Election Tech: In Canada, They Actually Count the Votes 500
Presto Vivace writes with this outline of what voting can look like while remaining countable and anonymous — and how it does look north of the U.S. border. "In Canada, they use hand-marked paper ballots, hand counted in public. Among other things, that process means that we can actually be sure who won. And if the elections of 2000 and 2008 are any guide, and the race stays as close as the pollsters sat it is, we might, on Wednesday, November 7, not be sure who won."
Any Canadians among our readers who want to comment on this?"
distributed operations- hand count details (Score:5, Informative)
We get away with hand counting because any one poll (vote collection point) is less than a thousand people. Each riding is many polls.
See Elections Canada for Details: what happens after a vote -
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=bkg&document=ec90565&lang=e [elections.ca]
Following the close of a polling station, the deputy returning officer in an electoral district counts the votes, in the presence of the poll clerk, and any candidates or their representatives who are present, or, if none are present, in the presence of at least two electors. Before the count, the deputy returning officer must, in the following order:
* count the number of electors who voted and enter the number in the poll book
* count the spoiled ballots, place them in the envelope provided for that purpose, indicate the number of spoiled ballots on the envelope and seal it
* count the unused ballots, place them in the envelope provided for that purpose, indicate their number on the envelope and seal the envelope
* ensure that all ballots provided are accounted for
The deputy returning officer then empties the contents of the ballot box onto a table to proceed with the count.
During the count, the deputy returning officer examines each ballot, shows it to each person present and asks the poll clerk to tally the vote in favour of the candidate for whom the vote was cast. The poll clerk (along with any of the candidates or their representatives who also wish to do so) keeps a tally of the votes for each candidate.
Re:10x the population (Score:5, Informative)
There's also 10x the number of counters
Re:10x the population (Score:3, Informative)
10x the votes to count, but maybe it would be worth it. If you can mark an X, you're my kind of people.
Yeah but you also have 10x more people to count the votes, so it isn't an issue.
Politicians are actually allowed to govern (Score:4, Informative)
The real difference is that when we vote, all we vote for is the local representative. Unlike the US, we actually allow the politicians to govern, for better or worse. What we don't have is a gazillion citizens initiatives demanding that the government spend money on new projects while preventing the government from raising taxes to support these projects.
Enshrined within the constitution is the premise of parliamentary supremacy, which is exactly as it sounds. The vote of Parliament is supreme, it can even override the supreme court (though only for a period of 5 years). Binding referendums are thus, by definition, unconstitutional, and thus we don't have to do this stupid crap on election day.
If we don't like what they do, we turf 'em out in the next election. (Also, we have more than two realistic choices on the ballot paper)
Re:Right is better than fast (Score:5, Informative)
Why take so long? In Germany (population 80 millions), where they manually count the votes like in Canada using a highly distributed system, it usually takes less than 6 to 10 hours to _complete_ the counting for the federal elections. In practice though, exit polls and the first intermediary results (Hochrechnungen) are usually very close to the final result, so it is seldom a cliffhanger that lasts deep into election night.
Re:Right is better than fast (Score:5, Informative)
In darkest Africa us 40 million South Africans vote manually, count manually and verify by holding each ballot up so that the polling station members can all agree. And we still finish counting by the next day.
Re:Politicians are actually allowed to govern (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, let's just ignore the election fraud, proroguing, and general corruption that's been going on lately. Every time I turn around it's another circle jerk about Canada.
The grass is NOT greener up here folks, we just do a better job of painting it that way.
I love this country, and if all people ever do is spout off out about how great it is while at the same time sweeping growing problems under the carpet and silencing criticism, we're going to wind up in the shitter, fast. You should the people and the media up here bragging constantly about how great our banking system is and how we won't have a housing crash because we're not stupid like the Americans. It's sickening, and makes me ashamed of my country. They refuse to acknowledge the fact that we're on the exact same trajectory as the US was, the main difference is that our banks are pre-bailed out through CMHC (a gov't entity that insures most mortgages in the country, much like Fannie Mae).
I've done this (Score:5, Informative)
I'm in Montreal and I've served as a scrutineer. The system works pretty much as described in the article, but I can add a few details.
