this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2025
22 points (92.3% liked)

Fairvote Canada

628 readers
108 users here now

Matrix Chat

What is This Group is About?

De Quoi Parle ce Groupe?

The unofficial non-partisan Lemmy movement to bring proportional representation to all levels of government in Canada.

🗳️Voters deserve more choice and accountability from all politicians.

Le mouvement non officiel et non partisan de Lemmy visant à introduire la représentation proportionnelle à tous les niveaux de gouvernement au Canada.

🗳️Les électeurs méritent davantage de choix et de responsabilité de la part de tous les politiciens.

Related Communities/Communautés Associées

Resources/Ressources

Official Organizations/Organisations Officielles

Content Moderation Policies

We're looking for more moderators, especially those who are of French and indigenous identities.

Politiques de modération de contenu

Nous recherchons davantage de modérateurs, notamment ceux qui sont d'identité française et autochtone.

founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
Sunshine
AlolanVulpix
[email protected]
22
Is Fairvote Canada only about PR? (question about modern urns and lowering voting age) (self.fairvote)
submitted 1 week ago by Nils to c/fairvote
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

There was an interesting thing during voting, someone noticed their ballot stuck on the urn slit, and asked for help.

They brought this “official” ballot pusher, it was like a long ruler they used to unclog the box. It got me thinking on how archaic is this method, and on the many ways that this can go wrong.

I found that Canada did some study on internet voting, but things are very slow. https://www.canada.ca/en/democratic-institutions/services/reports/online-voting-path-forward-federal-elections.html

News about voting technologies always bring up Estonia as a modern voting system. But it seems that other countries have been successful with electronic or internet voting for around 20 years too.

Another thing I saw is that some of those countries have the voting age down to 16 years. That makes sense to me, they have to live with those decisions longer than I. They can drive and join the army (with parents consent), voting should be added to their rights.

I could not find any organization in Canada taking care of those. And from what I read in the FairVote Canada website, it seems to cover only PR.

I ask it here because I am not sure where to ask, since those seem to make elections "fairer".

tl;dr;

Does Fairvote Canada only covers PR? Do they have any sister organization that would cover:

  • Electronic/internet voting?
  • lowering the voting age?

Thank you in advance.

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I don't think we're quite there yet societally for Internet voting. There's enough claims of rigged elections already.

It's fundamentally a trust problem: the way it is right now, any idiot can witness the counting process and be confident it was all done properly. You can't do that with a computer, you have to trust that the computer does what it claims to do. It would probably lead to the same issue as with mail ballots as well, it would likely favor the left and the right would do everything to discredit the validity of it.

I'm sure clever people have a neat cryptographic scheme that I would fully trust, but apart from potential UX problems, it doesn't solve that probably none of my family would trust it even if I explained it to them. And I would understand them, given big tech is constantly invading our privacy, I would be skeptical too.

Paper ballots are tangible, anyone can see that people only put one ballot in the box, that nobody messes with the box or peak into the box (votes are supposed to be anonymous). People can see that the sealed boxes are moved and opened up then counted. The ballot pusher is silly but it also shows the attention to details to ensure the confidentiality and prevent any doubt that anything fishy happened.

[–] AlolanVulpix 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I agree with your assessment. The transparency and verifiability of paper ballots is a fundamental strength of our current system that electronic voting can't easily replicate.

The trust issue you've highlighted is crucial. Paper ballots create a physical audit trail that can be manually recounted by ordinary citizens. With electronic systems, we'd need to trust not just the code (which most citizens can't verify), but also the entire chain of custody of both hardware and software. As you noted, even with sophisticated cryptographic solutions, the public trust element is essential for democratic legitimacy.

There are also serious security concerns. Electronic systems create "single points of failure" that paper ballots distributed across thousands of polling stations don't have. Computer scientists and security experts have consistently warned about these vulnerabilities. See:

While I'm passionate about modernizing our democracy, I believe the focus should be on fixing the mathematical problem at the core of our electoral system - where millions of valid votes simply don't count. Electronic voting might change how we collect votes but doesn't address this fundamental democratic deficit.

Paper ballots with proportional representation would give us both the security benefits you've described and ensure every vote counts toward representation. That seems like the right sequence of priorities for strengthening our democracy.

[–] lobut 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I'd like to start by saying that I agree with both of you guys.

However like, I remember listening to JRE back in the day (yes, I hate him and don't listen to him anymore) and he brought up electronic voting.

I'm paraphrasing his show but he brought up things like

  • "if we bank online, how come we can't vote?"
  • "imagine how many more people would vote if you could just open your phone and do it"
  • "why can't we vote on proposals like we do on Reddit? with their discussions"

I would really like to be able to just get a phone notification and "bing" vote, but yeah, there's so many issues with electronic voting like you said.

[–] Nils 2 points 1 week ago

From what I read, it appears that the problem is:

imagine how many more people would vote if you could just open your phone and do it”

It seems that a lot of decisions in Canada about voting, who can vote, where they can vote, riding size and shape, ... are to get the right outcome from elections.

