Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCLD-034-16Clerk's Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: General Government Committee Date of Meeting: November 7, 2016 Report Number: CLD-034-16 Resolution: File Number: By-law Number: Report Subject: Municipal Elections - Ranked Ballot Elections Recommendations: 1.That Report CLD-034-16 be received; 2.That the Municipality of Clarington maintain the existing first-past-the-post election model for the 2018 Municipal Elections; and 3.That Staff review this position prior to the 2022 Municipal Elections. Municipality of Clarington Report CLD-034-16 Page 2 Report Overview This report provides a synopsis related to recent changes to the Municipal Elections Act regarding the new ranked ballot election framework. It is intended to assist Council in their considerations of this voting option for future elections. It is not recommended that the Municipality move to this voting system. 1. Background Report CLD-032-16 summarizes the changes to the Municipal Elections Act (MEA), including ranked ballots. The most extensive change is the establishment of a framework to allow for a ranked ballot election in Ontario for the first time. This change can be made by a Council decision and the passing of a by-law. This report is intended to provide a more in depth background on ranked ballots. The Province committed to providing municipalities with the option of using ranked ballots in future elections as an alternative to the current first-past-the-post system where the candidate who receives the highest number of votes wins. The current system does not require a certain percentage of votes to be achieved to win a contest. Ranked ballots allow a voter to rank candidates in order of preference (first choice1, second choice, third choice, etc.). Changes to the MEA now give all municipal councils in Ontario the option to pass a by- law to implement ranked ballot elections starting with the next municipal election in 2018. The related Regulation 310/16 was passed on September 16, 2016 and outlines: rules governing ballots, voting procedures, the counting of votes, recounts and reporting results; conditions, limitations and procedural requirements for passing the by-law, including consultation requirements and timing; and powers that the Clerk may exercise in administering a ranked ballot election. The possibility of adopting ranked ballot voting influences decisions regarding the methods of voting (e.g. scanned paper ballots, internet voting, other electronic methods of voting), and what systems will be required for counting votes. Methods of voting and acquisition of systems will be discussed under a separate report at a later time. Municipality of Clarington Report CLD-034-16 Page 3 Ranked ballots are used (but called by different names) in approximately ten municipalities in the United States (in only a handful of communities spanning seven states), in various places in Europe and the United Kingdom and in Canada for political party leadership races. To date, ranked ballot elections have not been implemented in any municipal, provincial or federal elections in Canada. On June 7, 2016, the federal government formed a parliamentary committee, the Special Committee on Electoral Reform, which is to report by December 1, 2016, but it has promised legislation by April 19, 2017. Town Hall meetings were held in October regarding federal election reform. 2. What is a Ranked Ballot Election (RBE)? A ranked ballot election means an election whereby electors vote by ranking candidates for an office in order of the elector’s preference, votes are distributed to candidates based on the rankings marked on the ballots, and the counting of votes is carried out in one or more rounds, with at least one candidate being elected or eliminated in each round. . 2.1 Framework Section 41.1 of the Act sets out the framework for RBE as follows: 1. Electors vote by ranking candidates for an office in order of the elector's preference. 2. Votes are distributed to candidates based on the rankings marked on the ballots. 3. The counting of votes is carried out in one or more rounds, with at least one candidate being elected or eliminated in each round. RBEs can only be undertaken within a municipality if all municipal races are using ranked ballots. For instance, a municipality could not use ranked ballots for the mayoral race and first-past-the-post for councillor races. It is important to note that the Act does not allow for RBEs for school boards. School boards do not have the same timeline and will not have the option of using RBEs until, at the earliest, the 2022 election. This is mainly because of the overlap of municipalities within school boards and the inherent logistics of coordinating ballots for ranking and counting Municipality of Clarington Report CLD-034-16 Page 4 2.2 Concept For RBEs, instead of voting for a single candidate, the elector ranks the list of candidates in order of your preference, first, second, third, etc. The first choice votes are totalled up and if someone receives 50% or more of the votes, then they are declared the winner and the election is over. However, if no candidate receives more than 50%, then the candidate with the least votes is eliminated from the race. The second choices of the voters whose first choice was the dropped candidate are added to the remaining totals and the votes are counted up again. Once again, if someone has a majority then they are declared the winner. If not, another candidate is eliminated and the process repeats until there is a majority winner. Attachment 1 provides a simplified example of a ranked ballot election. 