Roger Varley has been in the news business almost 40 years with The Canadian Press/Broadcast News, Uxbnridge Times-Journal, Richmond Hill Liberal and Uxbridge Cosmos. Co-winner with two others of CCNA national feature writing award. In Scout movement over 30 years, almost 25 as a leader. Took Uxbridge youths to World Jamboree in Holland. Involved in community theatre for 20 years as actor, director, playwright, stage manager etc. Born in England, came to Canada at 16, lived most of life north and east of Toronto with a five-year period in B.C.
Previous
Time to get back to basics
A few weeks ago, Uxbridge council once again approved the use of the vote-by-mail format in at least the next two municipal elections. They also approved the use of machines provided by Dominion Voting Systems to scan the ballots cast.
The reason given for this is that the mail-in vote considerably improved citizen participation in the democratic process, increasing it to about 50 per cent from 38 per cent.
But, as you will see in our feature news story and in our editorial this week, mail-in voting can cause problems, or at least the perception of problems.
One of the major drawbacks to the mail-in system, especially one using scanning machines, is that it cuts down on the effectiveness of scrutineers. For those of you who aren't familiar with the role of scrutineers, allow me to explain.
Every candidate for office, be it federal, provincial or municipal, has the right to name scrutineers to observe the vote count at each and every polling station, just to make sure everything is above board. While they are not allowed to handle the ballots, the scrutineers have the right to look at each ballot and the right to challenge any ballot if they have reason to believe there is something wrong with it.
I was a scrutineer years ago for a friend who was running for municipal office in Pickering. I found myself in a polling station in a small hamlet, observing the vote count after the polls had closed. Several times during the process, I had to challenge the returning officer's count because he was double counting some ballots. Not for a moment did I think he was trying to pull a fast one: to be charitable, he was simply not very bright.
Nevertheless, it proved the value of scrutineers in keeping the process above board.
How can a scrutineer check each ballot as they are being fed through a scanning machine? And who can verify, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the accuracy of the machines? Heaven knows, they've had all kinds of problems with electronic voting machines in the United States. Does George W. Bush's win in the 2000 presidential election ring any bells?
Of course, the use of machines and mail-in votes and Internet balloting are heralded as being more efficient, enabling more people to take part in the voting. It also makes the vote counting faster, so that people don't have to wait too long for the results.
Balderdash! All that is needed to make more people take part in an election is a little (lot) more responsibility on the part of the electorate. I believe that anyone who can't take some time out of their day to cast a ballot in a democratic election really doesn't deserve to vote. Nor do they have any right to complain about the results.
What is so hard about going to a polling station, receiving a ballot, putting your X where you want to place it and then handing your ballot in? And notice I say X! Once again, anyone who isn't bright enough to differentiate between an X and a circle or a check mark doesn't deserve to vote.
As for making the vote count faster, what's the rush? As far as I can see, it merely allows the media to predict the winners more quickly so they can get back to regular programming.
It seems to me that the more we use technology in our election process, the more likely we are to run into glitches, hitches and questionable results.
Tell me, am I wrong?
