Accessible Voting - Sometimes X Can't Always Mark the Spot

As a regular follower of politics who has never missed an opportunity to vote, I am interested in the accessibility of the voting process: from registration to getting to one’s polling station to marking one’s ballot.

This year I registered for the first time online. In spite of having to use my second-most preferred screen reader rather than my primary one, it was a success. I was lucky, though, that I had access to an alternate piece of technology. Others may not have that luxury.

Something that was new to me this year was the presence of a ranking system, rating the accessibility of polling stations. It listed specific accessibility requirements, including widths of doorways and hallways to the availability of entrance ramps. A “yes” or a “no” indicated whether or not each polling station met each requirement.

This was definitely a good piece of awareness and I hope would help those with mobility impairments make the necessary arrangements should a crucial element not meet their needs.

However, the most inaccessible part of the voting process is the physical marking of one’s ballot, and here’s where the digital accessibility came to mind in looking for a solution.

In most cases, the current system for blind voters is a tactile template, with Braille and large-print numbers appearing alongside square cut-outs, into which an X can be drawn. An election official lines up the ballot and reads the names of candidates corresponding to each number. There is supposed to be a Braille list of candidates, but I have never seen one to date. Once I remember which number corresponds to my desired candidate, the official will step away, I mark my X, and fold the ballot to preserve my vote’s secrecy.

There are several problems with this current system.

Firstly, a person hoping to mark their ballot, whether or not they can read it, must have the dexterity to use a pencil, mark an X, and fold their ballot. If they cannot read the ballot, they must have the cognitive ability to remember which number corresponds to their desired candidate. They must have the ability to read Braille to benefit from any alternate listing of candidates. There is also no means for anyone who can’t see the X they marked to be certain that they voted for the candidate they wished, or that they didn’t inadvertently spoil their ballot.

There have been several alternatives to paper-and-pencil voting. In recent municipal elections, online voting was available in a few ridings. Others had accessible voting machines at specific polling stations (sometimes only during the advanced polls). These machines were audio devices but they also allowed for sip-puff devices to be used, for individuals who couldn’t use their hands. These measures were great, but inconsistent, and have been so far unavailable at the federal level. Fortunately, excellent magnifiers were available during this most recent election; a family member who required one went so far as to discover its manufacturer so that she could purchase one for herself.

For many reasons, electronic or online voting would seem to be the accessible way forward – accessible by those with visual, motor and possibly cognitive disabilities. And if it’s available from home, it would make transportation concerns on Election Day a thing of the past.

To better understand the mechanisms behind electronic voting and why widespread electronic voting has not yet been made available in all ridings, I turned to Aleksander Essex, Ph.D., of Western University’s engineering department. Dr. Essex’s research deals with cyber security and applied cryptography, and one of his projects deals with the privacy of electronic voting.

From an outsider’s perspective, the thought of an online voting system – a web form specific to each riding with radio buttons for each candidate and a link to submit at the bottom – didn’t strike me as complicated. However, I didn’t appreciate the complexity of the privacy concerns that are inherent in the process.

Unlike banking or other secure transactions online, where both the bank and its customer can see the transaction in order to verify it in case of a dispute, for whom someone casts a ballot must only be known to the voter. His or her decision cannot be attributed to them in any way once they click 'submit.' Though most electronic voting systems are located at polling stations in the United States, where more advances in this area have been made, the concerns over voter identification and the security of Internet connections mean that voting from home presents additional concerns.

Electronic and online voting presents more privacy challenges than I had initially realized. It is important though, irrespective of the system used, that accessibility is kept at the fore during development. Ideally efforts could be coordinated on the federal, provincial, and municipal levels of government to create a uniform accessibility plan.

After all, if you're going to say that every vote counts, then you're going to want to ensure that every vote -- and voter -- can be counted.