Low-tech vote: Why does Elections Canada use paper ballots and hand-counting?
Article content
As more provinces and cities use electronic tabulators to speed up vote counts, Elections Canada has opted to stick with a low-tech method before the federal election: The hand count.
Article content
Article content
This came as a surprise to some people voting at advance polls in B.C., where tabulators were used for the first time during October's provincial election. Poll workers handed out ballots while fielding comments about voting technology.
Article content
Article content
While Elections Canada has studied the issue, and recognizes automatic ballot-counting machines are 'successfully and securely used in some other jurisdictions in Canada and around the world,' there are several reasons it hasn't made the switch — at least, not yet.
Article content
Article content
James Hale, B.C. media spokesman for Elections Canada, said the use of paper ballots and hand-counting at polling stations remains the best approach because of its 'efficiency and security.'
Article content
Elections Canada will continue to study the issue and report 'any significant findings' to Parliament so it can make decisions about how Canadians vote in federal elections, he said.
Article content
Article content
A 'paper trail'
Article content
Article content
There is a big difference between electronic tabulators and electronic voting machines — both of which are in use in various democracies around the world, said Chris Tenove, an instructor and research associate at the University of B.C.'s School of Public Policy and Global Affairs.
Article content
While tabulators, which were used in B.C. for the first time in October, simply count paper votes, some electronic voting machines don't provide a paper record.
Article content
Tenove said a 'paper trail' is important as it provides a concrete record of a person's vote and can be used in judicial recounts, which are typically done by hand.
Article content
In the U.S., electronic voting was seen as a solution to the problem of 'hanging chads' in the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election. In the close contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore, election officials were focused on the tiny pieces of paper that sometimes remained attached to ballots by punch-card voting machines. The controversy caused some U.S. states to move to paperless 'direct recording electronic machines.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Calgary Herald
5 hours ago
- Calgary Herald
Tasha Kheiriddin: Liberals finally making Canada's defence a priority
Damn the torpedoes! Canada's Liberal government is taking aim at defence — and it's about time. Article content This week, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced that Canada will hit the NATO benchmark of 2 per cent of GDP on defence spending this year, instead of waiting for 2032, deploying an additional $9 billion in 2025-2026. Ever the banker, he's also deploying some accounting manoeuvres, shifting $16 billion from the ledgers of other departments to the defence budget to bring it up to the required amount. But that is in line with the tabulations of other NATO countries — and is something predecessor Justin Trudeau should have done, so that Canada would have appeared to be less of a defence laggard for the last decade. Article content Article content Article content But better late than never — and perhaps, just in time. Article content Article content Carney's announcement comes just weeks ahead of both the G7 summit he is hosting in Kananaskis, Alberta and a meeting of NATO leaders later this month in The Hague. The change sends a message to both U.S. President Donald Trump and E.U. allies that Canada means business on defence. Together with the government's border security bill announced earlier this week, Carney is paving the way for a trade deal, or at least some relief from tariffs, with the United States. Article content His spending boost will sit well with his recent pledge to join ReArm Europe, in light of upcoming NATO demands that members spend 5 per cent of GDP in coming years, instead of two. Carney also gets a gold star for actual change. The government will beef up salaries, recruitment and retention of troops, finally acknowledging that new equipment is pointless without skilled personnel. Ottawa will also overhaul the procurement process, a boost for the Canadian defence industry which could offset some of the costs to taxpayers through job creation and revenue. That could also help sell future spending hikes: while polling shows two thirds of Canadians support spending 2 per cent on defence, there's not much appetite for five. Article content Article content But as always, a landmine looms on the horizon: in this case, the infamous F-35 program. Article content Article content On Tuesday, Auditor-General Karen Hogan dropped a bombshell. Canada's planned fleet of 88 F-35 jets is now projected to cost nearly 50 per cent more. It has ballooned from $19 billion in 2022 to a staggering $27.7 billion in 2025, and that's before factoring in infrastructure upgrades, weapons and inflation. Hogan's audit was brutal: the Department of National Defence relied on outdated cost estimates, ignored improved data, and has no coherent contingency plan in place. Infrastructure to house the jets is running three years behind schedule, with some bases not expected to open until 2031. The RCAF is also short on qualified pilots — something it knew back in 2018, but which for the previous government was presumably not a priority. Article content Canada needs stealth fighters. We don't, however, need another lake of red ink. Instead of sticking with 88 F-35s at $27 billion-plus for the fleet, Canada should look at Sweden's Gripen, Boeing's Super Hornet, or a mix of planes. If Carney approves the F-35 as-is, that failure will become the focus, instead of his ambitious plans to rearm. Defence Minister David McGuinty hasn't committed to a review of the project, saying only that he'd ensure that the auditor general's recommendations will be 'fully integrated' into his department. But he should, especially now that Canada is also building stronger ties with Europe, be considering where some of these planes could be sourced.