2.3 Types of Ranked Ballots There are two types of ranked ballots: single-member RBEs, also known as instant runoff voting (IRV), and multi-member RBEs, also known as single transferrable vote (STV). In the Municipality of Clarington, a single-member ranked ballot process would apply to all the offices (i.e. where only one candidate is elected). A multi-member ranked ballot process would apply to where multiple candidates are elected per race. Since Clarington does not have a multi-member situation, this report will focus on the “single- member ranked ballot approach”. 2.4 Thresholds According to the ranked ballot approach, a candidate would have to cross a "threshold" of votes to be elected. In the case of a single-member RBE, the threshold to be elected is 50% plus one of the total number of votes received for a contest, calculated as follows: Threshold =100% of Votes Cast1 candidate will be elected +1 +1 =50%+1 Municipality of Clarington Report CLD-034-16 Page 5 The following is a simplified example of calculating the threshold, from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs Website: (http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page11118.aspx ) In this election, you are being asked to vote on the kind of fruit that will be served as a snack. With ranked ballots you can rank your choices from your most preferred to least preferred option. You rank the choices as follows: Cherry 1 Pear 2 Strawberry 3 Apple 4 Thirty people voted, and only one fruit can be chosen. Sixteen votes are needed for a fruit to be chosen (50 per cent of 30 votes is 15 votes, plus one makes it a majority). 2.5 Single-Member Ranked Ballot Election To cross the threshold in a single-member RBE, votes would be distributed among candidates based on the rankings indicated by the voter on the ballot. In the event that a candidate does not receive enough votes to pass the threshold, subsequent rounds of vote counting would be conducted where the candidate(s) who received the lowest number of votes would be dropped from future counts, and his or her votes redistributed based on the rankings assigned to other candidates on the same ballot, until the threshold is met. Municipality of Clarington Report CLD-034-16 Page 6 The following image, provided by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, outlines the basic process: 2.6 Elimination of Candidates Candidates may be eliminated either using single elimination or batch elimination. The Clerk has the authority to decide which elimination method will be used. The same elimination method must be used for all offices, and all rounds of vote counting. In the single elimination method, the candidate who has the lowest number of votes is eliminated, and those votes are distributed to the remaining candidates according to the next preference shown on each ballot. In the batch elimination method, all candidates who do not have a mathematical chance of being elected are eliminated at the same time, and those votes are distributed to the remaining candidates according to the next preference shown on each ballot. Municipality of Clarington Report CLD-034-16 Page 7 3. How Rankings are Interpreted The voter's preference will be determined by looking at the rankings given to candidates. If a voter gives the same candidate more than one ranking, only the highest of those rankings will be considered. If a voter skips a ranking, the next highest ranking will be considered. If a voter gives two candidates the highest ranking, so that it is not possible to determine which candidate is the voter's first preference, the ballot will be rejected. In any round of counting after the first round, if a ballot is to be transferred, but it is not possible to determine which candidate is the voter's next preference, the ballot becomes exhausted. A voter does not have to rank the maximum number of preferences. For example, if a voter only ranks one candidate, that candidate would be the voter's highest preference. If the ballot is to be transferred in a later round, it would become exhausted because it would not be possible to determine the voter's next preference. In any election where voters complete their ballot by hand, there is an inherent challenge of interpretation. The use of vote counting equipment (i.e. vote tabulators) assists greatly in identifying any voting errors in real time which enables the elector to correct their ballot. The use of internet and telephone voting further overcomes the challenge of interpretation by technically prohibiting errors from occurring (i.e. over-voting). The challenges of vote interpretation may be compounded by complexities of voting in ranked ballot system. That said, where an RBE is contemplated, to eliminate voting errors, the RBE should be conducting using internet and/or telephone voting. 4. Details of Regulations 4.1 Ranking The by-law may specify the maximum number of rankings that an elector may make and may provide a different number of maximum rankings for each office. If the by-law does not specify the maximum number of rankings, the default maximum is three. If ranked ballots are authorized for a regular election, ranked ballots must also be used in any by-elections that are held to fill council vacancies during the council term. Municipality of Clarington Report CLD-034-16 Page 8 4.2 Reporting In addition to declaring the candidates who have been elected, the Clerk will be required to also report the following information to the public: the number of ballots cast; the number of ballots that were declined or rejected; the threshold for each office; the number of votes each candidate received in the first round of vote counting; and the results of each round of vote counting, including the number of votes received by each remaining candidate and the number of exhausted ballots. 