a decade ago. For example, software
advancements enable auditable election records, cloud -based solutions limit the risk of
service disruptions, and two -factor registration and authentication help to mitigate voter
fraud. As well, the City's internal Cybersecurity Analyst has been actively involved in the risk
assessment of internet voting and has provided further mitigation methods to ensure
security.
Page 82 of 144
Additionally, in comparison to 2012, there is an increased focus on equity, accessibility and
pandemic planning in preparing for the 2022 municipal election which is supported through
the use of internet voting as a supplementary voting method.
Recommendation
Staff have analyzed all alternative voting options available to arrive at the recommendation
that internet voting be deployed for advanced polls only and not for the full duration of the
election, as a supplementary voting method to paper ballots/tabulators.
Primary Advantages:
• Supports and improves equity and accessibility by offering two methods of voting.
• Increases convenience of voting during the advanced voting period.
• Enhances health and safety by limiting contact if pandemic measures are still in
place.
• Risk concerns from 2012 have been greatly reduced and more mature risk mitigation
methods now exist.
• The City's current contract with Dominion Voting Systems guarantees a 20% discount
for both paper and internet voting methods.
Main Disadvantages:
• No internet voting method on Election Day.
• Public perception about security of internet voting.
• Additional time needed to familiarize and train staff on internet voting.
• Need to create additional processes and procedures to implement and test internet
voting.
Other Alternative Voting Methods Considered but Not Recommended
While all voting methods share some of the same advantages as staff's recommendation,
the main disadvantages of the other methods are as follows:
1. Internet voting for advanced polls and on Election Day:
• Delays in providing timely support or assistance to electors in casting their ballot
online and risk not being able to cast a ballot.
2. Internet voting only for the entire election:
• Does not support equity and accessibility as it limits electors to one voting method
and disenfranchises those without access to the internet or who prefer to vote in-
person.
3. Mail -in ballots:
• Mail processing or a postal strike could delay ballots arriving to voters in time and
could result in lost or damaged votes, or ballots not being returned on time to be
counted.
• Additional resources required for receiving and tabulating ballots.
• Public perception about security of mail -in ballots.
• The cost of mail -in ballots is more expensive than paper ballots/tabulators and
internet voting combined.
Page 83 of 144
4. Telephone voting:
• Delay decision-making regarding election processes since staff will have to procure
and establish a contract with a new vendor.
• Delays in providing timely support or assistance to electors in casting their ballot
online and risk not being able to cast a ballot.
• Additional time needed to familiarize and train staff on telephone voting.
• Public perception about the security of telephone voting.
• Feedback from our engagement survey, voters of other municipalities from previous
elections, as well as our vendor identify this method is cumbersome and not the
preferred option.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports the delivery of core services.
Internet voting as a supplementary method helps to achieve the goals of the strategic plan:
• Caring Community: Enables our diverse population with options to formally
participate in municipal politics by increasing access to address various unique life
circumstances.
• Customer Service: Provides an easy to use and convenient method of voting by
offering the opportunity to vote online and enhancing the customer experience.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The City maintains an Election Reserve of $522,000 that has been fully funded to -date. Staff
anticipates that an increase in the overall budget for the election will be required regardless
of the voting method(s) selected. However, depending on the method of voting method(s)
selected, the budget impact will vary.
Financial Considerations
In 2018, the cost of holding Kitchener's municipal election was $559,444.35. This expense
was paid out of a reserve fund collected over the term between elections and provided for
election staff, 77 voting locations and 16 institutions on Election Day, leasing equipment and
software, postage, and supplies.
In estimating costs for the 2022 election, the City can still benefit from its previous contract
with Dominion depending on the chosen voting method(s). The existing contract provides
for:
• Paper Ballot Only — $0.25 per ballot.
• Internet Voting as a supplementary method — Approx. $0.75 per ballot.
• Mail -in Ballot as a supplementary method — Dominion has provided a rough estimate
of an additional $3-$5 per ballot, which does not include postage.
• Internet Voting Only — Approx. $1.50 per ballot - Dominion has provided a rough
estimate of an internet-only election that does not benefit from the previously
contracted discount.
The below cost estimate for internet uses a 25% of eligible elector utilization rate. Staff
stresses that unless contracted, these costs are rough estimates and do not consider other
factors such as postage or staffing requirements.
Page 84 of 144
Total Cost with Contingency
With Internet Voting
Election Reserve $
522,000.00
Cost with Internet Voting $
633,400.00
20% Contingency $
126,680.00
Total Cost $
760,080.00
Total Shortfall $
(238,080.00)
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of
the council / committee meeting.
CONSULT — A total of 1025 responses were received through online and in-person
engagement surveys. Responses were not required for each question and allowed
participants to skip questions.
Stakeholder groups in the community who may have been previously underrepresented
were also interviewed to bolster the feedback received through the engagement survey.
The survey also provided the opportunity to canvass survey respondents for improvements
beyond voting methods. That feedback will be utilized by Election staff to improve our 2022
election in addition to the surveys completed post -2018.
Outreach methods included:
• Social media posts
• Local media attention
• City Newsletters
• Love My Hood
• Engage Kitchener
• Emails to & Interviews with community groups
• In-person engagement
Engagement Survey
To help inform this report, the City launched an online engagement survey regarding
alternative voting methods that was open from July 9, 2021 to August 31, 2021. Highlights
of the engagement are as follows:
• The survey received 1025 responses.
• Despite the limitations of in-person engagement opportunities due to the pandemic,
interviews of stakeholder groups took place and staff did in-person outreach at the
Kitchener Market and Music at the Market concert series which did not require survey
respondents to answer online. Engagement postcards with a scannable QR code
were also offered to help bridge the gap between in-person and online engagement
without requiring the participant to fill out the survey immediately in-person.
• The community ranked voting methods in the following order from most preferred to
least preferred: internet, paper, mail -in, and telephone.
• Thirty percent of participants that ranked internet voting as their top choice, ranked
paper as their second choice. Thirty one percent of participants who ranked paper as
their most preferred method, ranked internet voting second.