The voting section of the ballot is done with blank/white circles on a black background. This way, there is no confusion about making marks outside the lines. One circle and one circle only must have a mark for it to be a valid vote. The ballot is fairly large, maybe four by five inches or so, and that allows plenty of space between circles.
The counterfoils are strips that are torn off the ballot with the help of perforations in the paper. The counterfoils are saved in a plastic bag and the number of counterfoils is compared to the number of cast ballots as part of the process of counting votes. It's a simple process, but there is some human error. When I did it, the two numbers didn't match up. We were off by one or two, as I recall.
The biggest problem we had, and a potential source of fraud the scrutineers can do nothing about, is the list of registered voters. We get a stack of papers stapled together that contain the names and addresses of all voters eligible to vote at our poll (there are several polls at each voting location). This list tells us who has already voted in advance polls. Either some of these are in error or some voters don't remember going to the advance polls, but we had a few cases in which we had to refuse voters because they were marked as having already voted. Some of them got really angry, but there is nothing we at the polls can do about that.
The voting and counting are open to the public and to party witnesses. Anybody can watch the process take place, but it is absolutely hands off for them.
The hand-counting doesn't take very long. Each polling station (ballot box) only has to count a few hundred votes, which is then reported to the officer in charge of the voting location, and so on up the chain. The entire station - ballots, papers, counterfoils, etc. - are sealed in the box with special tape and returned, so that any recounts would be easy to accomplish.
Re:10x the population (Score:5, Informative)
10x the votes to count, but maybe it would be worth it. If you can mark an X, you're my kind of people.
It works fine in the GTA(Greater Toronto Area). The population there is around 7.8m people. We just use more polling areas to make sure everything is accountable. The same reason why we have a voter ID system in place, because it bloody well works. [elections.ca] Remember where it says "oath in front of an election officer, with them swearing for one person" Perjury in Canada can land you upto 14 years in jail. And the judge will throw the book at you. Perjury is a serious crime here.
Re:I've done this (Score:4, Informative)
Re:errare humanum est (Score:2, Informative)
The US situation (Score:4, Informative)
I've spoken to some Americans about this, and they say one problem with US elections is that the ballots are humongous. Many states allow voters to vote on propositions during election time, so when it comes time to vote you really have to cast tens of votes for all kinds of different things. (Any Americans want to confirm this?)
So obviously the solution to this is: Don't do that. Simplify things and get rid of the whole "Proposition X" nonsense. It certainly does nothing to improve democracy, but it's excellent at dividing communities and driving state and local governments into bankruptcy.
Re:distributed operations- hand count details (Score:5, Informative)
Re:10x the population (Score:5, Informative)
*whoosh*
Although, his (and your) point is a good one. In the UK we have ~650 people per square mile. In the US it's actually ~84 (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934666.html). The UK generally uses paper ballots, generally does recounts if necessary, and generally has the same over-the-top reporting of live results as they come in. The result is pretty much known the next day.
Sure, cities are where people live, lots more space in the US, yada yada. That's why they have postal and proxy ballot options, and if I can vote, 6000 miles away from where I live, I'm sure the US can figure something out.
Simon.
Re:Perfect (Score:5, Informative)
> some sort of tie breaker
For the record: for US Presidential elections, it's Congress and the state legislatures. That's clearly spelled out in the Constitution, and modified by the 12th Amendment. This came into play in the election of 1824, where no candidate received a clear majority of electoral votes. (One interesting quirk that most people are unaware of: in this event, the votes are BY STATE -- in other words, each state gets one vote for the President, regardless of size and how many electors in has!!!)
I'm not saying that the electoral college system couldn't be improved (or even eliminated), but the assertion that there is no "tie-breaker" is one that has been deliberately raised by both parties to allow them to slug it out in court, instead of handing it to the legislature, as is provided by the Constitution. In fact, the somewhat-complicated electoral system here in the US has "tie-breaking" built in, if it's followed correctly.
I was screaming back in 2000 that the whole quagmire in Florida could have been avoided if the Constitution had simply been followed. In that case, the state legislature should have gotten involved. The fact that it had a Republican majority at the time meant that Bush would have won anyway, but I'm completely fair when I say that: if Florida had had a Democratic majority in 2000, it would've been Gore, and I would have accepted that just as readily. ANYTHING rather than throw it into endless court fights that left half of America bitter to this day.