5. Regional Chair and Durham Region Municipalities Upper-tier municipalities that have directly elected offices (i.e. the member does not also sit on a lower tier council) may pass a by-law authorizing the use of ranked ballots to elect those offices. However, an upper tier municipality could only pass a by-law if all of the lower-tier municipalities within it have passed by-laws authorizing the use of ranked ballots to elect the lower-tier offices. Within Durham Region, Whitby has already indicated that they are not moving forward with ranked ballots (the other municipalities have not taken an official stance), thus ranked balloting cannot be used for the 2018 Municipal Elections for Regional Chair. 6. Pros and Cons of Ranked Ballot Elections Based on research of ranked ballots, there are several pros and cons provided by various groups. The following is a summary of the findings of staff and considerations for the use of ranked balloting: Pros: • Reduction of vote splitting – voting with your heart instead of strategically voting to avoid having the candidate you don’t want elected. • Greater diversity of candidates and ideas – potential candidates will not be discouraged from running providing a greater number of ideas and platforms. • Discourages negative campaigning as candidates need to appeal to their opponents’ supporters in order to be their 2nd, or 3rd choice to increase their chances of being elected. Municipality of Clarington Report CLD-034-16 Page 9 • Provides a greater element of democracy – current first-past-the-post method provides for electing candidates that may not have a lot of supporters and who have not achieved the majority of the vote. Cons • Complexity of the voting method for electors, which lead to greater costs in educating the voters. • Electors may have difficulty choosing more than one candidate – they may be knowledgeable in their first choice candidate but not in others to make a 2nd or 3rd choice. • Studies suggest that jurisdictions that use ranked ballots disenfranchise less- educated, low-income, immigrant and elderly voters. • Results based on mathematics rather than voter intent – voters whose first choices lose could still feel their votes did not count. There are also many other implications of a ranked balloting system and these are set out below. 7. Implications if Ranked Ballot Elections were Adopted As per Section 5(1) of Regulation 310/16, before passing a by-law to implement RBEs, Council will be required to give consideration to the following matters: • The costs to the municipality of conducting the elections; • The availability of technology, such as voting equipment and vote counting equipment and software, for conducting the elections; and • The impact the proposed by-law would have on election administration 7.1 Public Consultation and Support Substantial public consultation and engagement is required before implementing such a significant change to the current electoral system. If Council directs staff to proceed with a ranked ballot as an option for the 2018 municipal election, a thorough public consultation process is required to gather public feedback. The Municipality would be required to hold an open house to provide the public with information and the opportunity to ask questions about: • How elections would be conducted, including a detailed description of vote counting; Municipality of Clarington Report CLD-034-16 Page 10 • The estimated costs of conducting the election; • Any voting and vote-counting equipment that is being considered for use in the election; and • Any alternative voting method being considered for use in the election. A municipality must also hold a public meeting to allow the public to speak to Council about the proposed by-law. The public meeting must be held at least 15 days after the open house is held. Notice of both the open house and public meeting must be issued 30 days prior to each event. The by-law must be passed no later than May 1 in the year before the year of the election (e.g. May 1, 2017 for the 2018 election). If Council directs staff to pursue the option of an RBE, significant staff time will be required to conduct and document public consultation and engagement. It is estimated that the following staff time will be required: Communications staff: 30-35 hours Clerk's staff: 100-120 hours Total staff time: 155 hours 7.2 Public Education and Voter Turnout The ranked ballot system is a fundamental departure from the experience of the average voter who is used to selecting a specified number of candidates for each office. For example, choose one candidate for the Office of Mayor, not a first, second and third choice for the Office of Mayor. A change to the ranked ballot approach may be confusing to experienced and new voters alike. A significant amount of time, effort and election funding would have to be put towards public education and resources to inform voters about this new system. A change to ranked balloting could lead to public confusion and may have a negative impact on voter turnout which is typically quite low at the municipal level. Effective communication and public education would be essential to informing the public. 