Page 85 of 144
The perceived bias of those responding online having a preference towards online voting is
mitigated by the fact that City staff is not recommending internet voting as the sole voting
method for electors. Results of the survey overwhelmingly indicate that respondents prefer
there to be more than one voting method to be available to them.
A summary of the engagement and demographics of the survey can be found in Appendix
D Engage Kitchener: Overview of Alternative Voting Method Feedback & Demographic
information.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
The previous reports/authorities related to this matter are:
• Municipal Elections Act, 1996
• FCS -12-191 —Alternative Voting— Internet Voting
APPROVED BY: Victoria Raab, GM, Corporate Services
ATTACHMENTS:
Appendix A — FCS -12-191 — Alternative Voting — Internet Voting
Appendix B — 2018 Municipal Election - Fast Facts
Appendix C — AMCTO 2018 Election Debrief
Appendix D — Engage Kitchener: Overview of Alternative Voting Method Feedback &
Demographic information
Page 86 of 144
REPORT TO:
Staff Report
Finance and Corporate Services Department
DATE OF MEETING:
SUBMITTED BY:
PREPARED BY:
WARD(S) INVOLVED:
DATE OF REPORT:
REPORT NO.:
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDATION:
Finance & Corporate Services Committee
December 10, 2012
ww+w.kitchener.ce
R. Gosse, Director of Legislated Services/City Clerk
R. Gosse - 2809
n/a
November 2, 2012
FCS -12-191
ALTERNATIVE VOTING — INTERNET VOTING
For information and discussion.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This report looks at the use of internet voting and attempts to answer the question of whether or
not internet voting should be introduced as a voting option for the 2014 elections. Staff is of the
opinion that it should not be introduced in 2014 based on several factors outlined in greater
detail in this report such as:
• Security of an internet voting system;
• Data that suggests it does not increase voter turnout and in particular, younger voters;
• Does not meet all of the principles of a democratic voting process;
• Cost;
• The lack of overarching guidelines especially in the area of voting system security and,
• The absence of a Canadian legal challenge to this voting method.
BACKGROUND:
In June 2011, Council directed staff to report back in 2012 on alternative voting methods and in
particular, internet voting and the option of implementing this type of voting for the 2014
municipal elections. This report will focus mainly on internet voting being it is a completely new
method of voting for the City of Kitchener.
REPORT:
Internet voting is becoming more prevalent within Ontario and other jurisdictions across Canada
and around the World. It is a voting method that allows a voter to submit a digital ballot over the
public Internet utilizing a web browser or application through a PC, tablet or smart phone. This
voting method provides a great deal of convenience by allowing voters with internet access to
vote from any location at any time during the voting period. It is also provides access to the
voting process for many voters with a disability.
Despite the apparent conveniences of internet voting, there are risks involved. It is critical that
elections are conducted with utmost integrity and in compliance with democratic principles. In
Page .5 41 111
order to maintain public confidence elections should be accessible, transparent, secret,
accountable and secure from fraud. Internet voting may not adhere to some of those principles
raising the question of whether or not it is important enough to dispense with one or more
principles for the sake of convenience and other possible positive outcomes. It is important that
decisions with respect to introducing internet voting, take into consideration the need to balance
these competing principles.
This report will attempt to bring together information from various papers, reports, data and
documents on the subject to assist council in making a decision on whether or not, internet
voting is an acceptable and appropriate voting method for the City of Kitchener to introduce in
2014.
The Internet Voting Experience
Internet voting has been trialled over the past decade by several countries and jurisdictions
throughout the world. In all cases except one, this voting method has only been offered on a
local or jurisdictional level, not on a national level. In addition, except for some Ontario
municipalities in 2010, internet voting has been offered as a voting option along with others such
as paper ballot, phone voting and mail -in; in other words, internet has not been the sole method
of voting.
Europe and Australia
Several European countries have investigated and piloted internet voting and Estonia and
Switzerland appear to have embraced this method having conducted several elections with
internet voting as an option. Estonia is the only country to have offered internet voting on a
national level. Norway conducted its first pilot in 2011 on a limited municipal level and pending
the outcome of an extensive post-election report, there are plans to introduce internet voting on
a national level in 2017.
Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom have used electronic counting equipment
and have trialled internet voting but all three have moved away from these voting options based
on certain democratic voting principles not being met. Both Germany and the Netherlands have
gone so far as to decommission all electronic voting methods citing lack of transparency,
accountability and the fact that equal and free voting could not be verified. The United Kingdom
also cited transparency and security issues and found that the majority of internet users would
have voted using the other available methods raising questions with respect to cost and value.
Australia piloted internet voting in 2007 but deferred further trials in 2009 citing cost as the major
impediment in offering this voting option.
North America
The United States have trialled internet voting but only in limited uses such as primaries and
overseas/military voters. Security and risks to voting integrity have been cited as concerns and
as such, no internet program has been established on a federal level. According to one
researcher, a national policy on internet voting is not expected in the near future. Certain
individual States have used internet voting again mostly for military and absentee voters
however; security remains an issue with some and there is evidence that a few states are
moving back to a paper ballot to be counted either manually or by optical -scan machines.
In Canada, the Federal and several Provincial governments have commenced their
investigations into the use of the internet as an optional method of voting. On the federal level
the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer has completed the terms of reference for internet voting
and if approval is given, will offer the option for a by-election in 2013. It is also expected that if
the pilot is considered successful, a federal policy on internet voting including security and
Page .5 q1; 141
integrity, will be developed sometime in 2015-16. This is much the same for the Ontario
government with a goal to pilot the option in 2012 and report back to the Speaker of the House
in 2013.
The Alberta and Nova Scotia provincial governments have taken steps to allow piloting of
internet voting on both the provincial and municipal levels. Edmonton has conducted a mock
vote using the internet and Halifax and a few smaller towns have conducted elections with
internet as an option and Halifax is again offering this method for the current 2012 elections.
Ontario
Internet voting was first introduced by the Town of Markham in 2003 and has continued to be an
option in the 2006 and 2010 elections. In 2006, several more municipalities offered internet
voting and in 2010, 44 municipalities that completed a survey for the Association of Municipal
Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario, indicated use of the internet. Of the 44
municipalities, 6 offered internet as an option and only for advance voting, 8 offered internet as
an option including election day and, 30 as the only means of voting along with telephone
voting. It should be noted that the 30 municipalities that offered only electronic voting (internet
and telephone), the largest in population was approximately 30,000; most were under 15,000.