Maybe after PR passes those will change, but who knows.

[–] GreyEyedGhost 2 points 1 week ago

"if we bank online, how come we can't vote?"

There are two competing goals: traceability and anonymity. Banking has strong traceability and no anonymity. Having both is much harder than having one but not the other. Traceability is maintained until you put the ballot in the box, and the security of those boxes are maintained by multiple people. Banks also have traceability, by themselves and you, in part by removing anonymity - you can verify activity in your account. Anonymity is vital to maintain the integrity of the vote - if you can't prove who you voted for, your vote can't be easily sold or coerced out of you.

"imagine how many more people would vote if you could just open your phone and do it"

Sure, good point, simplicity would be nice, but part of the process is verifying who is voting and thay they aren't being coerced. Do you have any proposals for doing that remotely? I can't think of any.

"why can't we vote on proposals like we do on Reddit? with their discussions"

We can have discussions about votes like we are, right now. It would be nice if more people did, and more policies could be easily read by laymen so we could do this without intermediaries such as news sites. And how to turn that into direct democracy, where everyone gets a vote, anonymously and verified? See above.

I hope things trend this way in the future, but there are fundamental problems to solve before it can be safely done.

[–] Nils 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I deeply disagree. Except for the trust issue.

First, PR is definitely more important at the moment. I will explain why disagree with the other points.

Addressing first the videos I finally had time to watch.

By the dates of those videos, there were plenty of examples of countries using electronic voting for at least 15 years. That person could easily use proper data to make their arguments, but they chose to engage in fearmongering, appeal to emotion, those videos are full of red flags highlighted in the Canadian campaign against disinformation. https://www.canada.ca/en/campaign/online-disinformation.html

For example, the example of USB being available for people had to be addresses in many of those countries, right-wing populists associated with Russia were using to create chaos during elections. https://www.tre-ap.jus.br/comunicacao/noticias/2022/Maio/e-fato-urnas-eletronicas-tem-portas-usb-mas-so-funcionam-dispositivos-especificos-da-justica-eleitoral (not sure how to share a deepl translation link)

With electronic systems, we’d need to trust not just the code (which most citizens can’t verify), but also the entire chain of custody of both hardware and software.

In some of the examples I saw, the code is open source, or at least auditable, so is the hardware. And the entire chain of custody is recorded, and escorted.

They are even more transparent than paper voting.

Computer scientists and security experts have consistently warned about these vulnerabilities.

Not really, the video you shared I already mentioned above.

Countries leading in technology are already using some sort of electronic vote. Estonia is the leader in cybersecurity in Europe, most countries go there to learn and improve their systems.

https://ccdcoe.org/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHiq5UfxePA

Security experts and computer scientists learn, tests and probe for vulnerabilities so they can prevent problems when implementing systems that will help people.

Not to foment fear and panic, and discourage people from voting.

Electronic systems create “single points of failure” that paper ballots distributed across thousands of polling stations don’t have.

Not really sure what you mean for single points of failure. Electronic voting varies from country to country, from having to visit electronic urns to voting on your phone.

There was a case in Belgium when there was a software error in their electronic urn that gave more points to one candidate. But because of the way that data is stored, and the security chain around it, it was easy to pinpoint the issue and fix the tally.

On the other hand, countries with electronic vote reported a decrease in corruption of the chain of custody, reduction in costs of compared with other voting ways. And of course, the reason I asked if it was part of the FairVote, increases of voters, increase in accessibility, and decrease in invalid votes (people commit fewer mistakes when voting).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting_by_country#Estonia (edit: I put the link for Estonia, but I meant the entire article, it shows the decisions of each country and why they are using or not electronic voting).

Sadly, I can only find contents in English from Estonia and the European Union.

But on youtube, you can auto-generate the subtitles, then change it to auto-translate. It might have some funny moments, like when the person pointed to a printer, and it translated it as "teacher". But it helps to understand.

This video shows instead an electronic urn, and how they set up it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wrMLzqgKEI This video shows is from their Elections organization explaining the security chain and audits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IOtrQhpKBE

The trust issue you’ve highlighted is crucial.

If the people do not trust or understand, it might make things hard. And it is even harder when they cannot trust their elected officials.

In my case, and probably where I am biased, I do not trust authoritarian regimes, and they are the ones trying to make people distrust elections, and technologies that can reduce corruption.

[–] Auli 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Wonder why it favours the left?Are the left lazier less motivates to vote.

[–] AlolanVulpix 4 points 1 week ago

This isn't about "laziness" at all - it's about structural barriers to voting that disproportionately affect certain demographics.

Research consistently shows that convenience voting methods like mail ballots and early voting help increase participation among:

  • People working multiple jobs or irregular hours
  • Those with caregiving responsibilities
  • People with mobility issues or disabilities
  • Residents in areas with fewer polling stations (often in lower-income communities)
  • Younger voters with less established voting habits

These demographics often (but not always) lean left, but that's correlation, not causation. The key point is that when we remove structural barriers to voting, participation tends to increase across diverse groups.

