HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRPS-07-008 - 2006 Election ReviewJ
~~~
KiTC;Hr:N~,R
~~r~~r~,~e Se,~;~es
- - • -
Report To: Chair Vrbanovic and Members of the Finance & Corporate
Services Commitee
Date of Meeting: January 29, 2007
Submitted By: R. Gosse, Director of Legislated Services/City Clerk
Prepared By: R. Gosse
Ward(s) Involved: n/a
Date of Report: January 5, 2007
Report No.: CRPS-07-008
Subject: 2006 ELECTION REVIEW
RECOMMENDATION:
For Information Only.
BACKGROUND:
In 2006, the regular municipal elections were held and there were many new procedures and
initiatives undertaken in an attempt to make improvements in the election process. This report
serves as the initial follow-up to the election providing information on the new initiatives,
improvements, budget, issues and what other initiatives will be investigated for the 2010
elections.
REPORT:
The 2006 elections basically followed the process utilized for past elections and in terms of
procedure was a success. This is not to say there were no issues or problems; there were, but
for the most part these issues were the result of third parties such as the Municipal Property
Assessment Corporation (MPAC) and Dominion Voting Systems.
The voter turnout increased by 4% from 2003 but still remains a concern with only 25.5%
eligible electors voting. Steps are underway to ascertain why there is such a low voter turnout
and what can be done to see an improvement.
Issues
The most important issue relates to the voters' list which is produced by MPAC and in particular,
the number of ineligible voters (moved) or deceased persons, listed. In the situations involving
moved voters, most were children of age to vote who have moved out of the family home; in
some cases they moved more than 5 years prior. A large number of calls were received from
voters whose spouse had passed away and again in some cases they had been deceased for
more than 5 years.
Another issue regarding the voters list was the fact that entire buildings were missing from the
preliminary list due to technical issues reasons. The buildings in question were newer buildings
that were registered as condominiums but the units are being rented rather than sold (example:
57 Queen Street N). Some of the missing buildings came to the attention of staff in time to be
added to the final list of voters whereas in other cases, notice was placed in the lobby and the
voters had to make application at the voting place to be added to the list. MPAC is aware of the
issue and will take steps to correct things for the next election.
Another indicator that the voters list was not as complete as expected is shown by the number
of voters added to the final list. In 2003 there were approximately 2000 amendments to the list
whereas in 2006 there were 3000. Amendments are always expected but this 50% increase is
substantial and in all likelihood indicative of a poor voters list.
Other issues dealt with by staff mostly involved Dominion Voting Systems. This is a fairly new
Canadian company that is trying to develop a large client base and may have been
overwhelmed in 2006. Staff worked diligently with company staff during the election in order to
address any issues and the company has undertaken post-election meetings with its' clients to
identify the problems and issues in order to take steps to correct them. Staff is confident that
Dominion Voting Systems is committed to providing a sound and full-service elections system in
2010.
What was new in 2006:
There were 4 major new initiatives undertaken for the 2006 elections: advance vote locations;
tabulating equipment; voting places; and, poll workers.
Advance Voting
In previous elections there were 4 advance voting days all held in City Hall. In 2006 there were
still 4 days of voting but this time they were held in various locations throughout the City. The
first day of voting was held at the Kitchener Market. It was intended that this day was to be held
at the Fairview Park Mall but due to construction at the mall, an alternative location had to be
found. The three other days were held in a community centre located in each of the six Wards.
The turnout at the advance vote was predominately positive with a 42% increase from 2003
and during an election where the total turnout had only increased 4%. The other significant
change was in turnout by Ward. In the past Ward 1 had the largest turnout at the advance vote
due to the fact that City Hall is located in the Ward and, Wards 3 & 4 always had the lowest due
to their distance from City Hall. In 2006, the turnout for Wards 3 & 4 were almost two times
higher than past elections and more in line with other Wards.
Advance Vote Turnout
Ward Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4
1 110 82 58 89 339 13.69%
2 47 214 139 183 583 23.54%
3 45 102 78 99 324 13.08%
4 25 96 61 132 314 12.68%
5 56 188 113 149 506 20.43%
6 101 113 82 115 411 16.59%
384 795 531 767 2477 1.68%
The results from the change did increase costs by approximately $5000 for additional voting
place workers. Notwithstanding the increased cost, it is staff's opinion that the initiative was a
success in regard to service enha ncement and worth continuing in future elections.
Tabulating Equipment
In 2005 the City in conjunction with the cities of Waterloo and Cambridge, put out a Request for
Proposal (RFP) for election tabulating equipment and awarded the RFP to a Canadian
company, Dominion Voting Systems (DVS). The RFP was for the leasing of equipment which
included the choice of centralized and decentralized tabulators and the associated software
systems. Due to the lateness of the RFP in relation to the election, it was decided to lease
centralized tabulators similar to the equipment used by the City for the past 4-5 elections.
