UVSS Board rejects Online Voting

At the January 10 board meeting, the issue of online voting was prominent on the agenda. The topic was actually addressed in three separate motions during three hours of debate on the issue as the UVSS board attempted to come up with some sort of compromise that would make online voting a reality for the UVSS election.

The topic began with Chairperson James Coccola giving members of the board a presentation about what online voting for the UVSS would entail. The presentation, which included a handout for board members, described that the elections would be done via UVic’s Webvote system. This is the same system that is used for the UVic Graduate Students Society, Senate and Board of Governors elections. Coccola’s presentation went on to state that a third party had done a security audit of the University’s system which found the system to be secure.

The presentation went on to describe the online voting systems and their effects at several other schools including UBC, SFU, U of Frazer Valley, Kwantlen, U of Alberta, U of Ottawa and St. Francis Xavier. Coccola pointed out that the well publicised security issue at UBC stemmed from the fact that UBC’s AMS hired a third party company to administer its elections rather than use a University based system.

If the UVSS chose to use UVic’s Webvote system, it would cost $4500. Coccola also pointed out that UVic has decided not to put stickers on student cards next Fall so the board will need to find a solution to address this reality for the 2012 election.

Prior to the meeting it was expected that any concerns against online voting would relate to possible security issues that may come from it. In fact, there was very little mention of this topic during the meeting.

Director at Large Dylan Sherlock expressed opposition to online voting in the proposed format because UVic’s Webvote system allows for voting to occur outside of polling stations from any computer. He labelled this “remote voting” and expressed concerns that since students could vote anytime of day from any computer we have no way of knowing if they have been coerced or influenced while voting. Thus, Sherlock went on to label elections held under UVic’s Webvote system undemocratic.

Several other board members expanded on Sherlock’s point about remote voting, expressing concerns that large “voting parties” with alcohol and laptops may occur where students may be convinced to support a candidate and vote for them. It was also suggested that a candidate may walk around with a laptop allowing students to vote on it.

Former board member and fellow blogger David Foster took strong issue with Sherlock’s labelling of elections held using UVic’s Webvote system as undemocratic. Foster passionately declared that his election as a Student Senator via the Webvote system was democratic and legitimate.

Accessibility was also an interesting topic surrounding online voting. What made accessibility so particularly interesting was that it was used by board members both arguing for and against online voting. Gabrielle Sutherland, speaking on behalf of UVic Pride, stated Pride’s position was that online voting does not give everyone equal access to voting. This was reiterated by NSU rep Tanille Johnston stating that a certain class of people have increased accessibility when elections are held online. The reasoning behind this position was that more well off students have more internet access since they own personal laptops and smartphones.

Conversely, board members such as Director at Large Jose Barrios argued online voting would in fact increase accessibility as all UVic students have free internet access. This could also be very helpful for students with disabilities he added.

Throughout the debate, several board members emphasized that paper ballots were not secure and that board members are kidding themselves if they believe it to be secure. Director at Large Nathan Warner reminded the board that last election Shawn Slavin demonstrated how easy it would be to vote twice in an election (Martlet article). Director of Services Remy Hall mentioned that any student can claim they lost their sticker and go to the University Centre to get a new one. Students can also entirely “lose” their card and pay for a new one to vote twice as well. Director of Academics Rajpreet Sall reminded the board that two elections ago 150 ballots went missing from a polling station and were never found.

Another aspect of the debate was human error in paper ballots. Director of Finance Kelsey Hannan pointed out that roughly 200 ballots were contested during a recount last election as voter intent was not clear. Rajpreet Sall was elected by a mere 8 votes in that recount. As online voting does not involve any interpretation of intention, this issue would no longer exist.

At one point I was given the opportunity to speak and used this to remind the board that 10 of the current members (all present) had ran on platforms that explicitly pledged to implement online elections. I encouraged these board members to follow through on their platforms.

To my astonishment, several board members that followed me argued against board members following their election platforms. Dylan Sherlock felt it would be undemocratic for a board member to justify their decision solely based on promises contained in their election platform. NSU rep Tanille Johnston argued that board members ran for the board a long time ago and have come a long way. She suggested board members may change their minds as they become more familiar with the topic.

A further issue that came up during the debate on online voting was the apparent lack of consultation on the issue. Dylan Sherlock stated he was infuriated with the lack of consultation on the issue. He also made a claim that Director at Large Jaraad Marani was being not invited to meetings that pertain to online voting. Unfortunately no board members that followed specifically addressed this assertion that Marani had been deliberately left out of meetings leaving this allegation rather unresolved. Feeling personally attacked, James Coccola responded to Sherlock's criticism stating he has so many meetings every week that it would be unreasonable to expect him to update the board about every one of them. He simply does not have the time. Coccola went on to state that it was part of his job to meet frequently with the University and gave the example that he had had three meetings with various University representatives earlier in the day.

After a full hour of debate on the issue the board finally went to a vote on the issue.

Results
In Favour
Jose Barrios, Remy Hall, Kelsey Hannan, Laura MacLeod, Mehak Mehra, Rajpreet Sall, Karina Sangha, Nathan Warner

Opposed
Jenn Bowie, Jessica Humphries, Tanille Johnston, Jaraad Marani, Rob McDonald, Caitlyn Pal, Tara Paterson, Dylan Sherlock, Robyn Spilker, Gabrielle Sutherland

The vote for online voting failed 10-8.

But this was not the end of the issue of online voting at this meeting. Following a recess Jose Barrios attempted to add a motion regarding online voting to the agenda of the Special AGM (which had been approved earlier in the meeting). What followed was another two hours of debate, and numerous amendments and an effort to go back and try to find some sort of compromise on the issue at this meeting.

Barrios’ initial motion was a straight forward motion that would ask the general membership if they wanted online voting. This was amended by Dylan Sherlock to restrict remote voting to only those who are on coop or those with disabilities that request it. This was a peculiar move given his labeling of remote voting as undemocratic earlier in the meeting. Ultimately a compromise could not be achieved due in part to the technical limitations of the UVic Webvote system. As a result, the UVSS will not have online elections in 2011.

Promise Not Kept

The majority of controversial decisions that are made by the UVSS board involve issues that were unforeseen during the previous election or simply not addressed in candidate platforms. The 200-300 words candidates have only allows them to make a handful of promises.

Many candidate platforms in the 2010 election explicitly mentioned a promise to implement online elections. One such candidate was Director at Large Jenn Bowie. Bowie’s platform stated “Plan for the planet: Move to Online Elections.” Yet, Bowie voted against online elections Monday night. With the 10-8 result, a kept promise from Bowie would have meant a 9-9 tie and allowed Chairperson James Coccola to cast a deciding vote. There is little doubt Coccola would have supported online voting given the work he has put into making this possible.

It appears the likelihood that Jenn Bowie would go against her platform was foreseen by some board members. During question period early in the meeting Jose Barrios had asked Bowie specifically whether or not she had campaigned in favour of online voting. Given how few promises candidates actually make during an election, I am very disappointed to see a board member blatantly go against one contained in their platform.