Director-at-Large Recount Changes Results

Yesterday the votes for Director-at-Large positions in the UVic Student Society election earlier this month were recounted, with the result that Gabrielle Sutherland is now on the UVSS Board, and Chris Hackett is not. Eleven Directors-at-Large sit on the Board and students can vote for up to that number people on the ballot–the eleven with the most votes win. Both Sutherland and Hackett ran on the Renew slate, so the number of Renew directors elected–four, including myself–does not change.

Hackett was left in eleventh place after voucher votes (cast by students who had lost the stickers on their student cards) were counted on March 21. Sutherland, in twelfth spot nine votes behind Hackett, requested a recount. When the recount was held, the elections office had to make decisions on a number of ballots which were unclear and had been marked spoiled in the original count. As well, some of the ballots which had been considered valid in the original count were "spoiled" in the recount. After this process was finished Hackett dropped by a net eight votes.


However, Sutherland's win actually resulted from a math error on election night, in which ten votes for her were counted, but not added to the total. During the recount the elections officers discovered this mistake and realized Sutherland had had more votes all along.

Recount results

Ariel Tseng, Fuse 1385 (Elected)
Emily Rogers, Fuse 1273 (Elected)
Hafeez Ali Dhalla, Fuse 1167 (Elected)
Lucia Orser, Fuse 1111 (Elected)
Charles Freund, Fuse 1040 (Elected)
Nadia Hamdon, Fuse 967 (Elected)
Tessah Clark, Renew 929 (Elected)
Allison Rhodes, Renew 921 (Elected)
David Foster, Renew 916 (Elected)
Gabrielle Sutherland, Renew 902 (Elected)
Samantha Scott, Fuse 900 (Elected)
Chris Hackett, Renew 894
Sam Hagen, Renew 785
Alec Hermannson, Renew 651

Some spoiled ballots contained "identifying marks–" for instance, something which could could have been the signature of the voter. On others, the intention of the voter wasn't clear, or more than eleven choices had been marked. Some ballots were spoiled because Zoe Staples' name had been written in. Staples was nominated as a Director-at-Large candidate with Renew but was disqualified because her nomination form was submitted half an hour after the deadline.

Other recount issues didn't affect the results but still raised concerns about the elections process. Another math error on election night caused Fuse candidate Lucia Orser to receive 70 fewer votes in the initial results than she actually had. These votes came from a second Library ballot box and were counted, but not added to the total. This means Orser is now up from sixth place to fourth. (Looking at the preliminary results versus the current ones, it appears these votes may have originally been accidentally transferred to Nadia Hamdon, who is down from 1057 in the initial count to 967 in the recount.)

Six co-op votes are still left to come in but this would be not be enough to change the current eight-vote difference between Sutherland and Hackett.

The need for online voting

What the recount yesterday really illustrated for me was the need to switch to a Webvote system for UVSS elections. In fact, I found myself wondering how many people had been elected to the Board because someone counted wrong, wrote numbers down wrong, copied them wrong, added them wrong or forgot to add them...the list goes on. At one point a discussion between the electoral officers of three ballots lasted twenty minutes. It appeared that all three ballots had been initially marked spoiled, then counted in the recount, then one was "spoiled" again. The elections officers were trying to figure out whether the two recounted ballots should be added to a list of the totals or whether they already had been.

At another point a Deputy Electoral Officer read out vote totals from a list to the Chief Electoral Officer to add to another list of totals, using the numbers in which candidates appeared on the lists. Halfway through they realized that candidates did not appear in the same order on both lists and had to recheck and continue using names rather than numbers.

All this took a great deal of time and cost the UVSS a considerable amount of money. And it could all be eliminated with no more recounts, no spoiled ballots and no math errors simply by changing to the UVic Webvote system which the university already uses for student elections to the Senate and Board of Governors. Supporters of online voting typically stress the paper savings and the ability of students to vote from anywhere. However, after being involved in this year's election and recount the most compelling reason for me is the amount of mistakes, confusion and attendant costs which would be eliminated. Here are just a few examples:

• With a Webvote system there would be no possibility to spoil ballots by making the selection unclear, writing in names or signing the ballot.
• There would also be no way to vote for more than the maximum number of positions. In senate elections, one you check off the maximum number allowed a dialog box pops up telling you your ballot is full if you try to add more. Likewise, if you choose to vote for fewer than the allowable number you are told you still have potential votes left and asked if you would like to proceed or not.
• Errors involving writing down or adding numbers incorrectly would eliminated because all ballot counting would be by the electronic system. Ballot counters would not need to be hired and recounts would be eliminated.
• The possibility for students to vote twice by getting the stickers on their student cards replaced would be eliminated. Nathan Warner notoriously voted twice this year to demonstrate the insecurity of the paper ballot system. The elections office ended up spending an entire week checking all the names of people who had voted to make sure there were no duplicates.
  

The main argument raised against online voting when the proposal was narrowly defeated at a Board meeting in January was the possibility that voting would not be private. However, for those students who don't have internet access at home secure polling stations with laptops could still be provided on campus with the usual hours and locations. This solution would take care of the only substantial reason I have heard to oppose online voting. The UVic Webvote system was audited last year and found to be as secure as any system can be–the UVSS has more than enough reason to adopt it.