amcto 2014 post-election survey · 2016. 2. 1. · amcto 2014 post-election survey background: 119...
TRANSCRIPT
AMCTO 2014 POST-ELECTION SURVEY: RESULTS
AMCTO 2014 POST-ELECTION SURVEY
Background:
119 respondent municipalities from across the province. !
Administered in January 2015.!
Full data (without respondent IDs) will be posted on the AMCTO website in later summer.!
Contact Us:
For more information on this survey, or the results, please contact: !
Eric Muller!Coordinator, Legislative [email protected] !
Rick Johal, !Director, Member and Sector [email protected] !
RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITIES, by population size
N/A, 2%! 500,000+, 5%!50,000 - 100,000,
5%!
100,000 - 500,000, 12%!
10,000 - 50,000, 31%!
Fewer than 10,000, 45%!
VOTER TURNOUT, BY POPULATION: Voter turnout remained consistent with 2010 in respondent municipalities
43%
49%
43%
38%
36%
37%
39%
45%
45%
43%
36%
37%
37%
39%
Fewer than 10,000!
2,000 - 10,000!
10,000 - 25,000!
25,000 - 50,000!
50,000 - 100,000!
100,000 - 300,000!
Greater than 300,000!
2010 2014
VOTER TURNOUT, BY POPULATION: In comparison to the federal and provincial level, voter turnout amongst municipal respondents remains low
61%
52%
43%
44%
36%
36%
40%
47%
2011 Federal (Average)!
2014 ON Provincial (Average)!
2014 ON Mun (Average)!
2014 ON Mun (500,000+)!
2014 ON Mun (100,000 - 500,000)!
2014 ON Mun (50,000 - 100,000)!
2014 ON Mun (10,000 - 50,000)!
2014 ON Mun (<10,000)!
VOTING METHODS: Paper ballots still popular, but use of voting by phone and Internet popular as well
4%
4%
16%
24%
29%
50%
4%
3%
22%
26%
26%
57%
N/A!
Touch screen!
Mail-in ballot!
Vote by phone!
Vote by Internet!
Paper ballot!
Election Day! Advance Voting!
Which voting methods did you use during the 2014 election? (n=119)!
VOTING METHODS: Most voters in respondent municipalities used paper ballots
How many votes were cast by the following methods in 2014? (n=119)!
Telephone, 1%!
Mail, 4%!
Internet, 8%!
Paper Ballot, 87%!
**Respondents also used touch screens, but below 1%, due to rounding. !
INTERNET VOTING: Respondent municipalities generally satisfied with Internet voting, and likely to recommend it for 2018
What is your position on using Internet voting in the 2018 election? (n=119)!
Definitely will recommend
it, 36%!
Probably will recommend
it, 20%!
Probably won't
recommend it, 8%!
Definitely won't
recommend it, 11%!
Don't know, 18%!
How satisfied were you with Internet voting in 2014? (n=119)!
Dissatisfied, 2%!
Satisfied, 86%!
N/A, 12%!
INTERNET VOTING: Most respondent municipalities did not require registration for Internet voting, used a variety of credentials to cast a ballot
If you used Internet voting in 2014, which credentials did you require voters to complete to cast a ballot? (n=38)!
If you used Internet voting in 2014 did you require registration prior to voting? (n=38)!
Yes, 24%!
No, 76%!
3%
3%
5%
5%
16%
42%
92%
Elector ID!
Declaration!
Captcha Challenge!
Password!
Security Question!
Birthday!
Pin!
INTERNET VOTING: Majority of respondent municipalities who used Internet voting in 2014 did not incur additional costs
If you offered Internet voting, how much additional money did you allocate to provide this service? (n=28)!
7%
11%
14%
21%
39%
Saved money!
$0 - $10,000 !
$10,000 - $50,000!
$50,000 +!
Nothing!
**Care should be taken when generalizing these results, as they originate from a small number of responses. !
VOTERS’ LIST: Respondent municipalities generally dissatisfied with MPAC data, view it as worse than 2010
Compared to 2010, how would you rate the accuracy of MPAC’s data in 2010? (n=119)!
Overall how satisfied were you with MPAC’s service during the 2014 election? (n=119)!
Better or Much Better,
19%!
About the same, 41%!
Worse or Much Worse,
36%!
Very dissatisfied,
15%!
Somewhat dissatisfied,
25%!
Neither satisfied, nor dissatisfied,
16%!
Somewhat satisfied, 33%!
Very satisfied, 5%!
TABULATORS: Most respondent municipalities satisfied with tabulators, and many will recommend their use in 2018
What is your position on using tabulators voting in the 2018 election? (n=119)!
How satisfied were you with your use of tabulators in 2014? (n=56)!
Very dissatisfied,
1%!
Somewhat dissatisfied,
2%!
Somewhat satisfied,
10%!
Very satisfied,
42%!
Definitely will recommend
it, 32%!
Probably will recommend
it, 11%!Don't know,
18%!
N/A, 11%!
Probably won't
recommend it, 16%!
Definitely won't
recommend it, 12%!