What's especially interesting is that under proportional representation, voter turnout is consistently higher across all demographics. When people know their vote will actually help elect someone who represents their values, they're more motivated to participate, regardless of party preference.

The real issue isn't about left vs. right, but ensuring our democratic systems provide equal accessibility for all eligible voters while maintaining security and integrity. With PR electoral systems, these concerns get addressed together - higher participation AND every vote counting toward representation.

[–] Nils 1 points 1 week ago

I think I get what you are saying.

I worked for a company that would generate electronic trails for every transaction, and we would know right away if a byte was wrong, with many details. It reduced corruption and complexity of the operation. While the information was there for anyone to understand, a lot of people just prefer to "trust the process".

When I was reading of the many ways of electronic voting, from internet voting to air gap electronic ballots, it was not different. They increased the participation of the public by simplifying the vote process, benefiting the least educated voters. They reduced the number of invalid votes (ballot not filled properly, damaged, ... ), reduced the time to vote, and reduced the number of votes lost.

In some countries, the electronic vote is similar to the paper. People go to a place, vote in an air gap computer they call electronic urn, everything follows the same process you mentioned, but instead of a box full of paper, it is this super secure urn.

It might be difficult to trust the process when people do not trust the decision makers.

[–] AlolanVulpix 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Great question! Fair Vote Canada (FVC) does have a broader mandate than just PR, though proportional representation remains their primary focus.

According to FVC's 2024-2027 Strategic Plan, they specifically mention "lowering the voting age to 16" as one of the democratic reforms they strategically amplify messaging around. So yes, they do advocate for this!

Their Vision, Mission and Values statement also notes that while PR is "the most fundamental and urgent change needed," they support a range of "democratic improvements which flow from our core values."

On electronic/internet voting, FVC doesn't seem to have an explicit position. This makes sense from a priorities perspective - while modernizing voting methods might improve convenience, it doesn't address the fundamental democratic deficit where millions of perfectly valid votes elect nobody at all.

Electronic voting also raises complex security and verification challenges. Any electronic system would need to uphold essential democratic principles including accessibility, voter anonymity, and verifiability. See:

Personally, I believe PR is the only viable long-term solution for ensuring every vote counts. Changing how we collect votes (electronic vs. paper) doesn't address the mathematical problem of winner-take-all systems discarding approximately 50% of ballots. But lowering the voting age to 16 would meaningfully expand democratic participation.

If you're interested in technology and electoral reform, you might consider getting involved with the proportional representation movement directly (particularly the List of social media accounts for Canadian Democracy) - we're always looking for volunteers with diverse interests and skills!

[–] Nils 2 points 1 week ago

Thank you so much, those information and links are great.

Focusing on PR makes sense, a lot of those countries already had some sort of PR going on when they implemented electronic ballot or internet voting, it also facilitated referendums a lot. The same goes with the voting age, some implemented as soon as they became a democracy, others took a bit longer.

I will look into getting involved and volunteering. Thank you.

[–] Nils 1 points 1 week ago

About the electronic vote, I found this when I was trying to find the source code of some of those voting machines. It is a Brazillian explaining in english the process of voting.
https://rl.bloat.cat/r/linux/comments/jth7tj/voting_machines_in_brazil_use_linux_uenux_and/gc7yqic

u/Marcos-Am Nov 14 '20

Some things for the parrots that are only able to repeat what Tom Scott said in his videos.

First, all the voting happens on a 10-hour period. Normally 8 hours but this year will be extended due to Covid.

On our election there is no easy way to do it. We vote on the public schools and each machine is on a separate classroom, about 20 machines per school where I live, each school is about a km of one another, these machines have their own battery and are not hooked to each other. Each one of those machines have a table with a number of rows equal that of all people that are expected to vote in that classroom, each vote is then written in a random row so you cannot trace it back to a vote order. Hacking machines singular machines is possible, but to make significant difference on the voting day you would need to focus on the biggest electoral colleges, in hundreds of schools in a limited period. After the election closes 17 PM GMT -3, all the voting machines have their "memory card" transported to the local electoral tribunal where they are transmitted through and intranet wired to the Superior Electoral Tribunal on Brasilia to count, as far I could understand they count locally as well to double check.

Now, the easiest place to rig votes in bulk is on the electoral tribunals, were you get a lot of party people and police monitoring the count.

Also, I believe no votes are accepted before the end of the voting period, but other person will need to attest this information, maybe you rataktaktaruken.

While all the steps of the voting process have visible insecurities, the scale of the election, the timeframe in which it occurs, and the compartmentalization of incoming votes bring higher reliability to the process.

This information's can be found here and here part of it was from personal experience as well.

(There are plenty of videos around showing how to vote, how the machine works, the "hackaton" that happens before every election to crack the machines, ...)