Council to consider important civic election topics (Jan 19): Random ballot order, longer candidate nomination period, more nominator signatures, and more

There is an important item entitled “Report Back on the Random Order Ballot Model Used in the 2018 Vancouver Election” on the agenda for the  January 19, 2021 City Council meeting (Tuesday), being held online.

Citizens wishing to speak to Council on this report can sign up and speak to this item, before 8:30am of Tuesday January 19th.

It is worth a careful read. Spoiler alert: On the topic of the random ordering of candidate names on the ballot, staff recommend continuing this practice in 2022, and provide the rationale. So far so good.

But there is much more. The staff recommendations in the 96-page staff report cover MUCH more than the title implies and go well beyond what Council originally requested. The report title should really include the words “Proposed Civic Election Reforms.” In fact, as a side note, we have often noted that the City’s naming of policies and reports merits greater scrutiny. Perhaps a new City Manager could ensure the clerks use more explanatory descriptions for reports, etc. This is a communication and transparency issue.

One recommendation by staff in the report is to change the length of the candidate nomination period by starting it 87 days prior to election day (up from the current 36 days). The next civic election (for all of British Columbia, Vancouver included) is set for October 15, 2022, so this change if approved would mean that the start of the nomination period for candidates would be July 20, 2022.

Other recommendations by staff are to increase the number of signatures required for a nomination to 75 for Councillors and 100 for Mayoral Candidates, while keeping Park Board and School Board at the current level of 25 signatures of qualified electors.

Proposals such as these could have many implications and merit some public attention.

In the 2018 municipal election, a total of 21 candidates ran for Mayor, 71 candidates for for City Councillor (for 10 seats), 33 candidates for Park Board Commissioner (7 seats) and there were 33 candidates for School Board Trustee (9 seats). The ballot also included three referendum questions about authorizing the City to borrow for the capital plan.

On the topic of the random ordering of candidate names on the ballot, as mentioned above, the report recommends keeping this format for future elections and by-elections. There is also a suggestion to introduce a number beside each candidate name for easier identification. There was also consideration given to having multiple randomized ballots in order to reduce ballot order effects; however, it’s unclear how feasible this would be to implement (in terms of printing and processing).

As we see it, one key part of this report is the proposal to change the time period for nominations. Currently anyone who wishes to run as a candidate can submit their nomination papers starting at 36 days before the election. After looking at election rules in other cities, the staff recommendation is to increase this so that anyone who wishes to run for office can submit their papers starting 87 days prior to the election day. The rationale behind this is that a longer period would allow electors more time to research and consider all of the candidates. However, there may also be drawbacks or consequences (positive or negative) not considered in the report. For example, it would change the nomination cycles for various civic parties, it could discourage some candidates from running, and it would be a significant departure from the current election cycle. Perhaps a slight increase of a couple of weeks in the nomination period could be useful to give more time for voters to the review of candidates, but 87 days might be excessive. Another point worthy of consideration with respect to an earlier start for nominations, is what are the implications on election finance (gathering political donations)? What scenarios will play out? Does more time mean that campaign budgets could rise up again?

The increase in the number of signatures required for a nomination for Council and for Mayor from the current 25 is seen as a measure to weed out some candidates who might not be serious about running for office. However, should an increase in signatures also apply for Park Board and School Board? Is the proposed 75 signatures for Councillor and 100 for Mayor enough, or should this be further increased? For rationale, the staff report includes a useful table on page 6 comparing Vancouver with other major cities. Vancouver is the only one with an at-large system versus the ward system in all the others.

A key issue not raised in the report relates to the verification of the nomination forms for candidates. This requires more attention. The current model essentially allows candidates to run who do not have the required number of signatures from qualified electors (in other words, 25 signatures from people who are eligible to vote in Vancouver). The way it has worked until now, if Vancouver’s chief election officer accepts nomination forms that contain 25 signatures or more, no full verification is done on whether the information is valid or not. Nominations can slip through and be accepted even with signatures from people who do not live in Vancouver, or don’t own property in the City, or are not Canadian citizens, or are not at least 18 years of age, or are even using fictitious names. The nominators are not currently verified. A common practice by experienced candidates is to have more than the required number of nominators, in the event that some of them turn out not to be qualified electors. (This is probably why we have seen more names, usually by 1/3 the required minimum, on some of the nomination forms.)

The way the current system works with respect to challenging a nomination is that the onus is on Vancouver electors to do the review themselves. And it is a very short review period. If there are reasonable grounds for a challenge, it is up to an elector to file a challenge in court. Alerting the Chief Election Officer about any problem is insufficient. Thus the current process, in practice, is something like this:

• Nominations close at 4 pm on a Friday (the nomination papers are eventually posted online, with delays).
• City Hall remains closed over the weekend (this is where the unredacted original forms are kept, preventing full public review).
• To access the voter list to verify electors, this can only be done in person at the City Clerk’s office (basically on the Monday or Tuesday after the close of nominations on the previous Friday).
• If there are grounds to challenge a nomination, a elector must make a filing to BC Courts by the Tuesday after the close of nominations (before 4pm).
• Any challenge may need to include incomplete data, as there is no way to determine if a nominator who isn’t on the voters list is eligible to vote; unsuccessful challenges could result in costs awarded

In short, the nomination verification process has serious flaws. In past elections we’ve come across nomination forms that included unqualified nominators: people who did not live in the City of Vancouver or who did not own property here, people who were not Canadian citizens and people who used fictitious addresses. A candidate for Park Board in 2014 ran without having the sufficient number of signatures from electors.