7.3 Voting Equipment and Systems The regulations related to ranked ballot vote counting procedures (O.Reg.310/16) were just released on September 16, 2016. Therefore, neither staff nor voting equipment/method vendors have a full understanding of the requirements and whether the technology can be modified in time to provide a secure and accountable 2018 Municipal Election. However, the anticipated complexities of the ranked ballot approach necessitate the use of electronic vote counting equipment. Municipality of Clarington Report CLD-034-16 Page 11 Testing: A move to a ranked ballot approach would have a large effect on the amount of time needed to prepare and test vote counting equipment and systems. Ranked balloting involves multiple rounds of voting based on a more complex mathematical calculation. As with any election, testing would have to be conducted on all vote counting equipment and systems to ensure that votes are counted correctly, as well as, the security and integrity of the systems. Programming: Programming tabulators would be more complex and this would increase vendor costs. Logic & Accuracy (L&A) Testing: The logic and accuracy testing phase for voting equipment would need to develop new testing procedures, would take longer as it would have to test for multiple rounds of vote counting and would require additional staffing to complete. In 2014, it took two days of preparation/setup (two persons), plus two days of testing (nine persons) for a total of 150 person-hours to conduct logic and accuracy testing for vote tabulators. Based on information provided by Minneapolis, MN and Cambridge, MA, a minimum of one additional day, seven additional hours with nine staff would be needed to conduct logic and accuracy testing if ranked voting was implemented. A significant portion of this additional time is based on testing of accessible devices using audio ballot which will have to read out each office, with each candidate read out three or more times before selections can be made and tested. It is worth noting that, at a recent election forum in Markham where several voting equipment vendors demonstrated their equipment, none of the vendors could say with certainty that their equipment could perform the calculations required by the legislation. This was mainly based on the fact that the draft regulations had only recently been released and no vendor has had a chance to program them or test them. Auditor: There may be the need for an independent auditor to ensure that the source code for the tabulators or internet software has been programmed correctly. Municipality of Clarington Report CLD-034-16 Page 12 7.4 Ballot A composite ballot is currently used displaying all elected offices on the same ballot face. Offices for Mayor and Council may be elected by ranked ballot; however, there are no proposed changes to allow for school board election using a ranked ballot. If Council resolves to use ranked choice ballot voting for the 2018 election, there will be multiple ballots and different voting instructions used for municipal and school board elections and the office of Regional Chair. The general rules regarding what can appear on a ballot set out in the MEA would continue to apply to ranked ballots. In addition, ballots used in an RBE would also be required to contain the following information: The number of candidates to be elected for each office; Instructions to the voter on how to mark the ballot to rank their preferences; and The maximum number of preferences that may be ranked on the ballot for each office Depending on the number of candidates for the Office of Mayor and Councillor/ paper ballots may need to be larger, may need to use the front and back of the ballot face or a voter may need to use multiple ballots to vote. To demonstrate the difference in ballot face and layout, a sample ballot under the first-past-the-post (FPTP) and ranked balloting systems are included as Attachments 1 and 2 respectively. A ballot using ranked voting will be significantly different than the ballot that voters are familiar with and may cause confusion. The time for completing a ranked ballot by an elector will be significantly longer as voters are selecting multiple options for each race. Voters may mark ballots incorrectly leading to more spoiled ballots. This is often a source of frustration for voters and some refuse to go through the process again to obtain a new ballot which ultimately results in lost votes. Longer wait times at voting locations may result. It should also be considered that the consequence of error in completing a ranked paper ballot is much higher than if the ballot is completed online. There is no way to prevent electors from selecting multiple choices on a paper ballot which would ultimately spoil and discount that ballot. Staff recommend that, if a ranked ballot election is implemented, that it be conducted solely by the use of internet voting. It will be more time consuming for election workers at voting locations to issue, manage, balance and reconcile multiple ballots or dual face ballots and to educate voters with questions at the voting location. Municipality of Clarington Report CLD-034-16 Page 13 7.5 Election Results and Recounts In order to be transparent with voting results, more in depth information would need to be available with ranked ballots. In addition to the candidates who have been elected and the number of ballots cast, which are currently reported, the Clerk would also have to report on the following: The number of ballots that were declined or rejected; The threshold for each office; The number of votes each candidate received in the first round of vote counting; The results of each round of vote counting, including the number of votes received by each remaining candidate and the number of exhausted ballots. Regulation stipulates that in the event of a tie and it cannot be determined which of the candidates