For the most part the tabulators and system worked well and the service provided by DVS was
very good. There were a few minor issues with the system but it is expected that by working
with DVS over the next 3 years, those issues will be worked out. The one area of concern was
the speed of tabulating the ballots. A centralized tabulating system is always going to be slower
than a decentralized system due to the fact that all ballots must be transported back to City Hall
processed and then counted by 4 machines. The new tabulators were rated at a slower speed
than the previous tabulators purchased from ES&S but it was thought that the new machines
would have far less jams and problems which should have resulted in less time to tabulate
ballots. This did not materialize and the time required to tabulate the ballots was the same as in
2003.
When the RFP was awarded it was intended that staff would investigate the feasibility of moving
to a decentralized system for the 2010 elections. In light of the issues regarding the time
required to tabulate ballots, staff will take steps to move to a decentralized system. There were
savings in 2006 with less costs for ballots and in other areas (see Budget) that should allow for
the implementation of a decentralized system at little or no increase in budget.
Voting Places (large residential)
It was decided that for the 2006 elections the City would take advantage of provisions within the
Municipal Elections Act whereby residential buildings of 100 or more units must provide space
for a voting place at no cost to the municipality (in the past the City would pay for the use of
space in a building). The small cost savings helped in allowing for voting places to be placed in
many large residential buildings. The voter turnout for most of the buildings showed an increase
and in some cases almost double from 2003. It was also found that many of these buildings had
a large number of seniors and therefore provided easier access for those voters. There were a
few cases where turnout did not increase or didn't increase substantially and these locations will
require further analysis.
Based on the results of this initiative staff will continue placing voting locations within the large
residential buildings as a matter of providing better access for voters. A future issue that will
have to be considered in this context is the move to a decentralized system and how ballots
from the residential buildings will be tabulated in a cost effective manner. To place a tabulator in
each of the buildings will not be cost effective but there are other options to explore.
Poll Workers
Traditionally there have been Deputy Returning Officers (DROs), Poll Clerks (PCs) for each
voting subdivision or poll and Election Assistants (EAs) at each voting place. In 2006 the
position of Poll Clerk was changed to Revision Clerk (RC) and the number of EAs was reduced.
The idea of an RC was to allow the DRO to concentrate on checking voter information and
providing voters with the appropriate ballot. The RC would be responsible for taking affidavits,
oaths and completing forms to add a voter to the voters' list or amend their information. The
change would keep the line-ups down to a minimum, allow voters to move through the voting
place quickly and make the work amongst the poll workers more equitable.
EAs were only placed in voting places that had more than 2 polls. This reduced the number
required for the elections which helped off-set the cost off additional DROs and RCs required for
the large residential buildings.
It would appear that the change in duties worked well and will be beneficial when the City
moves to a decentralized system. In such a system the number of RCs can be reduced so that
1 or 2 would be employed for a voting place and not for each poll.
Budget
The 2006 election budget was set at $370,722 with $240,500 coming from the election reserve
and the remaining funds of $130,222 being budgeted in 2006. The reported expenditure as of
this report was $85,334 showing a savings of $44,888
At the time of setting the budget in late 2005, there were many items where the costs were
unknown due to changes in the voting system. As well, as the process unfolded, staff were able
to find savings through joint purchasing with the cities of Cambridge and Waterloo and by being
diligent in looking for ways to save money. There were some unexpected increases in
expenditures especially the hiring of poll workers for the advance voting and in the large
residential buildings. The following are the line items of interest showing (over) and under
expenditures:
• Postage $15,800 savings achieved through joint tender with other cities
• Employment ($10,100) over due to poll workers needed for Advance/Apartments
• Equipment $9,000 reduced costs from Dominion Voting System
• Supplies $22,400 ballot printing reduced due to change in voting system
• Printing $5,300 reduced the number of voters' lists produced
Of the surplus from 2006, $30,000 has been rolled over into the 2007 election reserve to be
used for the upcoming Voter Survey which Council directed staff to undertake.
What's Next
• A voter survey will be undertaken by a qualified company to poll a large number of
citizens on reasons why they didn't vote. For those that did vote, questions will be asked
on what they liked about the election process and what they didn't. This information will
be used to make improvements in future elections.
• Staff will undertake a more detailed analysis of voter turnout in 2006 in an attempt to
ascertain reasons for the low turnout and as part of the poll boundary review
• Staff will look at what worked well and what didn't in order to make changes for future
elections
• Staff will look at methods of voting and procedures used in other municipalities in order
to determine `best practises' and how some of these could apply to Kitchener in the
future
• A decentralized system will be investigated and if proceeded with, processes and
procedures amended accordingly
• The budget will remain at the current level although there were savings in 2006. This will
allow the move to a decentralized system without an increase subject to all the savings
made in 2006 being maintained in the future. There may be further savings due to a
switch to a decentralized system but this will not be known until the processes and
procedures are re-written.
R. Gosse -Director of Legislated Services/City Clerk