Letter #3 to Local Newspaper - October 4, 2006

"I just read the article on them testing the system and being as secure as a bank. That is somewhat incorrect, one would never give their bank numbers out for others to use, it involves their money. Internet Voting however one could simply give their internet voting numbers out; eg) bank account number = (voting number) and pin number = (voting access code). As an Example: "Some running for council have been asked what they would do if a project to privatize a service came up for review. With the knowledge of those answers, these questioners could request anyone not planning to vote to give them their "two one-time needed voting items" and then vote on their behalf." The point of my letter is to qualify the voter is huge task that has not even been started, 1. open up a bank account (qualify the voter) and then 2. have them request an internet service number (access code for voting) to start online banking. I repeat one would never give their banking information to anyone but possibly a close relative, but their voting information if they can't be bothered to go out and vote (more than 50%) do they really care who gets in and who uses their vote. That is the danger, the chance of getting a council appointed by the few rather than elected by the majority!" Return To Top

Letter #2, Under 500 words requested by newspaper - September 29, 2006

INTERNET VOTING: There is no reliable method, to the best of my knowledge, to accurately determine who someone on the Internet is without standing over top of them. The lack of being able to qualify the voter to a reasonable degree of accuracy is one major issue I have with Internet voting. This opens up Pandora’s Box, whereas someone with another’s access information – given or taken, could vote on their behalf without being known to those responsible for the voting process.

One could capture IP addresses to qualify the voter but that would be incorrect for two reasons. First, some ISP’s provide dynamic IP addresses hence it changes every time someone logs in therefore the same computer could then be used multiple times with relative anonymity. Secondly, those with dedicated IP addresses may have multiple voters in the household, one voter could use the Internet and the others would have to go to a polling station. Sufficient information could be collected beforehand from each voting member in the community. Then, the voter, by filling in many required personal fields on an Internet ballot would confirm that they actually are who they say, within a reasonable doubt. These types of forms would be difficult for the ordinary citizen to use and are subject to abuse by persons who have access to all this information. Also I envision an issue with freedom of information and the potential interception of personal information prior to, during or following the vote. To ensure compliance the entire community would have to provide these details. More complex issues arise from voters who prefer to use public service providers like the Public Library, Kawartha Graphics and such, they would all cast their vote from one IP address.

CITY WIDE VOTING: Here again I have a concern with potential fraud and loading the ballots in favour of one candidate over another. When voting at their polling stations, usually run by neighbours from their polling area, the voter is usually dealing with people personally known to them and more importantly who know the voter. That very needed safety check on the system is required. Anyone with a voting registration card can walk into any station and vote! Even with an extensive screening process in place, without personal knowledge of the voter, one can never be sure. “If it isn’t broken - don’t fix it” There are already laws in place ensuring everyone has adequate time to reach their polling stations to vote.

Considering the few votes needed between winning or losing, If the above changes are implemented it could produce a City Council that is more or less appointed by a few rather than elected by the majority! That might be extreme but so are these proposed changes that are basically flawed and simply change for the sake of change.

A City Wide Computer Network will have to incorporate all 18 polling stations and have every bit of personal information available for every voter in the City at every station. Return To Top

Letter #1 - September 26, 2006

September 26, 2006

City of Peterborough, City Clerk,

RE: Changes to Voting Procedures

I respectfully request clarification on a few issues that I have with the new (proposed) voting system. These are twofold, the first dealing with the Internet option and the second with the vote anywhere option.

*INTERNET VOTING*

I firmly believe that it impossible to control Internet voting at this juncture. There is no reasonable way of knowing who is casting the vote. Anyone choosing not to vote might give their access code to be used by others who would then use it to vote on their behalf, as they wished or not. Not very good! The City of Peterborough is a Corporation, albeit governed by the Municipal Act; proxy voting is known to be acceptable within corporations!

There may be plans to capture IP addresses. That would be incorrect for two reasons. First, some ISP's provide dynamic IP addresses hence it changes every time someone logs in so multiple anonymous sessions could be used. Secondly, those with dedicated IP addresses may have multiple voters in the household so one could use the Internet and the rest would have to go to the polling station. Sufficient information could be collected beforehand from each voting member in the community and forcing personal compliance in many fields on an Internet ballet to as accurately as possible confirm the voter is whom they say they are. This type form would be difficult for the ordinary citizen to use and could be subject to fraud by "inside" hackers who have access to all information. Also I envision an issue with freedom of information and the potential interception of personal information prior to, during or following the vote. To ensure compliance the entire community would have to provide these details. Then there are those who cannot afford a computer and use a public service provider like the Public Library, Kawartha Graphics and the like, they would all cast their vote from one IP address!

The danger is that it could be used to cast ballots in favour of one candidate over another either by a hacker or an "inside" source or by a proxy voter as mentioned above and weigh the election towards their choice.

Possibly my fears are unfounded and I am sure your software provider, prior to receiving payment, will alleviate any concerns and guarantee the unassailable security and integrity of the system, short of criminal activities that you must control.

*CITY WIDE VOTING*

Here again I have a concern with potential fraud and loading the ballots in favour of one candidate over another. When one votes at their polling stations, usually run by neighbours and the like, most of the time one is dealing with people personally known to them and more important who know the voter. That very needed safety check on the system is required! Anyone with a voting registration card can walk into any station and vote unless an extensive screening process is put in place. If voting in importance ranks equal to or are greater than getting a check cashed one would need at least 2 pieces of photo ID to prove whom they are. That would make some sense but that is something that has to be expansively publicized well in advance of voting day. "If it isn't broken don't fix it"! There are already laws in place ensuring everyone has adequate time to reach their polling stations to vote!

*CONCLUSIONS*

If both of the above are implemented it could produce a City Council that is more or less appointed by the few rather than elected by the majority! I conclude that both proposals are flawed and open to abuse and respectively request a response that will set aside my concerns.

The entire above aside the Professionals in the Federal Government must in my opinion, mandate-voting procedures. That leads to consistent procedures from one region to another and would ensure that the voting public is not confused because a minor bureaucracy decides to mandate its own set of rules within a region or even different rules for each of our three levels of government elections. Arbitrary changes can only lead to the kind of voter confusion we have seen creating major problems with elections in other countries.

I must assume that these voting change proposals have been presented to council and approved by them as a cost reduction project. I would be most interested to see that paperwork or would that require a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

Sincerely, John Stoeten

This letter was sent to the City Clerk, Local Newspaper and Member of Parliament. Please send comments or questions to (click here). Include your address and phone number. Return To Top