has enough votes to meet or exceed the threshold, the following method will be used to determine the successful candidate: The tied candidate with the higher number of votes in the previous round will be considered to have the highest number of votes; If candidates were tied in the previous rounds, the vote totals in earlier rounds are used; If the candidates were to tie in all previous rounds, the name of the candidate who will be considered to have the highest number of votes is chosen by lot in a draw; The same process is applied to ties for candidates with the lowest number of votes in determining which candidate will be eliminated. In addition, ranked ballot processes will likely delay the time between the close of voting and the release of official results from the Clerk's office. With the current voting system, election results are typically generated very quickly with unofficial results announced at the end of voting day and official results announced the following business day. With ranked voting, unofficial results may still be available the same night; however, the verification of official results would require more time and could take more than a week. This delay would be required to ensure results are accurate and can vary significantly depending on the number of rounds of counting required and the vote counting systems implemented. Cambridge, MA, produces preliminary results on the night of the election and unofficial results the following day. For the verification and posting of official elections results it reportedly takes 10 days to complete. Municipality of Clarington Report CLD-034-16 Page 14 7.6 Accessibility In previous municipal elections, including 2014, Clarington utilized accessibility devices at voting locations in an effort to mitigate potential barriers to voting. Devices included ballot marking tools, audio, tactile and paddle interfaces, and a sip and puff machine. The audio device gave the voter the opportunity to listen to an audio ballot with candidate options read out over headphones. Even with a FPTP ballot, this can take a significant amount of time to be read out in full. An area of potential concern for accessibility is the length of time it will take to have an audio ballot read out if a voter is now presented with the opportunity to rank each candidate three times. Depending on the number of rankings allowed (1st choice, 2nd choice, and 3rd choice) and the number of candidates for an office, this could make marking a ballot using an accessibility device significantly longer than it would to mark a paper ballot. The vendor for tabulators and accessibility devices for the 2014 municipal election has indicated that they have not deployed the accessible audio ballot feature, which was used on the tabulators in 2014, in a ranked ballot system before. However, the vendor estimates that it could take up to up to twice as long, with twice as much effort, for a voter mark an audio ballot if ranked ballot was used. 7.7 Increased Administrative Costs In light of these considerations, increased administrative costs are anticipated based on the following: Paper ballot production costs will increase based on the size and number of ballot faces required for each voter, as well as, in anticipation of more spoiled ballots and replacements needed. Additional staff will be needed to support research, planning and implementation of ranked voting with new processes and audit procedures. Extensive public education will be needed to inform and assist voters and this will require additional staff, as well as, promotional materials and communication initiatives. One additional election worker will be needed at each voting location to assist voters who are unclear on the new voting method and to ensure wait times are not increased. Additional training will be required for all election workers to ensure that they are knowledgeable on ranked balloting and can assist voters. Detailed estimates of these increased costs are provided in more detail within the Financial Implications section. Municipality of Clarington Report CLD-034-16 Page 15 8. Question on the Ballot Option While a referendum is not required for a municipality to move from the FPTP system to ranked ballots, it could form part of the municipal public consultation process. Some individuals feel that a referendum would be an important provision as it is a change to how the electors will vote. Others argue that municipalities have the authority to change the vote casting/counting method without a requirement for a referendum and that elected officials in Canada are elected to make decisions, rather than ask the electorate what decision is to be made. The City of Cambridge Council is one of the few municipalities who, although unanimously voting to stay with the FPTP system for the 2018 elections, they directed staff to look into a referendum question on those ballots to see if voters want ranked ballots in 2022. The last Ontario referendum related to electoral reform resulted in the majority of voters choosing to maintain a first past the post system. However, the referendum alternative was not specifically a ranked ballot system. If Council wishes to consider RBEs as an option for future municipal elections a referendum could be held with a question on the 2018 ballot. Since 2005, three Canadian provinces have held referenda on electoral reform, including on ranked balloting, but did not receive sufficient support for the change: Ontario- 2007 Mixed Member Proportional representation referendum Prince Edward Island- 2005 Mixed Member Proportional representation referendum British Colombia- 2005 and 2009 Single