For the 2014 election the Township of Clearview allowed its clerk (as the returning officer) to recommend the electronic voting system that would be used for the election and then voted to adopt that system without any proper due diligence as to its integrity and accuracy for the counting of votes in the Township of Clearview.

That same flawed process has now been approved for use in the 2018 election!

Before that election we were able to determine, using Freedom of Information requests, letters to the Ontario Ministry of
Municipal Affairs and the software supplier, a number of very concerning factors.

1.  That the chosen system had never been tested and was not approved by any level of government in Canada as
confirmed by the responses to a number of Freedom of information requests to Clearview and the Ontario Ministry of
Municipal Affairs.

2. That the chosen system used what is known in software language as a "honey pot" to capture and store votes that did
not meet certain UNSPECIFIED criteria.

3. That votes that were captured in the "honey pot" were not to be counted nor registered as "spoiled votes".

4. Those votes could not be identified as to whom the vote was in favour.

5. Could not be identified as to where (by IP address or physical location or any other measure) they came from.

6. Could not show the name/assigned password of the person registering the vote

7. That there was no requirement for the company supplying the software and operating the vote management system to
lodge with an arms-length third party a copy of that software that could be accessed in the event of a dispute by any
party and available to the courts if needed.
And beyond the software concerns, the security of the envelope used to deliver the "password" needed to register a vote allowed anyone holding that sealed envelope up to the light to see the password!
Clearview Election 2018 - How many spoiled or lost votes will you accept?
When we sent pictures of a number of passwords still in their sealed envelopes to the Clerk she REFUSED to do anything about it. This from the person delegated by council to ensure a FAIR ELECTION free of any "hanky panky".
Related stories
UPDATE - August 10, 2018

We have now filed two Freedom of Information requests trying to find out WHY so many votes were rejected in 2014.

The first was deemed a vexatious request by the "illegally delegated Head for FOI" !

The second, delivered to each member of council under MFIPPA section 3 has been rejected and sent back to us by CAO Sage, who as best we can determine has absolutely no standing in regard to FOI matters.

Both of these responses are now under appeal with the Privacy Commissioner but we do not expect any resolution until long after the 2018 election, so the Sage/Vanderkruys/Burton administration will once again have succeeded in FORCING voters to use a flawed system that is proven not to produce representative results.

Click on the Acrobat logo above to see our Freedom of Information request and the letter from Steve Sage rejecting the already delivered and paid for request.
UPDATE - August 22, 2018

Hi Peter, I read your comments on and asked some of your questions at last night’s Clearview Township Candidates’ session re: the electronic voting software:

Q: Why were 268 votes rejected in the 2014 election?
A: Indicates that no choice was made and user deliberately skipped past choices thereby spoiling their ballot.

Q: Why did the Deputy Mayor’s race seem to have the most spoiled votes?
A: Interestingly, users are more inclined to skip past Mayor and Deputy Mayor choices than other offices - perhaps they are less inclined to care who is chosen or would rather defer to other voters.

Q: What happened with the PINs being visible through the envelopes in 2014?
A: The paper notice was inadvertently folded with a “Z” fold instead of a “C” fold, the latter fold would have secured the PIN inside.  On review, the Township and the developer decided that only 4 of the 8 PIN digits were visible so successful hacking was unlikely, thus not enough benefit to incur additional cost.

The President for the company handled each of the questions easily and with candour.  The company touts themselves as the Canadian leader in online election software and says they are facilitating 194 elections across the province this year including municipal elections, political party leadership votes, union voting, First Nations voting.  The main benefits of electronic voting are the increase in voter turnout (people can vote from anywhere in the world) and inclusiveness (students; older or disabled people can vote without leaving home).  Electronic voting is also less expensive that paper-based voting.

This year (2018) we will see a couple of changes:

    there will be “spoil ballot” and “decline to vote” options
    increase in PIN digits
    paper notice with a “C” fold

Thanks for keeping us informed!

Donna Baylis, Candidate - Ward 2
This morning I received this email from Donna Baylis regarding this issue, it is posted here as received without any changes.

My thanks to Donna - This is exactly the type of collaborative effort to better our community that we are trying to foster with this site, it's a great pity that none of the current council and SENIOR staff are joining in this effort.

My only question is why Donna as a resident of Clearview (who just happens to be running for office) can get these answers when Ms Fettes ruled our first request FOR THE SAME QUESTIONS posed by Ms Baylis to be VEXATIOUS and CAO Sage has refused to even accept our Freedom of Information Requests for the same information -

Just confirms that DISCRIMINATION by senior staff IS ALIVE AND WELL IN CLEARVIEW!
Clearview Election 2018 - How many spoiled or lost votes will you accept?