Results and Outcomes
Throughout most internet voting trials around the world, one factor has become clear; the
majority of citizens have generally accepted internet voting as a practical option. This is not to
say the majority of citizens embraced the technology rather, they viewed it as an acceptable
alternative.
Although it has been found that voters have accepted internet voting as a method for casting
votes, there is no evidence to show it increased voter turnout. This is true throughout most, if
not all, internet voting trials.
The Town of Markham has been a front-runner in this field, being one of the first jurisdictions in
the world to introduce internet voting in 2003. The Town has offered this voting method as part
of the advance voting period for the past 3 regular elections and following each election, they
contracted a third -party company to undertake an extensive follow-up to assess the
effectiveness and value of internet voting.
The follow chart shows the Town of Markham turnout over the 3 years that internet voting was
available during advance voting.
2003
2006
2010
Electors
158000
164500
185470
Turnout
42198
61948
65927
% turnout
26.71%
37.66%
35.55%
internet votes
7210
10639
10597
% internet of
turnout
17.09%
17.17%
16.07%
% internet of
electors
4.56%
6.47%
5.71%
The post-election analysis undertaken by the consultant for the Town showed that whereas
advance voting increased dramatically, 300% in 2003, the overall turnout did not increase
significantly. It should be noted that 2003 was a particularly low turnout whereas 2006 and 2010
were closer and perhaps slightly higher than the average turnout for the Town. The consultant's
report which included post-election surveys amongst those who utilized internet voting showed
that approximately 75% of those using the internet had voted in the previous election and had
indicated they would have voted regardless of voting options. This was true in each of the 3
elections however; alternatively, 25% of the voters indicated they did not vote previously
showing that the method may attract new voters. In addition, acceptance of those using the
internet was very high, not only in Markham but for most other jurisdictions globally. Most
respondents indicated they would use the internet in future elections.
The figures from the Cities of Peterborough and Burlington are similar to that of Markham's.
The 2011 elections held in Norway trialled internet voting for some municipalities which allowed
for comparison between those with and without internet voting as an option. The post-election
analysis showed clearly that internet voting did not have a positive impact on turnout; the results
from those municipalities mirrored the results from municipalities without the internet option. The
report also indicated that 89% of internet voters surveyed stated they would have voted if
internet voting was not available.
The Town of Markham post-election analysis went beyond just looking at voter turnout; it also
included a breakdown by age groups for those who used the internet to cast their vote.
voters by
age
City of Peterborough
City of Burlington
2006
2010
2010
Electors
52116
54874
2006
121525
Turnout
25036
24219
45671
% turnout
48.04%
44.14%
37.58%
internet
3473
18-24
3951
649
2500
% internet of
turnout
13.87%
16.31%
2%
5.47%
% internet of
electors
6.66%
865
7.20%
11%
2.06%
The 2011 elections held in Norway trialled internet voting for some municipalities which allowed
for comparison between those with and without internet voting as an option. The post-election
analysis showed clearly that internet voting did not have a positive impact on turnout; the results
from those municipalities mirrored the results from municipalities without the internet option. The
report also indicated that 89% of internet voters surveyed stated they would have voted if
internet voting was not available.
The Town of Markham post-election analysis went beyond just looking at voter turnout; it also
included a breakdown by age groups for those who used the internet to cast their vote.
voters by
age
2003
2006
2010*
18-24
9%
649
7%
745
18-19
2%
219
25-34
12%
865
11%
1170
20's
11%
1134
35-44
22%
1586
22%
2341
30's
13%
1380
45-54
27%
1947
28%
2979
40's
23%
2412
55-64
19%
1370
21%
2234
50's
26%
2781
Page 4f 1W
64+
8%
577
11%
1170
60's
17%
1827
Unknown
3%
216
70's+
8%
844
100%
7210
100%
10639
100%
10597
*Note: The Town changed the age groups in 2010.
The results by age groups in Markham are very much the same as in other jurisdictions around
the world. In all cases where post-election follow-up was conducted, it was found that the
largest users of the internet were by voters age 45 to 55 and the smallest groups were 18-34. In
Norway a focus group of teenaged voters was undertaken and it was found that the younger
voter viewed walking to a poll to cast a ballot as ceremonial and symbolic of adulthood. They
also indicated that it was more important to ask why a young person should vote rather than
what method they will use to vote. There is clear evidence that, regardless of geography internet
voting does not attract younger voters.
Security, Scrutiny and Auditability
Internet voting does have risks especially in the area of software/hardware security which is one
of the main reasons given by opponents of internet voting. Although there is a risk, there is no
evidence that a government election utilizing the internet has ever been hacked or suffered a
cyber -attack. That is not to say no internet voting system hasn't been hacked, there are several
cases of such attacks taking place during a pre-election period when outside persons and
groups were invited to test the security of a system.
A security attack on an internet voting system can take place in basically 2 ways: hacking into
the servers and; denial of service whereby multiple computers on the internet receive
instructions to attack the web site hosting the voting system, essentially overloading and
shutting down the web site. Although these risks are real and attacks have taken place, with
today's ever evolving security software, the risk is low that a system can be totally
compromised.
Another cyber -attack method which could be more detrimental to the voting process and
integrity of a voting system is one that does not attack the municipality's servers but rather,
attacks the voter's computer. Spyware or another type of intrusive software can be inadvertently
downloaded onto a private PC or one that is used by the public such as those available in
libraries or cyber -cafes. Once downloaded the hacker could introduce software to change how
the voter casts their votes. The important issue here is the fact that no matter how well the
servers are protected, there is no way to ensure that the voter's choice has been received
correctly. Once again, the risk of this method of attack is considered extremely low especially
when it's a municipal election but, it can raise some concerns adding to the public perception
that the system is not fool -proof.
The largest impact on an election stemming from security issues is not necessarily the integrity
of the system but the cost involved to ensure the system is secure and to satisfy the public and
candidates as to any concerns they may have. It is extremely important that the public has
complete confidence in any voting system; a lack of confidence may result in lower voter turnout
and/or post-election challenges.