Transferable Vote referenda More information on these referenda and other electoral reform initiatives in Canada can be found on the Parliament of Canada website: http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/prb0417-e.htm A significant factor when considering the inclusion of a question on the ballot is whether voter turnout will be high enough to pass the threshold needed for a binding decision. In accordance with Section 8(2) 1 of the MEA, the results would only be binding if: (a) at least 50 per cent of the eligible electors in the municipality vote on the question; and (b) more than 50 per cent of the votes on the question are in favour of those results. Municipality of Clarington Report CLD-034-16 Page 16 In 2014, the Municipality of Clarington had a voter turnout of 30.53%. In the last eight Clarington elections, the highest turnout was 41%. If a question on RBEs was put on the 2018 ballot, voter turnout would have to be at least nine per cent higher in order to have a binding result. Additionally, the fundamental concerns and costs, expressed above, regarding public education, would be applicable even for a question on the matter of ranked ballots. A question on the ballot would have to be authorized through a by-law no later than March 1, 2018. In reality, staff would recommend such a decision be made much earlier in order to properly coordinate ballot printing and to provide for an associated educational and public awareness campaign. 9. Financial Implications Public Consultation Based on estimates from other municipalities, the cost to conduct a public consultation could be between $5,000 and $10,000. Communications and Community Engagement Sessions If Council directs staff to consider RBEs as an option for the 2018 municipal election it is estimated that the communications and community engagement sessions would cost between $25,000 and $30,000. Implementation The 2014 Clarington Municipal Election total cost was approximately $332,000. Of that, approximately $140,000 was spent on ballots and tabulators/electronic equipment. It is anticipated that there will be other additional costs which, at this point are very preliminary as vendors have not yet set pricing, staff has not yet undertaken a thorough process assessment, and nor has a method of election been determined by Council. That said, at the very least staff expect the following additional costs with a ranked balloting approach: • an increase for the extra programming for ranked ballots (approximately $14,000- $17,000). Municipality of Clarington Report CLD-034-16 Page 17 • a 50% increase in the cost of ballots due to the possibility of having to print on the back of the ballots or make them larger, since ranked contests take up more space, resulting in approximately $8,000. • additional election workers ( approximately $6,600). It should be noted that the above financial implications could be different should Council choose to implement internet voting. Based on the results of the “Internet Voting Project Report”, from the Centre for E-Democracy, published in August, 2016, the costs of internet voting could be anywhere from 20% less to 20% more per voter than traditional paper ballots. 10. Timing In accordance with Section 41.2(1) of the MEMA, Council has the option to pass a future by-law with respect to RBEs for Offices of Council. While the 2018 municipal election may seem far away, if an RBE is to be implemented it must be authorized through a by- law no later than May 1, 2017. In reality, this decision would need to be made much earlier in order to allow staff the time required to properly implement such a change. It is necessary to determine whether Council is interested in pursuing RBEs for the 2018 Municipal Elections to allow sufficient time for community engagement and the related administration. The following is the proposed timeline, should Council decide to proceed. Item New Date Notice of Open House Week of December 16, 2016 Open House Week of January 16, 2017 Notice of Public Meeting February 22, 2017 Public Meeting regarding Ranked Ballots (General Government Committee Meeting) March 27, 2017 Report to General Government Committee April 18, 2017 Last Day to pass By-law Authorization of alternative voting methods May 1, 2017 By-law – Use of Ranked Ballots May 1, 2017* Establishment of forms, policies and procedures for voting, vote counting equipment and alternative voting methods December 29, 2017 Clerk determines single or batch elimination for ranked ballots December 31, 2017 Authorization of a ballot question March 1, 2018 Municipality of Clarington Report CLD-034-16 Page 18 11. Concurrence Not Applicable 12. Conclusions Staff recommends that Council maintain the current first-past-the-post election model for the 2018 municipal election for the following reasons. 12.1 Regulations While the amendments to the MEA received Royal Assent for the MEMA in June, 2016, the regulations that govern the detailed processes by which RBEs are to be conducted were only released on September 16, 2016. This makes implementation very difficult based on an already tight timeline for public consultation, final reporting by early 2017 and by-law approval by May 1, 2017. The implications of a new voting system with a ranked ballots need to be balanced with opportunities to naturally progress and expand on election services in terms of planning and implementing the 2018 Municipal Elections. 