Toronto Star
6 hours ago
- Toronto Star
Mark Carney says sacrifice is necessary to pay for defence spending. So what will Canadians be asked to do?
Mark Carney 's bold new plan to increase Canada's defence spending comes with two price tags. The prime minister's announcement was clear on one of them: more than $9 billion will be injected into military spending this year alone, and increases in the years after. The other price — 'sacrifice' — got a mention from Carney, but little more by way of detail. Federal Politics Canada plans huge boost in defence spending to hit NATO target by year's end, Carney says Prime Minister Mark Carney tore up Canada's timelines for boosted military spending on Monday 'None of these goals will come easily or quickly,' Carney said, listing the ways in which a stronger defence budget fits into his larger plans to make Canada a bigger, bolder, more independent nation. 'All will require ambition, collaboration and yes, on occasion, sacrifice.' ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Carney was asked at a news conference later what he meant by this. Did it mean, for instance, that all those dollars for defence would come ahead of health-care spending? This is where the prime minister got vague. He said: 'There's no true security without economic strength, and this is true for defence and security. It's true for our social programs as well. We can't redistribute what we don't have.' Carney, by his own admission, is still learning how to be a politician, but on this and in other areas, he is proving to be a quick study. It is very hard for politicians to ask citizens to make sacrifices. We saw this during the COVID pandemic, when governments and public-health authorities asked an awful lot of the citizens, whether that was mandatory vaccines, wearing a mask, or submitting to lockdowns for weeks and months on end. Canadians were remarkably good about these demands on them, by and large, but there's also no question that it took its toll on them too. The convoy protest was the most outward expression of the pent-up frustration among some of the population, but experts are also drawing some straight lines between the pandemic restrictions and the rising resistance to vaccines of other types too, such as measles. Star Columnists Opinion Andrew Phillips: Mark Carney takes a risk by choosing guns over butter The prime minister announced a 17 per cent hike in military spending on Monday. 'It will be a This is all to say that Carney is probably wise to speak in only general terms of what trade-offs the government — and Canadians — will have to make to turn Canada into a serious, fighting force. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Earlier this year, Kevin Page, the former parliamentary budget officer, laid out for Global News what could be required to bring Canada's defence spending up to the target of two per cent of gross domestic product — which Carney said on Monday would now happen by the end of this fiscal year. Page didn't sugar-coat it. He said it would require either big spending cuts, or a budget deficit or a tax hike, or some combination of these measures. Raising the GST by one percentage point, Page offered as an example, would bring an extra $10 billion — that's just slightly more than Carney is promising to give defence this year. That last option would be political poison in a time when Canadians are reeling from affordability challenges and the havoc that Donald Trump's tariffs are wreaking on the economy. Besides, a government that just cut the carbon levy because of its unpopularity, which just received unanimous support for tax-cut measures last week, is unlikely to turn around and ask Canadians to pay more GST. Opinion Althia Raj: Mark Carney can't be allowed to ram through his plan to build big Bill C-5 has been quickly panned by Indigenous groups, human rights organizations, and There's the option of increasing taxes only on the wealthy, but Carney is in the midst of building back Liberals' standing with business and corporate Canada, which saw itself — rightly or wrongly — as under siege from Justin Trudeau's government. Assuming that running a deficit is also not on brand with Carney's fiscal-manager reputation, thus, not on at all, that leaves this government looking for big savings. Everyone always thinks this is a good idea, right up until their services or benefits or jobs get cut. As former PM Jean Chrétien liked to say, everyone wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die. None of this is to pour cold water on the idea of this big, bold boost in Canada's defence ambitions. Carney's speech on Monday was eloquent, even occasionally poetic, on this score. One of my favourite lines: 'In a darker, more competitive world, Canadian leadership will be defined not just by the strength of our values, but also by the value of our strength.' The announcement too, is buying the Liberals a lot of good words from unaccustomed places: the defence community and Conservatives. It will also give Carney and Canada some added heft at this weekend's G-7 meeting, which this country is hosting in Kananaskis, AB. Federal Politics Analysis Mark Carney revives tough talk about America and warns 'a new imperialism threatens' A Canadian government official told the Star that it is 'difficult to say whether or not we'll The prime minister is, then, to borrow from his own phrase, seeing some immediate value for his strong words on defence. Where the value of that strength will be tested is in the cost — not just the $9 billion the government is promising to lay out this year, but in the as-yet unspecified 'sacrifice' it requires from Canadians. Politics Headlines Newsletter Get the latest news and unmatched insights in your inbox every evening Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. Please enter a valid email address. Sign Up Yes, I'd also like to receive customized content suggestions and promotional messages from the Star. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Politics Headlines Newsletter You're signed up! You'll start getting Politics Headlines in your inbox soon. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page.