In order to mitigate these issues, a Request for Proposal to provide an internet voting system
will have to include proof that the system is secure and is certified to certain standards.
However; without a Canadian standard, the City would have to decide on an appropriate
standard either from another jurisdiction (i.e. Europe) or in consultation with a third -party digital
security company. It is assumed that the costs incurred by companies offering internet voting
systems to undergo such a security assessment will be passed along to municipalities. In
Pagel 41 1.5
addition, once a system is chosen and put into place, the municipality must have a security
consultant test and verify the integrity of the entire system including hardware. It may also be
prudent to have a post-election security audit to ensure and provide proof that the system was
not compromised (i.e. no programming code was added during the election).
There is one indisputable fact regarding internet or other Direct -Recording Electronic (DRE)
voting system that cannot be ignored; it is the lack of auditability and the inability to re-create the
vote. A paper ballot based system regardless how the ballots are tabulated maintains a means
of recreating the vote should a recount be ordered. Since a DRE system does not produce a
paper copy of any vote, a recount would rely solely on an audit of the system (so many votes
received and so many votes counted). This inability to recount votes could be a real issue
should an election be challenged and end up in the courts. It is also one of the main reasons
that several European countries decided to decommission their DRE systems and not move
forward with internet voting. Scrutiny of the election process was another reason.
One of the tenets of a democratic and free election is the ability for the public to scrutinize the
process ensuring full transparency. This is even more important for candidates who may appoint
scrutineers to observe and ensure the voting process is properly carried out. When voters can
cast their vote away from the public eye, it raises questions on whether or not that part of the
process is taking place properly and without coercion and/or fraud.
Cost
Holding elections is the basis for our democratic society and therefore costs should not be a
factor, however; like everything undertaken by the City, costs must be taken into consideration.
The operation of an election should balance cost with convenience to the elector therefore cost
to add internet voting as an option should be weighed against the added value it may bring.
In 2010 the cost of holding the elections in Kitchener was approximately $360K made up of:
hiring workers, leasing equipment/software, postage and supplies. In 2010 the cost of holding
elections in Markham, a municipality with about 25% more electors, was approximately $1.2M.
The current estimated budget for 2014 is $390-$400K without adding internet voting as a voting
option. Should internet voting be introduced in 2014 the following chart shows the estimated
additional costs to be added to the current budget:
Internet Software
$1.50 - $2.00/elector with
$237K - $316K
estimated 158,000 electors
in 2014
Postage
Additional postage
$25K
required; each notification
will now be mailed
individually rather than
grouped by address
Security Audit
3 rd party audit of entire
$10-20K
internet system
Promotion
To ensure success,
$50-75K
extensive promotion will be
required (Markham costs in
2010,$216K)
Total Internet Voting
Total estimated costs using
$322K
lowest costs in a range
Page .5 41 16
Current Budget w/o internet
Current budget lowest costs
$390K
voting
to run an election similar to
2010.
Total 2014 Budget with
Total estimated lowest cost
$712K
Internet voting
with internet option
Elections are paid out of a reserve that is built up with annual contributions over the 4 years
between elections. If internet voting is to be offered in 2014, the current annual contribution to
the election reserve will have to be increased by $175-200K in budget years 2013 and 2014 to
ensure the additional $300-$400K is available. This will increase the total contribution for the 2
years from $90K to $265-$290K. Should internet voting continue past 2014, then the annual
contribution would be reduced so that each year equals 25% of the projected election costs for
2018. The estimate for the contributions between 2014 and 2018 is $200/annum. It is noted that
the election reserve also receives interest revenue during the 4 years.
CONCLUSION:
Internet voting has been offered as a voting option since the late 1990's in various jurisdictions
around the world, however; the number of countries/jurisdictions that continue to offer internet
voting as an option is relatively small. Ontario is one jurisdiction that has seen a steady increase
in the number of municipalities offering internet voting albeit; the majority of municipalities are
considered to be small with populations less than 30,000.
Where internet voting has been offered, data suggest it has been well accepted by the public as
an alternative voting method, however; there is no clear indication that it increases voter turnout.
There is data that shows internet voting does not increase voter turnout amongst younger
voters.
Security issues are a real threat but most studies conclude that the risk is small to medium.
Notwithstanding the risk level, security standards should be in place to ensure public confidence
in the election process. It is anticipated, but not guaranteed that the federal government will
develop such standards by 2015-16.
Internet voting is very convenient allowing voters the opportunity to vote anywhere at any time
during the voting period. Data compiled as part of several post-election studies where internet
voting was being piloted showed that the majority of internet users would have voted regardless
if internet voting was available or not. Internet voting also offers some voters with a disability the
ability to access and participate in the voting process without assistance. This is not the only
method to allow accessible voting, there are other methods using paper ballots or touchscreens.
Prior to introducing an internet voting option, consideration must be made with respect to this
voting method and how it meets or doesn't meet the democratic principles of an election. There
is a lack of transparency and scrutiny when voters are allowed to vote without public oversight
that ensures the vote has been cast fairly and without coercion or fraudulently. This is
particularly significant for Kitchener in light of the 2010 Ward 9 race that resulted in a 1 vote
difference and subsequent recount.
The cost to offer internet voting as one option for electors is significant and cannot be ignored.
The estimated cost will double the election budget for 2014 yet, data from other jurisdictions
indicate it may not increase voter turnout enough to justify the cost.