12.2 Financial considerations Significant additional costs of conducting an RBE have been identified in the Financial Implications section of this report. These extra costs would significantly impact the election reserve budget. These additional costs have not been anticipated and budgeted for. The election budget is necessary to cover the costs of the municipal election every four years, but also must leave funds in reserve in case of a recount, a compliance audit, and/or a by-election. Even if the election reserve held the funds to cover the additional costs of an RBE, the Municipality’s ability to carry out a recount, compliance audit and/or by-election may be compromised. 12.3 Public education The ranked ballot system is a fundamental departure from the experience of the average voter. No municipality in Ontario currently conducts RBEs and, as a result, there is a significant lack of public knowledge on this system among both experienced and new voters alike. A significant amount of time, effort and election funding would have to be put towards public education and resources to inform voters about this new system. In order to prevent public confusion and potential negative impacts to voter turnout, it would be beneficial to monitor the impacts of implementation and learn from the public education initiatives led by municipalities who adopt a ranked ballot system for the first time in 2018. In addition, it is anticipated that there may be an opportunity to learn from a Municipality of Clarington Report CLD-034-16 Page 19 Provincial or Federal election which may undertake to use ranked ballots between now and 2022. 12.4 Equipment testing and results In 2014, the Municipality relied on tabulator equipment to count ballot selections at 33 different voting locations (plus 6 special voting places). This equipment ensures the consistent and accurate counting of votes, as well as, the timely production of results. There are unique requirements for having a ballot with both ranked and FPTP systems, for how a tabulator would have to read and count a first, 2nd and 3rd choice of candidate, and for how tabulator results would calculate multiple rounds of vote counting. It is currently unclear, and untested, if and how the tabulator equipment meets these new requirements. The algorithms, security and programming of vote tabulating equipment are all areas that have not been fully explored or proven to work by service providers which underscores the need to wait to implement this type of voting after more research and testing can be conducted. 12.5 Lack of current adoption In the case of RBES, there are no provinces or municipalities across Canada, let alone in Ontario, that are currently using this election system. With the new amendments to the MEA, 2018 is the first year that Ontario municipalities have the option of implementing an RBE. The Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario (AMCTO) surveyed Clerks in the spring of 2016 and found that only four percent indicated that they were likely to recommend the use of ranked ballots and only eight percent felt prepared to run a ranked ballot election by 2018. At the time of writing this report, staff research did not identify any municipality that has adopted ranked balloting for 2018. It is recommended that the Municipality monitor and learn from the implementation experiences of other Ontario municipalities in 2018, to ensure that additional costs, considerations of public interest and risks are identified and mitigated prior to implementation. If directed to investigate ranked balloting further, public consultation will need to be conducted and a decision report would be brought forward early in 2017 for consideration Municipality of Clarington Report CLD-034-16 Page 20 13. .Strategic Plan Application Not applicable. Submitted by: Reviewed by: C. Anne Greentree, Curry Clifford, MPA, CMO Municipal Clerk Interim CAO Staff Contact: June Gallagher, Deputy Clerk, 905-623-3379 ext. 2103 or jgallagher@clarington.net Attachments: Attachment 1 – Example of Ranked Ballot Election Attachment 2 – Sample of Clarington First Past the Post Composite Ballot and a Sample of Burlington’s Ranked Ballot Elections Composite Ballot There are no interested parties to be notified of Council’s decision. Attachment 1 to Municipality of Clarington Report CLD-034-16 Example of Single-Member Ranked Ballot Election First Round In the example below, in the first round of counting: the Cherry received 5 votes; Strawberry received 6 votes; Pear received 9 votes and Apple received 10 votes: None of the fruits has received enough votes to be elected. Eliminate the Option in Last Place and Redistribute those Ballots to Other Candidates The first choice, Cherry, got the fewest votes. The ballots of everyone else who voted for Cherry as their first choice will now have their second choices redistributed. Assuming that 4 of the Cherry ballots chose Pear and one choose Strawberry as their second choices,, the 5 Cherry ballots are redistributed, and the new vote count is: Strawberry=1; Pear=4; Apple=0, as follows: After the second round of counting, none of the fruits has received a majority – which is required to be elected. Municipality of Clarington Report CLD-034-16 Page 22 Drop the last place and redistribute those ballots Strawberry now has the fewest votes. Electors that chose Strawberry as their first choice and Pear as their second choice will then have their vote redistributed to Pear in this third round. Electors that chose Strawberry as their first choice and Apple as their second choice will have their vote redistributed to Apple in this third round. After the 7 Strawberry ballots are redistributed, the new vote count is: Pear=17; and Apple=13. Pear is elected with 17 votes. Even though your first choice didn’t get elected, your ballot helped your second choice to win.