On the day of the next municipal elections, some of you will be able to stay at home. Well, it’s true, last time, 61% of you did not go to vote that day. In November 2025, for 300,000 Quebecers spread across 21 cities, there is no need to remove slippers and dressing gowns. On your computer or on the smartphone to which you have become the slave, between checking your email and the latest feline pirouette on YouTube, you can access your city’s electoral site using a password that you we will have sent you previously and “liked” the candidate of your choice. Uh. I meant: vote for the candidate of your choice.
This pilot project by the Director General of Elections of Quebec is inspired by foreign examples and is part of the great march towards the virtualization of every aspect of our lives. If the test works well, we could consider extending the practice to all municipalities and then, why not, to national elections.
Although, and I reassure you, the geniuses who offered us SAAQclic are not responsible for this “Vote-clic” initiative, you see me devastated by the very existence of the pilot project. First, Élections Québec admits that the maneuver will not increase the participation rate. It only makes it easier to access the vote. As is the case for voting by mail, voting by proxy, voting during the election period and advance voting, the scale of which increases with each electoral cycle.
All these departures from the necessary sanctification of polling day are disasters. I have already pointed this out to you: I am a fundamentalist of democracy. And I believe that anything that devalues or desecrates the most important civic gesture in our political structure is wrong. We must do quite the opposite.
Voting is a civic rite and must remain so. There is a day when, after reflection and discussions with loved ones, we go to a special place, set up, where we participate in the voting ceremony. We have our box. We are directed to the right table. We hide to mark the sheet with our pencil. You can take your child to show them how it works.
Of course, we can allow people with reduced mobility to have privileged access in their building. Of course, we can allow students who are far from home to vote on their campuses. Everything else is niet.
First, the very idea of voting electronically necessarily induces doubt about the integrity of the vote, regardless of the number of firewalls that are installed. Haven’t hackers repeatedly proven to us that no system can resist them? (Our only protection comes from the fact that neither the Russians nor the Chinese are interested in our municipal elections. For now.) The credibility of our system rests on the fact that we vote with a pencil and a piece of paper . The pieces of paper are put in a box. We open the box in front of several witnesses and count the votes. In the event of a dispute, a judge recounts.
The low technology involved in the operation, because it is perfectly understandable by the craziest among us, guarantees its credibility. The MIT Electoral Technologies Laboratory compared all the approaches and technologies used to conclude that this system, the most archaic, is the safest.
Then, offering the possibility of voting from the comfort of your bathroom, as if you were ordering onion rings or broadcasting the photo of your latest gardening exploit, is to announce that the exercise of citizen power is a minor occupation, which does not require or merit effort and which has no more value than any other impersonal transaction carried out online. This is the recipe for the devitalization of the vote, for its decline. A call to drop out.
The multiplication of votes by post and by proxy contributes to this devaluation. It is not necessary to be present. There is no need to vote yourself. It is not even necessary to follow the debates, since you can now vote at the offices of the Director of Elections as soon as the campaign begins. We tell you: see, all this doesn’t have the slightest importance. Besides, you can commit the worst crimes and you will not be deprived of your right to vote. I would do the opposite: except for minor offenses, the suspension of the right to vote should be attached to offenses and convictions. Are you a bad citizen? It’s so serious that this precious right is temporarily taken away from you.
My view is that an election campaign is a national conversation about our shared future. All votes should only be cast in the box in person on voting day (except for our soldiers and diplomats abroad). Election workers should vote within a half hour before the polls open (this is what I saw as an election observer in Peru). No advance voting should be permitted. Because who says that, in the last week, a crazy declaration, a crucial piece of information, a reversal of alliance will not change your opinion? Are you planning to take a vacation at this time? It’s your choice. Too bad for you.
The vote should take place on Wednesday, to prevent any “bridges” with weekends. A public holiday should be declared from 6 p.m. the day before the election. A final leaders’ debate should legally be organized that evening, which would ensure a maximum audience – and thwart the polls, which are obviously incapable of measuring its impact in time. This would add to the suspense, essential to boost participation. Everything should remain closed, except emergency services, until midnight. The same goes for municipal elections.
Either we believe in democracy and surround it with signals that underline its importance, or we do not believe in it. I believe it. And I refuse to click my vote.