In light of the issues raised with respect to internet voting as an additional voting option, it is
staff's opinion that it should not be introduced in the City of Kitchener for the 2014 municipal
Page S 4f 174
elections. The earliest election that internet voting should be considered is 2018 by which time it
is anticipated security standards will be in place. One event that has not taken place in Canada
as of yet that may assist in answering questions regarding security and election principles, is a
court challenge. It was a court challenge in Germany that resulted in that country abandoning
any further internet voting and the use of DRE voting systems. A challenge in Canada may set
the legal parameters for offering internet voting and answer the question with respect to the
importance of election principles in context of voting convenience.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
Efficient and Effective Government: Exploring technological changes to ascertain its
appropriateness in enhancing community access to the election process. Positioning the City as
a leader in public sector processes; ensuring accountability and transparency.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Financial implications are dependent on whether or not internet voting is going to be offered in
2014. It is estimated that the addition of internet voting as a voting option will add between
$325K and $400k to the current budget of $390K.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
A draft of this report is to be presented to Compass Kitchener on December 5th for questions
and feedback. Compass Kitchener has been looking into voter engagement and turnout
including internet voting as an option. The outcome of that meeting will be reported on verbally
at the December 10th Finance & Corporate Services Committee meeting.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: D. Chapman, DCAO — Finance & Corporate Services Department
Page 5 Qt 18
10/28/21, 3:02 PM
AmeAssocialion of
Municipalities Ontario
Home /
2018 Municipal Election - Fast Facts I AMO
2018 Municipal Election - Fast Facts
Context for 2018
There are 444 municipal governments in Ontario, yet only 417 municipal governments hold
elections. Why? Because some upper tier municipal governments are populated by a lower tier
election process e.g., counties and some regions and district)
Those 417 municipal governments include:
• All lower -tier municipal governments in a two tier governance structure
• Three regional municipal governments which include direct elect Chairs
• All single -tier municipal governments
Size of all 444 Councils varies across the province. The vast majority of councils are composed of
five (5) members including the head of council. Larger councils on this chart reflects upper tier
councils, such as counties and regions, which are composed of the mayors/reeves of the lower
tiers. Toronto's new size is included. See Chart 1
v
w
a
C
`o
v
n
E
Z
210
2DO
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
90
70
60
50
40
ail
20
10
a
2018 - Size of the Council in Ontario (Chart 1)
195
5 6 7
45
12 16
6
S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 21 23 24 25 2f 30 32
Number of Council Seats Page 95 of 144
https://www.amo.on.ca/2018-municipal-election-fast-facts 1/6
10/28/21, 3:02 PM
2018 Municipal Election - Fast Facts I AMO
Within a municipal government, its representative structure is either a ward or at -large system and
in a few cases, both. Chart 2 shows the percentage.
2018 - Ward and or At Large Structure (Chart 2)
- At Large � Ward i Ward; At Large
Candidates
There are a total of 6,645 people on municipal ballots. 28% are incumbents running for the same
position on council they currently hold. 4% are incumbents but running for a different position on
council. Across Ontario, 67% (4,483) candidates who are not sitting members of a council. Chart
3a shows 2018 incumbency rate and Chart 3b shows 2014.
2018 - Incumbency Rate (Chart 3a)
Page 96 of 144
https://www.amo.on.ca/2018-municipal-election-fast-facts 2/6
10/28/21, 3:02 PM
2018 Municipal Election - Fast Facts I AMO
- Incumbent Incumbent New Posffion New
-
2014 - Incumbency Rate (Chart 3b)
Incumbent = New
477 of candidates have been 'deemed to be elected by acclamation'. In other words, no one ran
against them, so no election for that council seat will happen. 120 of these acclaimed candidates
are heads of council positions (e.g., mayor or reeve). In 26 municipalities (5%), all the seats on a
Page 97 of 144
https://www.amo.on.ca/2018-municipal-election-fast-facts 3/6
10/28/21, 3:02 PM
2018 Municipal Election - Fast Facts I AMO
council were uncontested so the entire council was acclaimed. That does not necessarily mean
that it is only incumbents that were acclaimed. 111 New candidates have also been acclaimed.
Gender
Across Ontario, 27% of all candidates (running or acclaimed) are female which is an increase from
2014 (23%). 20% of the female candidates are running for head of council positions. See Chart 4a
for 2018 and Chart 4b for 2014. 23% of 120 acclaimed candidates for heads of council are female.
2018 - Gender (Chart 4a)
Female Male
2014 - Gender (Chart 4b)
Page 98 of 144
https://www.amo.on.ca/2018-municipal-election-fast-facts 4/6
10/28/21, 3:02 PM
Vote Method
2018 Municipal Election - Fast Facts I AMO
Female � k
How votes are cast continues to move to technology-based methods. 178 municipal governments
will use internet/phone method, which is 84 more than the previous election. The use of mail -in
ballots this election has dropped by 46% and likely reflects a move to a method that is safe from a
postal strike. Chart 5 illustrates the predominant methods used.
2018 - Vote Methods (Chart 5)
Page 99 of 144
https://www.amo.on.ca/2018-municipal-election-fast-facts 5/6
10/28/21, 3:02 PM 2018 Municipal Election - Fast Facts I AMO
— Intemet (only or optional) — Mail (only) ` Paper (only) Scanner (only or optional)
Voter Turnout (Since 1988)
The percentage of turnout has not varied greatly. The highest were 1988 and 1994 at 45% and the
lowest was 40% in 1997 and 2003. In 2014, it was 43%. Chart 6 illustrates the turnout over time.
We will post 2018 voter turnout as soon as we get the information from the returning officers.
Average Voter Turnout -1988 to 2014 (Chart 6)
Page 100 of 144
https://www.amo.on.ca/2018-municipal-election-fast-facts 6/6
F ----1i Average Voter Turnout
0.46
0.45 g4 .9% 44.8963
•
44.4%
0.44
13 0.43
C_
43 1
3
� 0.d2
m 0.41
ca
41.ID%
. 1.3%
`w
¢ 0.40
40.2%
40.0% ops
0.39
0.38 —
0.37
1988 1994
1997 2000 2003 2006 201st -01
Municipal Election Year
Page 100 of 144
https://www.amo.on.ca/2018-municipal-election-fast-facts 6/6
LTA
*_OE
ON ON
O_em
W
Z
O
F-
(1)
W
J
W
1
F—
U)
O
a.
0o
r
Q
N
O
F—
V
Q
s•:
E
0
(D
U) N
O o
U_0
" Q
M 0
co
N N
El
a)
---j
U)
O
0-
�U
m
O
Al
cu
c
D
E
Q
RR
O
U
E
"CU
0@
0 c6
Q c
>, O
U �
•— U
O E
a- m
WE
0
a)
w
O
0
E
c6
O
•MFO■
ON ON
•fte■
W
N
.U)
0
CL
0^
LU
J
Q
iL
V
Z
5
F—
z
LU
0
z
0
a.
