e-Voting and Digital Participation Tools
Could Canadians vote from their phones? Should they? Digital voting promises convenience and accessibility—but raises profound questions about security, verifiability, trust, and the nature of democratic participation itself.
The Landscape of Digital Democratic Participation
Internet Voting
Several Canadian municipalities have offered internet voting for local elections. The cities of Markham, Burlington, and others in Ontario have used online voting systems, allowing residents to cast ballots through secure websites over a defined period.
These implementations have generally increased turnout, particularly among voters who face barriers to in-person voting. Proponents point to convenience, accessibility for voters with disabilities, and participation gains.
However, internet voting has not been implemented for federal or provincial elections in Canada. Elections Canada and provincial electoral bodies have cited security concerns, verifiability challenges, and the difficulty of ensuring ballot secrecy at scale.
e-Consultation Platforms
Beyond voting, governments use digital tools for public consultation: online surveys, idea submission platforms, virtual town halls, and commenting systems on proposed policies.
The federal government's consultations portal hosts public input on various policy questions. Municipal governments use platforms like PlaceSpeak, Bang the Table (now Granicus), and others to gather resident input on local planning and policy.
These tools lower barriers to participation compared to in-person meetings but raise questions about whose voices are amplified and whose are excluded.
Civic Technology
Beyond official government platforms, civic technology projects create tools for democratic participation: platforms for contacting representatives, tracking legislation, organizing community input, and sharing information about civic processes.
Projects like OpenNorth and Code for Canada have developed civic technology resources, though sustainability and adoption vary.
Arguments for Digital Democratic Tools
Accessibility: People with mobility impairments, those who cannot take time off work, parents with young children, and others facing barriers to in-person participation can engage more easily online.
Convenience: Digital options allow participation without travel, waiting in lines, or adhering to specific schedules.
Turnout: Some evidence suggests internet voting increases turnout, particularly among younger voters and those who might not otherwise participate.
Broader input: Consultation platforms can gather input from more people than in-person meetings can accommodate.
Arguments Against or for Caution
Security: Computer security experts have repeatedly warned that internet voting cannot currently be made secure enough for high-stakes elections. Vulnerabilities at any point—voter devices, transmission, vote tabulation servers—could allow undetectable manipulation.
Verifiability: Paper ballots can be recounted and audited. Digital votes are harder to verify. Even sophisticated cryptographic systems require trust in their implementation—and most voters cannot evaluate that implementation.
Secrecy: In-person voting booths ensure ballot secrecy. Votes cast from home can be observed by family members or coerced by others present. Maintaining the secret ballot in remote voting is challenging.
Digital divides: Digital voting benefits those with reliable devices, internet access, and digital skills. Those without these resources may be further marginalized, even as overall turnout increases.
Trust: Democratic legitimacy depends on public trust in electoral processes. Even secure systems may face distrust if voters cannot understand or verify them.
Consultation Platform Challenges
Online consultation faces different but related challenges:
Representative participation: Those who participate in online consultations may not represent the broader population. Digital divides, time availability, and awareness of opportunities skew who participates.
Meaningful engagement: Online surveys can gather opinions but may not facilitate the deliberation that in-person processes allow. Complex tradeoffs may be reduced to like/dislike responses.
Response to input: Consultation is meaningless if government does not genuinely consider input. "Consultation theater"—going through motions without changing outcomes—breeds cynicism.
Manipulation: Online platforms can be gamed by organized groups, bot accounts, or coordinated campaigns that create false impressions of public opinion.
The Question
If digital tools can make democratic participation more accessible and convenient, but also introduce security risks, verification challenges, and potential for manipulation, how should Canada balance these considerations? Should internet voting expand, remain limited to local elections, or be avoided entirely? What safeguards would make digital consultation genuinely representative rather than captured by those already most engaged? And how can we build trust in digital democratic processes when the technology is opaque to most citizens?