TABULATORS: Most respondent municipalities rent tabulators, few own them
If your municipality used electronic tabulators in 2014, were they rented or owned? (n=56)!
Rented, 75%!
Owned, 14%!
Leased, 9%! Other, 2%!
ACCESSIBILITY: Respondent municipalities using a range of methods to ensure accessibility, magnifying sheets the most popular
Which of the following methods did you use to ensure accessibility? (n=119)!
7%
2%
2%
3%
4%
6%
7%
8%
9%
13%
15%
17%
19%
24%
26%
30%
53%
N/A
Sign language interpreter
Braille ballots available
Screen reader
Internet vo<ng—without accessibility updates
Telephone vo<ng with TTY phones available
Free transporta<on to and from vo<ng place
Large text ballots available
Telephone vo<ng—without TTY
Magnifying sheets available
Touch screen vo<ng
Combined telephone-‐internet vo<ng
Internet vo<ng accessibility upgrades
Vote by mail
Other assis<ve devices (sip and puff, paddles, etc.)
Audio ballots
Tradi<onal paper ballot with magnifying sheets available
ACCESSIBILITY: Most respondent municipalities used marketing to communicate accessible voting, with website and print media the most popular
If so, how did you market this information? (n=83)!
Did your municipality do any marketing to communicate about accessible voting methods or locations? (n=119)!
Yes, 71%!
No, 22%!
N/A, 8%!
1%
1%
4%
6%
8%
11%
11%
19%
19%
22%
30%
51%
54%
TV!
Email!
Press Release!
Property Tax Notice!
General Advertising!
Voter Notification Cards!
Accessibility Committee!
Social Media!
Community Outreach!
Radio!
Mailing/ Newsletter!
Print media!
Website!
ACCESSIBILITY: Few respondent municipalities provided election materials in a language other than English or French, those that did used a wide range
If so, what languages? !Did you provide election materials or forms in any language(s) other than English or French? (n=119)!
Yes, 4%!
No, 90%!
N/A, 6%!
Punjabi! Polish! Serbian!
Urdu! Arabic! Somali!
Gujarati! Bengali! Tibetan!
Tamil! Hungarian! Urdu!
Spanish! Mandarin! Ukrainian!
Hindi! Cantonese! Farsi!
Portuguese! Italian! Greek!
Tagalog! Korean! Russia!
Vietnamese!
COMPLIANCE AUDIT COMMITTEES: Most respondent municipalities did not have trouble forming compliance audit committees, many
worked with another municipality
Did you work with another municipality to recruit your compliance audit committee, or share a committee with another municipality? (n=119)!
Did your municipality have difficulty finding members for its compliance audit committee? (n=119)!
Yes, 20%!
No, 76%!
N/A, 4%! Yes, worked together,
11%!
Yes, shared a
committee, 60%!
No, 25%!
N/A, 4%!
STAFFING: Most respondent municipalities had fewer than five permanent staff dedicated to the management of the 2014 election
Of these permanent staff how many worked exclusively on the management of the election? (n=92)!
How many permanent staff did you have dedicated to the management of the election process in 2014? (n=119)!
7%
19%
30%
28%
7%
2%
2%
3%
0!
1!
2!
3 to 5!
5 to 10!
10 to 20!
20+!
N/A!
All of the time!
For the election!
For at least 6 months!
For 4-6 months!
Less than 4 months!
0 1 2 3 to 4 5 to 9 10+
STAFFING: Most respondent municipalities did not hire contract staff to work on their election
Did you hire contract staff to work at the municipal office to help deliver the election (apart from temporary staff hired for voting day only)? (n=119)!
Yes, 28%!
No, 67%!
N/A, 5%!
STAFFING: Most respondent municipalities hired fewer than 100 temporary election staff and used traditional hiring techniques
Which of the following techniques did you use to hire election staff? (n=119)!
How many temporary staff did you hire for election only? (n=119)!
28%
22%
7%
4%
16%
24%
Less than 10!
10-50!
50-100!
100-200!
200!
N/A !
4%
1%
1%
2%
2%
4%
4%
4%
9%
12%
18%
39%
N/A!
Letter of interest!
Group Interviews!
Word of mouth!
Graded application form!
Online application!
Did not hire temporary staff!
Used internal staff!
Hired staff from previous election!
Written test!
Oral Interview!
Traditional application !
COSTS, total and per eligible voter
What was the cost to run your election, per eligible voter? (n=119)!
How much money was allocated to run the election in your municipality? (n=119)!
Budget Allocations for 2014 Election
Median! $40,000!
Lowest! $1,000!
Highest! $10,000,000!
Average $296,930.56
Cost of the 2014 Election, per eligible voter
Lowest! $0.75!
Highest! $15.40!
Average $5.01
12%
19%
20%
21%
16%
3%
5%
2%
Less than $10,000!
$10,000 - $30,000!
$30,000 - $50,000!
$50,000 - $100,000!
$100,000 - $500,000!
$500,00 - $1,00,000!
$1,000,000 +!
N/A!
2%
8%
34%
33%
4%
15%
Less than $1.00!
$1 - $3!
$3 - $5!
$5 - $10!
$10+!
N/A!