U)
W
w
O
O
O
O
Ln
N
C
O
t
N
L
O
■
O
O
O
0
Ln
N
i
O
O
O
0
O
■
O
O
O
C
O
0
Ln0
0
0
■
O
O
O
0
Ln
0
O
O
0
■
0
O
O
0
c
m
t
v
3
Q)
LL
■
*_OE
ON ON
*_OE
O
O
CO N
0
Q ti
CO Lo� Cfl
N M M
N
lb
o
0
Y
0
0
o
0
C)
o
0
0
o
Y
0
0
Lo
Lo
I
C)
0
o
7-
I
o
0
o
O
In
u
�.
N
0
C
MM
M
MO
CO
C
(C)
CO
N
C\O
M
It
LoN
7-
0
Y
0
0
o
0
C)
o
0
0
o
Y
0
0
M
�
NO
J
Lo
I
C)
0
o
7-
I
o
0
o
O
In
u
�.
N
0
■ ■
z
0
J
a.
0
a.
n
LU
LU
IL
F-
0
z
F—
w
LU
F-
0
0
1p
LD d
t .
tt
d�
M
Lr!
0
Zdl
m
1p
LD
m
m
Ln
rn
ro
m
n
m
O Ql
Ql
Q1
O
O Q1
Q1
Q1
O
Q1
CD
'T
Q1
Q1
O
O
N
M
O
O
CD
O
O
O
O
m
+� O
Ln
O
O
N
LL
C7
W
x
W
O r aLnl
U
Ln
m
O
m
Ln
N
O
N
Ln
-i
Lr)
C
*_ON
ON ON
•fte■
0W
Q
Q
iL LU
v
0 Q
L�
t
N
V
J
Q Q Q
■ ■ Ql U
Q1
Z 7C
0 C
O O co -1
0
0
V 0
ci N
� 0 0
F—
Q z
O
U
Ja) cu
M 5
al 0 N
Q1
Ql 'a
O Ln
a.w O Ln
0
0 J -4
Lo
a. Q
0
V U
v
��
m Z °'
Ql U
Q1 C
— N O
i
�■� O 0
O O
O 0 0
0
a. O o
Z o O
0 0
0 0
� m O
J
Q
F N
v
Lu
Lu o
F— LU
0 L
co F—
Q
N
LQ
00
LD
rl
lD
lD
Ln
0
m
m
m
M
o O O0 O o 0 0
N
LD
00
1:3-
N
I I
�
Z
7
0
v
0
00
O
N
m
m
m
M
o O O0 O o 0 0
c
v
Q)
o i
t
U
7
0 -
c
c
O
U E
0
N0
� o
00 >
T—
C)
N
_0
o
_ >
+� in +�
N N
Oa� U N
L C
^ '
W�
W U
F-
0
5 O
C
O
0
Z 7 >N
O2
F— _0 Ln m 7
0 O ru
u
4J +
}+ Q
^ '
W �
6
7
V J �
O OL O 7
O
\ (O U
L
76
Q
U_ a
>�
O
0
m
v
a
m
a
CD O O 0 0
(11 lD d N
•_o■
ON ON
*_o■
Q)
m
2
*_ON
ON ON
O_em
LU
■
Z
F-
0
F—
LU
z
w
LU
F—
z
r--
00
r -I
O
N
bo
O_
O
�
N
� N
I I
i
v Z
4-J
N
O
N
Lr
O
z
*-ON
ON ON
O_om
LU
z
F-
0
F—
LU
z
LU
F—
rt.
SAA/
O
4-J
L_
N
O
-^J
W
U
N
O
fB
Q
E
i
O
0
4-J
U
N
v
+-J
Ln
v
a -J
a -J
V)
ca
Q0
I I
Z
v
I
a—+
0-
E
■
C
O
N
N
O
E
*_ON
ON ON
*_ON
LU
Z
P:O
F—
LU
z
w
LU
F -
z
z
a,o
0
+-j
a�
bn
N
E
0
U
N
i
0
0
*_ON
ON ON
*_ON
F—
LU
U)
■
0
z
P:O
F—
LU
z
w
LU
F—
z
0
0
a -j
L
0
Q
0
4-J
L
4-J
N
L
L
07
L
0
0
O O O
00 I, lD
00
J
I
N
}
o_om
ON ON
O_ON
N
lD
m
0 0 0 0
L
Q)
L
O
s-om
ON ON
O_OM
Cti•
N
F
N
fB
,Q
W
0
O
■ ■
_0
Z
0
O
u
U
O
�
N
fB
N
lD
m
0 0 0 0
L
Q)
L
O
s-om
ON ON
O_OM
LU
U)
■
z
0
F—
LU
z
w
LU
F—
z
c
C
Q1
O
U
T
�
N
U l0
�-
N
�
�
N
N
�
�
N
U
S
O
*_ON
ON ON
O_em
O
LD
O
O
m
O
N
C
r--
00
O
N
a--+
N
V)
L
O
a--+
4-
0
W
ro
O
O
0
0
0
a
Q)
0
0
0
0
v
*_ON
ON ON
O_em
F—
J
Q
H
J
n
LU
F-
0
cL•
N
U
a
O
cB
07
v
vN
O �
�o
CL
V)
a)
O
�H
O
O bn
O N
U
i
4 -J
N
_N Q
V)
O
.j
L
Q
4-J
O
4-J
L
Q
E
O
U
00
c -I
L!1
c -I
lD
Ln
N
m
Ln
Ln
0
U!