And I disagree with anyone who thinks that the Canadian model would work any better with our much larger population. The US is as divided as I've ever seen it, and there will continue to be close elections. I don't know what the final answer will be, but I don't think the Canadian approach would work here.
Re:Perfect (Score:5, Informative)
Rice University determined that hand-counted ballots tend to have an error rate of 2%, which in most elections would be below the relevance of statistical margins of error. It is precisely this reason that when the leading candidates are very close (I think 100 votes in Canadian Federal elections), there is a judicial recount (a recount in front of a judge who will certify the resuls). Obviously even with this safeguard there are probably a few candidates who have been screwed out of an election they may have won, but I would posit that it would be a relatively small number since Confederation (1867).
Mind you, the key reason that there are such low margins of error in Canadian elections is because ballots, at least at the Federal level, are very very very simple. You simply have a list of candidates and their party affiliation with a box next to them that you mark with an X or check. Simple ballots means simple rules to determine what represents a spoiled ballot. In the US, ballots are often quite complex, with multiple elected positions be selected, as well as voter initiatives. As we saw from the hanging chad controversy in Florida in 2000, complex ballots can cause just about any counting system to produce a high number of errors.
It's also notable that in the US, the agencies responsible for managing elections and counting ballots are often politicized. Elections Canada is pretty fiercely non-partisan, and even with the robocall scandal, it is demonstrated that it is not afraid to take on the government that signs its paycheck. The idea of a Conservative or NDP electoral officer for any riding in Canada would be an anathema.
Re:Right is better than fast (Score:5, Informative)
I can't think of an election here in Canada where the final results are not known within 2 to 3 hours. The last election had a few more close races, so I think it was around 11pm Pacific that the various media outlets were calling the election.
Americans have been fed a lot of pure horseshit about manual voting, and yet I hear of no actual evidence of any of the major Western countries that use it where there is any evidence of any kind of mass screw ups or fraud.
Re:Even though our system is unassailable (Score:4, Informative)
There is quite a bit of evidence that he stole this election though. Even though we had a great system, when you have harper's people calling people and telling them that their poll location has changed, only calling NDP and liberal voters. Well he should be strung up for fraud and treason. No poll locations had ever changed.
So in short, things can still go wrong.
Re:Perfect (Score:4, Informative)
If you are telling me with a straight face that millions of ballots are counted with no mistakes, I have a bridge to sell you.
You're missing the point. Margin of Error [wikipedia.org] is a statistical concept having to do with what happens when you take a small sample from a large population (e.g., what happens in pre-election polls). Mistakes in counting are a type of measurement error, which is a different beast entirely and can occur whether you're taking a small sample or measuring the entire population (as is the case in elections, where "population" in this sense refers to the set of people who cast ballots). Margin of error can be calculated based on the numbers measured (and if you run the MoE calculations on the "count all ballots" scenario, you will get a result of precisely 0) while measurement error, pretty much by definition, can't. The only way to detect measurement error is by calibration, which in this case means a recount.
Re:Even though our system is unassailable (Score:2, Informative)
To be more accurate, there's a decent amount of evidence that suggests he may have stolen a majority government (i.e., unfettered freedom to govern as he sees fit) -- the numbers don't add up to such a point that the Conservatives wouldn't have at least a minority government. Unless, of course, the NDP and Liberal parties decided to try a coalition, which could have been very interesting.
Just means voting fraud is perpetrated differently (Score:2, Informative)
Like, for instance, one political party posing as another with rude robocalls at annoying times, in ridings that have not yet clearly fallen in one direction or the other.
Re:No randomness: Recount (Score:4, Informative)
that's why we kave preferential voting here (Australia) our system goes like...
voters number them all in order from favorite (1) to least favorite (n)
count votes, remove candidate with least number of 1s
re-count votes using the second preference on the ballots voting for removed candidates.
remove bottom placed remaining candidate
re-count using second (or 3rd for votes with both removed candidates in spots 1 & 2) preferences of ballots for removed candidates/
repeat process until someone has over 50% of the votes
this also helps to alleviate the thought that voting for a third party is a wasted vote (well it would except half the people i talk to don't actually know that this is how our votes get counted)