The current staff report also raises the possibility of mail-in ballots. Readers may recall the recent transit referendum and proportional representation referendum, there were documented cases of stacks of disposed ballots that were discovered around mailboxes in rental and condo buildings around the City, thus opening up the possibility for fraud. Perhaps an expanded advance voting system could help more with verified voter turnout than mail-in ballots.

Other items not discussed in detail in the report, but worth discussing if we are looking at improving Vancouver elections, include the following:

• The need for an independent chief electoral officer. (Currently the person selected for the role is a City employee, which opens the door for potential influence on that person via the administration.)
• Term limits: How many times do we want to let elected officials stay in office? Two terms of four years is already eight years.
• Election cycle / length of term: Vancouver City Council went from two-year terms to three years, and stayed that way for many elections. But the provincial government abruptly changed it 4 years in 2014 without a referendum (a length of term review). The BC Liberals at the time did not ask the Vancouver public, but the responsible minister only talked to then incumbent mayor Gregor Robertson, who, loved the idea of a four-year term. Some people think this is too long a gap and reduces accountability of elected officials. A big topic for future discussion.
• More analysis of using a ward system (one was in place in Vancouver prior to 1936, and Vancouver today is an outlier with its at-large system).
• Alternating election cycles (for example, electing half of City Council every two years). This could smooth out the experience levels on Council, and perhaps result in more continuity in management of the City.

It is also worth noting that the staff report states that “There are no financial implications” for the proposed changes. Despite that statement, the report does note the costs of having multiple versions of a ballots (as well as a longer nomination period). We believe that there may well be costs involved in reforms for elections, and these should just be stated, or at least it should be noted that the costs are uncertain.

Note that for election-related dates to change, the request would go from Vancouver to provincial government to amend the Vancouver Charter, in a two-step process.

LINKS

• Oct 15, 2022 General Local Elections

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/governments/local-governments/governance-powers/general-local-elections

• Capital Plan

https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2020/10/30/borrowing-100-million-for-capital-plan/

https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/capital-plan-235-million-more-debt/

The City staff report included an appendix, with a commissioned report entitled “Election Ballot Order Effects in
Vancouver Municipal Elections: A report prepared for the City of Vancouver” (81 pages) by two academics from Simon Fraser University, Eline de Rooij and Corinne Henderson. The report found that there were indeed impacts for Councillors voting in previous elections that used an alphabetical order (favouring the candidates at the beginning of the list). Ordering on candidates did not have an impact for Mayoral races.

The full report with appendices is reproduced below:

Click to access p2.pdf

Quotes from report, from Page 65:

“Thus, we recommend maintaining the random ballot for future municipal elections, but to explore possible changes to the ballot design that make it easier for voters to select their preferred candidates. One such change might be to sequentially number candidates on the ballot, and to make these numbers available to candidates and voters before the election so that candidates can campaign using their number (e.g., “Vote for number 4 on your ballot”).

Second, we suggest exploring the option to expand the use of voting by mail. This will ensure voters receive mail-in ballots early, allowing them to familiarize themselves with the ballot and the placement of candidates on the ballot, and should therefore decrease ballot order effects. We would also expect it to increase turnout.

Third, to facilitate voter information and engagement efforts, we recommend considering a longer candidate nomination period and longer time frame between the close of the nomination period and Election Day. Currently, the nomination period lasts for 10 days, starting on the 46th day and ending on the 36th day before Election Day. In comparison, the nomination period for the City of Toronto’s most recent municipal election was from May 1 to July 27, 2018, and Election Day was not until October 22, 2018. Extending these periods will likely provide more opportunities for voters to become engaged and to learn about candidates and issues, which is especially challenging in elections with many candidates.

Fourth, in an at-large system like Vancouver’s, it is difficult to have many different versions of the same ballot, and even the randomized ballot is challenging to voters given its length. A ward system could help distribute any ballot order effect more equitably, as it would make different ballots for different candidates in each ward more feasible, or, at minimum result in shorter randomized ballots.”

p. 63 of 81, Appendix C:

“The option that reduces ballot order effects the most would be to randomize and rotate the ballots – having as many versions of ballots as there are names.”

p. 66 of 81, Appendix C (recommendations):

“E. Explore the feasibility and desirability of changes to the voting process that would likely decrease ballot order effects, such as:

…

4.  Changing the Vancouver electoral system from an at-large system to a ward-system”

END