O
N
Q) Q)
E
0 0
m
3
m
u
U
a-+
G
�
Q
0
I
O
O
O
Ln
0
O
O
0
0
0
O
O
0
N
0
0
O
0
0
*_O■
ON ON
*_ON
00
00
c -I
M
N
�--+
fB
J
CL
0
°
Q
Q
O
N
IN
L
0
i
J
4-J
0
M
Ln
v
boW
F-
°
0
O
m
N
r'4r-I
N
0
z
00
00
c -I
M
N
Q
O
v
�
®
Q
O
_
O Ln
m
I
C: c
M
m
Q)
m
N
r'4r-I
N
0
Ll
0
O0
0
0M
O
r4
T
m ■ c
2
M
M ■c -I
II
c
N . N
N .Q
O
O
O O
. O
N Ln
N
0 00
O
O O
' N
c -I �
I I
1 O
c -I �
N .O
O
-iI O
O
r-1
O
N
Q
O
v
�
®
Q
O
_
O Ln
m
I
C: c
m
Q)
3
N
r'4r-I
N
Ll
■
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
Lr
=l
O
O
O
Lr
O
O
0
■
O
O
0
O
O
Ln
■
O
O
Ln
O
Ln
■
O
Ln
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O
Ln O Ln O Ln O Ln O Ln O
�T KT m m N N c -I c -I
o_om
ON ON
*_ON
o
�
rn
v
m
Ln
Ln
Q�
N
�
�
N
Q
0
U
0
W
m
�
�
00
N
o
f�6
O
Lr)
)
N
v
N
W
N
4.1
�
S2
_
m
Q
o
U
0
CL
NV
r4N
N
o
N
O
4-
Ln
U
N0
m
o0
—
(
}J
v
z
�
�
N
J
v
Ln
N
m
N
W
^
N
3
v
N
O
0
�
O
N
ra
N
0
0
I�
N
Ln
F
m
to
a-+
L
�
0
0
�
>
i
O
O
�
Ln
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O
Ln O Ln O Ln O Ln O Ln O
�T KT m m N N c -I c -I
o_om
ON ON
*_ON
F—
.j
m
W
V
V
Q
�
CLO
�O
O)
U
ate+
C
U
O)
ate+
D
O)
O
—
a
N
Q
Q
L
UO
Q)
O)
O)
C
�
O)
'-
vOi
C
=
O)
O
>
O)
O)m
U
a
°p
7
V)
E
7
Q
O
N
bn
2
C
U
N
O
N
a
hO
d4
O
V)
O
O
L
u
n3
A
Q
O
�
ns
O
m
Q
_0
CLO
E
E
C
U
O
ns
L
-0
O)
aJ
i
LL
OO
CLO
C
C
ate+
D
E
O
—
D
O
O
a
>
>
>
7
Q
N
a
2
U
N
N
O)
d4
U
O
O
L
u
n3
A
Q
�
OJ
m
_0
CLO
E
E
U
O
L
-0
O
>
E
N
O
U
O
N
�
C
L
_
N
Q
ns
Q
C
O
ro
ns
i
H
u]
0
O
N
U)
LU
LU
F—
F-
50
—
F-
5
5
0
V
F -
Q
W
V
z
Q
J
a.
5
0
V
C:-0
�a
U
.To
CLU
0 ° U
a
O U U
> Ln
m a_+
� � N
>� O 4-
cn
Q N
U
U
� N
� N
O
CU
07
Q)
v
E
E
0
U
Q)
N
L
VI
N
}
0
z
0
z
v
■
s_om
ON ON
O_ON
W
W
24
ti
O
Ln
O
O
O
Ln
C
ON ON
O_om
c
r�o
c
•�
x
ago
ago
c
o
f6
v
N
C
U
i
N
C
Q
�
0
C
}C
L
N
0
O
N
L10
C
N
U
U
D
C
LL
24
ti
O
Ln
O
O
O
Ln
C
ON ON
O_om
0
z
U)
F—
w
LU
F—
am
I
*_OE
ON ON
O_em
Q
1 _0
T�
i 0
F—
Ln
m
Ql
N
O
m
Ln O Ln O Ln
N N c -I c -I
A
N
i
N
o_om
ON ON
O_ON
L
Z
�
N
F
.N
Q
1 _0
T�
i 0
F—
Ln
m
Ql
N
O
m
Ln O Ln O Ln
N N c -I c -I
A
N
i
N
o_om
ON ON
O_ON
Survey
SURVEY RESPONSE REPORT
09 July 2021 - 01 September 2021
PROJECT NAME:
Your Vote, Your Way
BAN& THE TABLE
.�� engagementH`Q
Survey : Survey Report for 09 July 2021 to 01 September 2021
Page 1 of 13
Page 124 of 144
Survey : Survey Report for 09 July 2021 to 01 September 2021
Page 2 of 13
Page 125 of 144
Survey : Survey Report for 09 July 2021 to 01 September 2021
Q1 How would you prefer to vote? Please rank these voting methods from most preferred to
least preferred:
OPTIONS AVG. RANK
Internet/Online 1.75
Paper 2.33
Mail -in 2.66
Telephone 3.16
Optional question (1014 response(s), 11 skipped)
Question type: Ranking Question
Page 3 of 13
Page 126 of 144
Survey : Survey Report for 09 July 2021 to 01 September 2021
Q2 What is your age?
230
103(10.2%)
(16.8%)
195(19.4%)
Question options
40 Under 17 years 18-29 years old 40 30-39 years old 40-49 years old 50-59 years old 60-64 years old
10 65 years and above 10 Prefer not to answer
Optional question (1006 response(s), 19 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Page 4 of 13
Page 127 of 144
Survey : Survey Report for 09 July 2021 to 01 September 2021
Q3 What language are you most comfortable speaking (choose ONE only)
0(
0(0.(
0(0.0-/.
0(0.0%)
8(0.8%)
1 (0.1%)
4(0.4%)
1 (0.1%)
3 (0.3%
6 (O.E
1(
Question options
American Sign Language
• Arabic 10 Cantonese 10 English
10 Mandarin 19 Polish
40 Vietnamese 40 Prefer not to answer
40 Urdu 1 would like to specify a different language: 0 Albanian
10 Hungarian 10 Korean
40 Lao 40 Pashto 40 Persian (Farsi)
10 Serbian 10 Somali
10 Tagalog (Pilipino; Filipino) 10 Tigrigna
Optional question (1008 response(s), 17 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Page 5 of 13
0 French 0 German 0 Gujarati
Romanian 0 Russian 0 Spanish
Amharic 0 Bengali Croatian Hindi
0 Portuguese 0 Punjabi (Panjabi)
Page 128 of 144
Survey : Survey Report for 09 July 2021 to 01 September 2021
Q4 Were you born in Canada?
0(0.0%)
Question options
10 Yes 10 No 41 Prefer not to answer 10 Do not know
Optional question (1005 response(s), 20 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Page 6 of 13
Page 129 of 144
Survey : Survey Report for 09 July 2021 to 01 September 2021
Q5 What year did you arrive in Canada?
2 (1
2(1.8
2(1.8%
2(1.8%)
2(1.8%)
2(1.8%)
2(1.8%)
2(1.8%)
2 (1.8°i
2(1.
2
G k 1.0-/o)
Question options
(3.6%O)
4(3.6%)
3(2.7%)
3(2.7%)
3(2.7%)
3(2.7%)
3(2.7%)
2.7%)
o)
0 2005
0 1990
02000
* 1999
0 1954
0 1995
0 1953
02004
0 1988
0 1957
0 2006
0 1958
0 2001
0 1983
02003
01951
0 1987
02014
40 1952
10 Slice
19 2019
40 2015
10 2002
40 2009
40 1969
40 1991
40 1973
40 1955
40 1982
40 1989
40 1976
40 2011
40 1978
40 1984
0 1993
0 1975
0 1960
0 1994
1948
0 1974
0 1965
02013
0 1979
0 1998
40 2018
40 1996
40 2012
40 1966
40 2017
1967
40 1986
40 1968
40 2007
40 1949
40 1985
10 1997
40 1981
Optional question (110 response(s), 915 skipped)
Question type: Date Question
Page 7 of 13
Page 130 of 144
Q6 Which of the following best describes your racial or ethnic group? (choose ONE only)
0(0.0%) 12(1.2%)
2 (0.2%) J
68(6.7%)
8(0.8%)
18(1.8%)
2(0.2%)
2(0.2%)
5(0.5%)
2(0.2%)
4(0.4%)
2(0.2%)
1 (0.1%)
2(0.2%)
4(0.4%)
10(1.0%)
223(22.1%)
Question options
10 East Asian (e.g. Chinese, Japanese, Korean)
10 West Asian (e.g. Arabian, Armenian, Iranian, Israeli, Lebanese, Palestinian, Syrian, Turkish)
10 South Asian (e.g. Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan)
19 Southeast Asian (e.g. Burmese, Cambodian, Filipino, Laotian, Malaysian, Thai, Vietnamese)
10 Black - African (e.g., Ghanaian, Kenyan, Somali) • Black - Caribbean (e.g., Barbadian, Jamaican) 10 First Nations
10 Black - North American (e.g., Canadian, American) 40 Indian - Caribbean (e.g. Guyanese with origins in India)
10 Indigenous/Aboriginal - not included elsewhere 19 Metis 19 Latin American
40 Mixed heritage (e.g. Black - African and White - North American) 0 White - European (e.g., English, Italian, Portuguese, Russian)
19 White - North American (e.g., Canadian, American) 40 Prefer not to answer 40 Don't know
10 Indigenous person from outside of Canada 10 Inuit
Optional question (1009 response(s), 16 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Page 8 of 13
Page 131 of 144
Survey : Survey Report for 09 July 2021 to 01 September 2021
Q7 Please select the gender identity that best describes you: (choose ONE only)
3 (0
60(6.0%)
471 (46.9%) '
1 (0.1%)
Question options
40 Gender Fluid / Gender Queer 10 Man 40 Non -Binary 0 Trans Man 0 Trans Woman Woman
10 Prefer not to answer 10 1 do not identify with a gender 10 Intersex 10 Two -Spirit
Optional question (1004 response(s), 21 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Page 9 of 13
454(45.2%)
Page 132 of 144
Survey : Survey Report for 09 July 2021 to 01 September 2021
Q8 What is your sexual orientation? (choose ONE only)
MKI
5 (0.5`
2(0.2%) 28(2.8%)
131 (13.1%)
28(2.8%)
37(3.7%)
, wV �, — o]
Question options
40 Asexual Bisexual 40 Gay 40 Heterosexual ("Straight') 40 Lesbian 40 Pansexual 40 Queer
10 Prefer not to answer I* Two -Spirit
Optional question (998 response(s), 27 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Page 10 of 13
Page 133 of 144
Survey : Survey Report for 09 July 2021 to 01 September 2021
Q9 Do you identify with any of the following? (Select all that apply)
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
176
200
150
100
50
541
Question options
0 Person with a chronic illness/medical condition (e.g. hemophilia, cancer, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, diabetes)
40 Person with a developmental disability (e.g. Down's Syndrome, Autism Spectrum Disorder)
10 Person who is deaf or hard of hearing
40 Person with a learning or behavioral condition (e.g. ADHD, dyslexia, dysnomia, dysgraphia)
0 Person with a mental health condition (e.g. schizophrenia, anxiety, depression, OCD)
Person with a mobility/dexterity condition (e.g. Cerebral Palsy, paraplegia)
Person with a communication disorder (e.g. inability to generate or emit verbal messages, such as aphasia)
Person who is blind or has vision loss 0 Prefer not to answer 0 None
Optional question (926 response(s), 99 skipped)
Question type: Checkbox Question
Page 11 of 13
Page 134 of 144
Survey : Survey Report for 09 July 2021 to 01 September 2021
Q10 What is your total household income before taxes last year?
234
165(16.5%)
1 V7 \ 1 V.7 -/O)
Question options
0 0-$29,999 0 $30,000 - $59,999 $60,000 - $89,999 $90,000 - $119,999 $120,000 - $149,999
0 $150,000 or more 0 Prefer not to answer 10 Do not know
Optional question (1002 response(s), 23 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Page 12 of 13
168(16.8%)
Page 135 of 144
Survey : Survey Report for 09 July 2021 to 01 September 2021
Q11 What is your current employment status? (choose ONE only)
56
277(27.6%)
wo �w o iol
Question options
0 Employed full-time 0 Employed part-time 0 Going to school
Receiving social assistance (e.g. Ontario Works or Ontario Disability Support Program) Retired Self-employed
Unemployed and looking for work 0 Unemployed and not looking for work
Unemployed and working (unpaid) in the home caring for dependents or running a household Prefer not to answer
Optional question (1005 response(s), 20 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Page 13 of 13
501(49.9%)
Page 136 of 144