Vancouver Sun
9 hours ago
- Vancouver Sun
Who's responsible for online harms? Responsibility for troubled file floats between ministers
OTTAWA — As ministers settle into their new roles, discussions are underway about who is best suited to steer the government's efforts to legislate against online harms, cabinet minister Steven Guilbeault said on Tuesday. Questions have arisen about which minister and department would be best suited to handle the complicated issue after the Liberals' proposed Online Harms Act died in Parliament when Prime Minister Mark Carney triggered a federal election in March. 'It's a good question,' said Guilbeault, who oversees the Canadian Heritage department, told reporters on his way into the Liberals' weekly cabinet meeting. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. 'We're having conversations to see what would be the most appropriate department to bring this forward.' Canadian Heritage had been the first department to develop and later introduce the Liberals' initial plan to combat the harms Canadian users experience online. That proposal, which was released in 2021, was met with widespread backlash over concerns about the requirement for social media companies to remove content within 24 hours after receiving a complaint. Experts had warned the provision was overly broad and risked infringing on free expression, given that companies could remove legal content. The Liberals then struck an advisory group and got to work on figuring out a Plan B. Responsibility for the bill also shifted from Canadian Heritage to the Justice Department. In early 2024, former justice minister Arif Vriani introduced Bill C-63, which proposed to create a new digital safety regulator that would be tasked with ensuring social media giants took steps to reduce users' access to content, such as child sex abuse images and incite extremism and violence. That bill was also met with backlash over its proposal to introduce stiffer sentences for hate-related offences and reintroduce a controversial section to the Canadian Human Rights Act to allow people to bring forward complaints of hate speech, which civil liberties advocates and Parliamentarians said risked violating free speech. Virani spent months defending the need for the tougher Criminal Code measures to be included in the online safety bill, but last December announced the government was prepared to split the bill to help get it passed. In January, former prime minister Justin Trudeau announced his resignation and that Parliament would be suspended until March. Emily Laidlaw, a Canada Research Chair in cybersecurity law at the University of Calgary, who sat on the government's expert advisory group, said it was a mistake for the government to have combined different provisions into the same legislation and that by the time it announced the legislation would be split, 'it was too late.' 'What I'm hoping is, when they reintroduce it, they have very firmly the platform regulation law,' she says. Should the Liberals want to propose changes to the Criminal Code or the Canadian Human Rights Act, that should be separate, she said. Justice Minister Sean Fraser told reporters on Tuesday that the government was going to look at different measures when it comes to protecting children online, but would have more to say in the months ahead. One new factor in how the Liberals may decide to proceed is the fact that Carney named to his cabinet the country's first minister responsible for artificial intelligence and digital innovation, a position currently held by former broadcaster Evan Solomon, who was elected in late April's general election. The Liberals in their last bill listed AI-generated sexualized 'deepfakes' as one of the harms companies would have to take steps to tackle. Asked whether online harms would fall under his mandate, Solomon told reporters on Tuesday that it was 'up for debate.' 'But probably yeah.' Laidlaw said while she does not believe the government needs to start a new round of consultations, it ought to take a second look at the scope of harms it is seeking to tackle. For example, she suggested there was room to include the issue of identity fraud. 'I actually think it should be broadened to include some of the ways that AI can be used to facilitate harm, so it might not just be the typical social media on Instagram.' Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .
