Detailed Findings – Survey of Candidates of the 43rd Federal General Election

A. Overall Experiences

Overview:

Overall satisfaction with the administration of the 43rd general election was high among candidates at 74% (69% in 2015). Satisfaction with the overall quality of service received from Elections Canada increased from 74% in 2015 to 82% in 2019. Satisfaction with the way returning officers ran the election was high at 83%, compared to 78% in 2015. Satisfaction with interactions with returning officers was also high at 85% (84% in 2015). This includes 72% who were very satisfied (62% in 2015).

Most candidates perceived Elections Canada to have run the federal election fairly (81%), and have a high level of trust in the accuracy of the election results (86%).

Satisfaction with Overall Administration of Election

Overall satisfaction with the administration of the 43rd general election was high among candidates at 74%. In fact, 42% said they were very satisfied, and another 32% said they were somewhat satisfied. Only 11% expressed dissatisfaction, including 5% saying they were very dissatisfied. Results are similar; perhaps marginally more positive than in 2015 when 69% were satisfied.

Chart 1: Satisfaction with Administration of Election

Text version of "Chart 1: Satisfaction with Administration of Election"

Chart 1: Satisfaction with Administration of Election

	2019	2015
Very dissatisfied	5%	3%
Somewhat dissatisfied	6%	10%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	14%	17%
Somewhat satisfied	32%	39%
Very satisfied	42%	30%

Q1ax. Overall, how satisfied were you with the way the federal election was administered by Elections Canada in your riding?
Base: n=561: all respondents (split sample). *Includes those respondents – 1% – who said “Don’t know”.

• Satisfaction was marginally lower in the Atlantic (60%) and British Columbia (64%) compared with other regions where it was 75% to 82%. Satisfaction was also marginally lower among women (68%) compared with men (76%).

Overall Satisfaction with EC Services

Satisfaction with overall quality of services received from EC was also very high at 82%, with half of candidates (48%) saying they were very satisfied. Only 6% indicated dissatisfaction, with only 2% saying they were very dissatisfied. Satisfaction increased from 74% in 2015.

Chart 2: Satisfaction with Quality of EC Services

Text version of "Chart 2: Satisfaction with Quality of EC Services"

Chart 2: Satisfaction with Quality of EC Services

	2019	2015
Very dissatisfied	2%	3%
Somewhat dissatisfied	4%	7%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	11%	15%
Somewhat satisfied	34%	43%
Very satisfied	48%	31%

Q47ax. All things considered, how satisfied were you with the overall quality of service you received from Elections Canada in the most recent federal election?
Base: n=561: all respondents (split sample). *Includes those respondents – 1% – who said “Don’t know.”

• Those who were elected (91%), or the incumbent (92%) were more likely than those not elected or the incumbent (80% in each case) to indicate satisfaction.
• This is also the case among men (85%) compared with women (75%), and among candidates in Quebec (87%) compared with those in other regions.
• Satisfaction is lowest in British Columbia (67%) and the Atlantic (70%).

Satisfaction with Returning Officer

Satisfaction with the returning officers’ performance was high at 83%,^{footnote 1} including 59% who said they were very satisfied and another 23% who were somewhat satisfied. Only 8% expressed dissatisfaction. Satisfaction was similar, if not marginally higher than in 2015 when 78% expressed satisfaction.

Chart 3: Satisfaction with Returning Officers’ Performance

Text version of "Chart 3: Satisfaction with Returning Officers’ Performance"

Chart 3: Satisfaction with Returning Officers’ Performance

	2019	2015
Very dissatisfied	4%	4%
Somewhat dissatisfied	4%	7%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	8%	10%
Somewhat satisfied	23%	27%
Very satisfied	59%	51%

Q2ax. How satisfied were you with the way the returning officer ran it in your riding?
Base: n=561: all respondents (split sample). *Includes those respondents – 2% – who said “Don’t know.”

• Satisfaction was also marginally higher among men (87%) compared with 75% among women.
• Regionally, it was lowest in the Atlantic (71%) compared with 79% to 89% in other regions.

Among the 8% dissatisfied with the way the returning officer ran the election, partisanship (27%) and access issues were noted as reasons, including difficulties getting questions answered (23%), general lack of access or support (22%), getting election materials (19%), or unfairness in the process (11%).

Table 1: Reasons for Dissatisfaction with Returning Officer’s Performance

Q3. Why were you dissatisfied with the way the returning officer ran the election in your riding? (Multiple responses accepted)	Total
n= (Candidates dissatisfied with the returning officer)	90
I felt that the returning officer/election staff/polling station was partisan	27%
I had difficulties getting answers to my questions	23%
Lack of access to/support	90
I had difficulties getting election materials or information from the returning officer	19%
Unfairness in the process	11%
Other	9%
Do not know/No response	20%

Satisfaction with interactions with the returning officer was very high at 85%, including 72% who were very satisfied. Only 6% indicated dissatisfaction, of which only half said they were very dissatisfied. The satisfaction rate is comparable to the one observed in 2015 (84%), but more candidates were very satisfied in 2019 (72% compared to 62% in 2015).

Chart 4: Satisfaction with Interactions with the Returning Officer

Text version of "Chart 4: Satisfaction with Interactions with the Returning Officer"

Chart 4: Satisfaction with Interactions with the Returning Officer

	2019	2015
Very dissatisfied	3%	2%
Somewhat dissatisfied	3%	4%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	5%	8%
Somewhat satisfied	13%	22%
Very satisfied	72%	62%

Q46ax. Overall, how satisfied were you with your interactions with the returning officer?
Base: n=561: all respondents (split sample). *Includes those respondents – 3% – who said “Does not apply” and those respondents – 1% – who said “Don’t know.”

• Satisfaction was higher among men (90%) compared with 77% among women.
• Regionally, it was lowest in the Atlantic (71%) compared with 84% to 90% in other regions.

Perceived Fairness of the election

Most candidates (81%) perceived Elections Canada to have run the federal election fairly, with 29% indicating somewhat fairly, and 52% saying the election was run very fairly. Still, 13% said the election was run unfairly.^{footnote 2}

Chart 5: Perceived Fairness

Text version of "Chart 5: Perceived Fairness"

Chart 5: Perceived Fairness

	2019
Very unfairly	6%
Somewhat unfairly	7%
Somewhat fairly	29%
Very fairly	52%

Q44. Thinking about the October 21, federal election, would you say that Elections Canada ran the election...?
Base: n=1172: all respondents. *Includes those respondents – 6% – who said “Don’t know.”

• Candidates who were elected (95% vs. 78% of those who were not elected), incumbents (92% vs. 79% of non-incumbents), or from a party represented in the House of Commons (84% vs. 69% of those from a party not represented in the House of Commons) were more likely to perceive the election was run fairly.
• Candidates in Quebec (86%) were more likely to say the election was run fairly, compared with 75% to 81% of candidates in other regions.

Level of Trust in the Accuracy of the Election Results

Most candidates reported a high level of trust in the accuracy of the election results. One-third (32%) said they have somewhat high trust, and over half indicated they have very high trust in the accuracy of results. There were 10% of candidates who declared low trust in the results.^{footnote 3}

Chart 6: Perceived Trust

Text version of "Chart 6: Perceived Trust"

Chart 6: Perceived Trust

	2019
Very low	3%
Somewhat low	7%
Somewhat high	32%
Very high	54%

Q45. What level of trust do you have in the accuracy of the election results in your riding? Is it...?
Base: n=1172: all respondents. *Includes those respondents – 4% – who said “Don’t know.”

• Candidates who were elected (96%), or from a party represented in the House of Commons (88%) were more likely than candidates who were not elected (84%) or those not from a party represented in the House of Commons (77%) to have trust in the accuracy of election results.
• Candidates born in Canada (88%) were more likely than those born outside of Canada (77%) to have trust in the accuracy of election results.

B. Nomination Process and Sources of Difficulty

Overview:

Four in five candidates (78%) felt it was easy to comply with the nomination requirements (80% in 2015). Main reasons cited for difficulties include issues with the requirement for a specific volume of signatures, the level of paperwork, its complexity, and that procedures were not clearly explained. Satisfaction with the timeliness of processing the nomination papers was at 88% (89% in 2015); including 74% who said they were very satisfied (73% in 2015). About one in six candidates reported difficulties in finding an official agent or auditor. Most candidates felt at least somewhat informed about Elections Canada’s nomination process; nearly half said they felt somewhat well informed and another 38% said they were very well informed.

Ease of Complying with Nomination Requirements

As in 2015, nearly one-third (31%) of candidates felt it was very easy to comply with the nomination requirements. Almost half (47%) said it was somewhat easy, and 15% indicated that it was not very easy to comply with the nomination requirements.

Chart 7: Ease of Complying with Nomination Requirements

Text version of "Chart 7: Ease of Complying with Nomination Requirements"

Chart 7: Ease of Complying with Nomination Requirements

	2019	2015
Not easy at all	4%	5%
Not very easy	15%	13%
Somewhat easy	47%	50%
Very easy	31%	30%

Q4. How easy was it to comply with the nomination requirements? Would you say this was...?
Base: n=1172: all respondents. *Includes those respondents – 2% – who said “Don’t know.”

• Candidates who were the incumbent (50%), elected (50%) or from a party represented in the House of Commons (33%) were more likely to say the process was very easy compared to candidates in their first election (27%), candidates who were not elected (28%), or not from a party represented in the House of Commons (25%).
• Candidates in their first election (18%) were more likely than those not in their first election (10%) to indicate it was not very easy to comply with the nomination requirements.

Reasons for difficulties include issues with obtaining the required number of signatures (39%), the level or complexity of the paperwork (24%) and that procedures were not clearly explained (20%). Others spoke of difficulties meeting deadlines (15%) or described a range of challenges faced by small parties and independent candidates (14%). A sentiment that obtaining signatures should not be a requirement (10%) and inconsistency or lack of clarity were also described (9%). Compared with 2015, there is less concern in 2019 about too much paperwork (32% in 2015), but increased difficulty meeting the deadline (3% in 2015).

Table 2: Reasons Compliance Was Not Easy

Q5. Why was this not easy? (Multiple responses accepted)	Total 2019	Total 2015
n= (Candidates finding it difficult to comply)	223	174
Difficult to get required number of signatures	39%	45%
Too much paperwork/bureaucracy/complexity	24%	32%
Procedures/requirements not explained	20%	16%
Difficult to meet the deadline	15%	3%
Difficulties as independent candidate/small party/new party	14%	17%
Signatures an unnecessary/unreasonable requirement	10%	--
Unclear/inconsistent information process	9%	--
Other	3%	5%
Do not know/No response	4%	2%

• Women were more likely than men to point to too much paperwork (36% vs. 19%). Those born outside of Canada (38%) were more likely than those born in Canada (16%) to say it was not well explained.^{footnote 4}

Satisfaction with the Timeliness of Processing the Nomination Papers

Satisfaction with the timeliness of processing the nomination papers was at 88%, including 74% who said they were very satisfied and another 14% who were somewhat satisfied. Only 7% expressed dissatisfaction (3% somewhat and 4% very dissatisfied). Results are similar to those found in 2015 when 89% expressed satisfaction.

Chart 8: Satisfaction with Timeliness of Processing Nomination Papers

Text version of "Chart 8: Satisfaction with Timeliness of Processing Nomination Papers"

Chart 8: Satisfaction with Timeliness of Processing Nomination Papers

	2019	2015
Very dissatisfied	4%	3%
Somewhat dissatisfied	3%	2%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	4%	5%
Somewhat satisfied	14%	16%
Very satisfied	74%	73%

Q6ax. How satisfied were you with the returning officer's timeliness in processing your nomination?
Base: n=561: all respondents (split sample). *Includes those respondents – 1% – who said “Don’t know.”

• Satisfaction was higher among men (90%) compared with women (83%) and also among candidates under 35 (97%), compared with older candidates. Those 60 or older where least likely to express satisfaction (81%).

Level of Information about EC’s Nomination Process

Most candidates (87%) felt informed about Elections Canada’s nomination process. Nearly half (49%) said they felt somewhat well informed and another 38% said they were very well informed. Only 12% said they did not feel well informed.

Chart 9: How Informed Candidates Felt About EC Nomination Process

Text version of "Chart 9: How Informed Candidates Felt About EC Nomination Process"

Chart 9: How Informed Candidates Felt About EC Nomination Process

	2019
Not well informed at all	3%
Not very well informed	9%
Somewhat well informed	49%
Very well informed	38%

Q9. Overall, how well informed did you feel about Elections Canada's nomination process? Would you say that you were...?
Base: n=1172: all respondents. *Includes those respondents – 2% – who said “Don’t know.”

• The feeling of being informed was higher among candidates who were elected (93% vs. 85% of those who were not elected), the incumbents (92% vs. 86% of non-incumbents), and those not in their first election (91% vs. 85% of those in their first election).

Difficulties Finding Official Agent

Four in five (79%) respondents said they did not encounter any difficulties in finding an official agent. Of the one in five (19%) candidates who did, the difficulties included that it was hard to find someone willing and available (67%), or qualified to be an official agent (46%). About one quarter (26%) said it was difficult to find an official agent because it is a hard job with too many responsibilities. Incidence of difficulties is similar to the 17% reported in 2015. Difficulties finding someone qualified was reported more often in 2019 than in 2015 (46% vs. 27%).

Table 3: Difficulties Finding an Official Agent

Q7a. Did you encounter any difficulties in finding an official agent?	Total 2019	Total 2015
n= (Randomly selected half of candidates in 2019; all candidates in 2015)	561	916
Yes	19%	17%
No	79%	80%
Do not know/No response	2%	3%
Q8a. What were they? (Multiple responses accepted)	Total 2019	Total 2015
n= (Candidates reporting a difficulty finding an agent)	105	161
Hard to find someone willing/available	67%	68%
Difficult to find someone qualified	46%	27%
Hard job/too many responsibilities	26%	24%
Don’t know/No response	2%	0%

• Candidates who were not elected (22%), those who were not the incumbent (21%) and candidates in their first election (21%) were considerably more likely than others to report difficulties. This was also true of women (23%) compared to men (16%).
• Among those reporting difficulties, women were more likely than men to say it was hard to find someone willing or available (79% vs. 59% among men).

Difficulties Finding an Auditor

Among the candidates who said that they needed an auditor (61% of the candidates), 90% indicated they did not have any difficulties in finding one. Only 14% reported difficulties; these included that it was hard to find someone willing or available (47%), or qualified (38%). About one-third (32%) said the fees were too high to find an auditor. The incidence of difficulties is marginally higher than reported of candidates in 2015 (10%), and fewer in 2015 reported issues related to cost (13%).

Table 4: Difficulties Finding an Auditor

Q7b. Did you encounter any difficulties in finding an auditor?	Total 2019	Total 2015*
n= (Those who said they needed an auditor in a randomly selected half of candidates in 2019; all candidates in 2015)	370	879
Yes	14%	10%
No	86%	90%
Q8b. What were they? (Multiple responses accepted)	Total 2019	Total 2015
n= (Candidates reporting a difficulty finding an auditor)	50	91
Hard to find someone willing/available	47%	51%
Difficult to find someone qualified	38%	39%
Fees were too high/could not afford it	32%	13%
Do not know/No response	9%	3%

^* The 2015 results presented in Table 4 may differ from those reported in the 2015 Survey of Candidates report because they have been recalculated for comparability with 2019 data.

• Candidates in Quebec (20%), along with francophones (21%), were more likely than candidates in other regions (6%–17%), along with anglophones (11%) to report difficulties.

C. The Portal

Overview:

Just over four in ten candidates (42%) said that they or someone else on their team used Elections Canada’s portal. Among those, two in three were satisfied with the portal. Over half of the candidates reported that they primarily used the portal to download election materials. Other uses included submitting nomination papers electronically, accessing post-election results or materials, or maintaining the account and contact profile. Most candidates (four in five) who said that they used the portal agreed that it made submitting the nomination papers convenient or contained useful information, or was easy to create an account. Three in four candidates agreed that the portal provided an easy access to documents.

Use of the Portal

In 2019, Elections Canada introduced the Political Entities Service Centre (PESC), commonly known as the portal, providing candidates the opportunity to file their nomination papers and financial reports electronically. The portal was reportedly used by 42% of candidates, including those who used it personally, or had someone on their team used it. One-third (33%) said that no one in their campaign used the portal. Nearly one in ten (9%) were not aware the portal existed or that they could access it, and 16% did not know if the portal was accessed or did not provide a response.

Chart 10: Use of the Portal

Text version of "Chart 10: Use of the Portal"

Chart 10: Use of the Portal

	2019
Yes	42%
No, no one in my campaign used it	33%
No, I was not aware it existed/that I could access it	9%
Don't know	15%
Refusal	1%

Q10. Did you, or any of your representative, use the portal?
Base: n=1172: all respondents

• Those who were the incumbent were more likely to use the portal (51% vs. 40% among those not the incumbent). Similarly, 50% of those elected used it compared with 40% among those not elected.
• This is also true of candidates born outside of Canada (49% versus 40% among those born in Canada).

Candidates said they used the portal primarily to download election materials (56%). Other uses included submitting a nomination electronically (30%), accessing post-election results or materials (28%), or maintaining the account and contact profile (27%).

Table 5: Reasons for Using the Portal

Q11. What did you, or your representative, use the portal for? (Multiple responses accepted)	Total
n= (Candidates using the portal)	478
Download election materials	56%
Submit nomination electronically	30%
Access post-election results or materials	28%
Maintain account and contact profile	27%
General information	4%
Comment on difficulties experienced	4%
Submit expenses/finances	3%
Other	1%
Do not know/No response	15%

• Candidates in Quebec were more likely to have accessed the portal for post-election results (34%) compared with candidates in other regions (26% to 29%). Those between the ages of 50 and 59 (69%) were the most likely age cohort to have used it to download election materials.

Of those who did not use the portal, nearly one in five said their campaign was limited (small budget), or there was no need to use it for some other reason (19%). About one in ten ended up not using it because they felt it was not easy to use (11%), preferred dealing with EC in person (10%), preferred working with paper (9%) or did not know about the portal or how to use it (9%).

Table 6: Reasons for Not Using the Portal

Q14. Why did you not use the portal? (Multiple responses accepted)	Total
n= (Candidates not using the portal)	584
Limited campaign/no need	19%
Not easy to use/complex	11%
Prefer dealing face to face with EC	10%
Prefer working with paper	9%
Did not know about/Not told how to use it	9%
No time, too busy	7%
Advised there were problems with it	2%
Technical issues/Not comfortable using technology	5%
Other	4%
Do not know/No response	33%

Experiences with the Portal

Most candidates who used the portal agreed that it contained useful information (87%), that it made submitting their nomination convenient (82%), or that it was very easy to create an account (82%). Three in four candidates agreed that the portal provided an easy access to documents (77%). Two in three candidates agreed that the portal was easy to navigate (69%), or felt that the portal ensures the protection of candidates and electors’ personal information (61%). One-quarter (24%) agreed that the portal was compatible with their mobile devices.

Chart 11: Experiences with the Portal (%)

Text version of "Chart 11: Experiences with the Portal (%)"

Chart 11: Experiences with the Portal (%)

2019	Don’t Know	Disagree	Agree
Contained useful information	4%	9%	87%
Made submitting my nomination convenient	1%	16%	82%
Was easy to create an account	5%	13%	82%
Provided an easy access to documents	6%	16%	77%
Easy to navigate	5%	26%	69%
Ensures the protection of candidates and electors' personal information	36%	3%	61%
Was compatible with my mobile devices	69%	7%	24%

Q12a-g. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
Base: n=242; candidates who used the portal personally, *Includes those respondents – 1%-69%– who said “Don’t know.”

• Women were more likely to find the portal easy to navigate (82% compared with 65% among men).
• Candidates under 35 were more likely than older candidates to see the personal information as protected (73% disagreed compared with 46% to 63% in other age groups).
• Candidates in Quebec (34%) were more likely than candidates in other regions (27% or less) to agree the portal was compatible with mobile devices.
• Those in their first election (87%) were more likely to find it was easy to create an account compared with those who had run previously (67%).

Satisfaction with the Portal

Among those who reported having used the portal, satisfaction was moderately high at 65%, although only 21% of them said they were very satisfied. The largest proportion indicated only moderate satisfaction. Seventeen percent said they were dissatisfied, although only 4% were very dissatisfied.

Chart 12: Satisfaction with the Portal

Text version of "Chart 12: Satisfaction with the Portal"

Chart 12: Satisfaction with the Portal

	2019
Very dissatisfied	4%
Somewhat dissatisfied	13%
Somewhat satisfied	44%
Very satisfied	21%

Q13. How satisfied were you, or your representative, with the overall user experience of the portal? Were you...?
Base: n=480: respondents who used the portal. *Includes those respondents – 18% – who said “Don’t know.”

• Dissatisfaction was higher among men (19%) than among women (10%).

D. Elections Canada Products and Services

Overview:

Most candidates found Elections Canada’s products to be useful in running their campaign. Over half found the products somewhat useful, and three in ten found the products very useful. Of the products offered by Elections Canada, candidates primarily used the maps of polling place service areas, the lists of polling stations, and the Political Financing Handbook for Candidates and Official Agents. Almost half of the candidates stated that having both formats (paper and electronic) of the polling station lists was useful for them (up from 32% in 2015). In considering the quality of the list of electors, satisfaction was modest at 48% (down from 58% in 2015). Satisfaction with the Event Map Viewer was moderately high at 48%. Of the tools to communicate with electors, over two in five candidates found the Guide to the Federal Election (also known as the Booklet) most useful.

Returning officers organized an all candidates briefing in their riding before the 43rd general election. Three in four candidates attended the briefing or sent someone else to attend (up from 62% in 2015). Just less than half of candidates indicated that they personally attended the briefing, while others had a campaign delegate, manager, or official agent attend. Of those attending or represented at the briefing, four in five found it useful.

There was moderate use reported for the 1-800 support line for candidates, with 39% candidates reporting that they or their representatives contacted Elections Canada using this method (42% in 2015). Among those who used the support line, satisfaction was moderately high at 74%. Most candidates, or their representatives, contacted or visited their local Elections Canada office during the election (86% in 2019, up from 80% in 2015). Satisfaction was high at 88% when considering services provided by the local Elections Canada office.

Elections Canada Products Used

Candidates used a number of Elections Canada products; most predominantly maps of polling place service areas (70%), lists of polling stations (68%), and the Political Financing Handbook for Candidates and Official Agents (64%). Over half (57%) used the Elections Canada lists of electors, including the preliminary lists, the revised lists and the official lists. The statement of electors who voted on polling day (also called a bingo sheet) was used by 41% of candidates, while Elections Canada’s tools to communicate with electors were used by 18% of them.

Table 7: Elections Canada Products and Services Used

Q15. Which of the following Elections Canada products did you use? Did you use...? (Multiple responses accepted)	Total
n= (All candidates)	1172
Maps of polling place service areas	70%
Lists of polling stations	68%
Political Financing Handbook for Candidates and Official Agents	64%
Lists of electors, including the preliminary lists, the revised lists and the official lists	57%
Statement of electors who voted on polling day, also called a bingo sheet	41%
EC's tools to communicate with electors	18%
Don't know/I did not use any of EC's products/No response	13%

• Candidates who were elected (66%), incumbents (60%), those not running for the first time (41%) or in a party represented in the House of Commons (35%) were more likely than other their counterparts (23% to 26%) to have used five or six of the six types of products listed.
• Women (46%) were more likely to use bingo sheets than men (38%).

Most Useful Format of Polling Station Lists

Nearly half (48%) of candidates said the availability of both the paper and electronic formats of updated lists of polling stations was most useful. About one-quarter (26%) preferred the electronic format, while 17% said the paper format was most useful. Compared with 2015, preference for a single format seems to have decreased for both paper and electronic.

Chart 13: Most Useful Format of Polling Station Lists

Text version of "Chart 13: Most Useful Format of Polling Station Lists"

Chart 13: Most Useful Format of Polling Station Lists

	2019	2015
Paper	17%	21%
Electronic	26%	41%
Both paper and electronic	48%	32%

Q16. In your opinion, which format of the updated lists of polling stations was most useful?
Base: n=790: respondents who used lists of polling stations. *Includes those respondents – 9% – who said “Don’t know.”

• Those who were the incumbent (56%), elected (62%) or from a party represented in the House of Commons (51%) were more likely to have found both paper and electronic were most useful. Those who were not the incumbent (19%), not elected (20%), or not from of a party represented in the House of Commons (31%) were more likely to have found paper updated lists most useful.
• Candidates who are 60 years of age or older (22%) were more likely than younger candidates to have found paper updated lists more useful, while candidates under the age of 35 (36%) were more likely than older candidates to find electronic lists more useful.

Satisfaction with the Quality of List of Electors

Satisfaction with the quality of the list of electors was modest at 48%, and only 21% were very satisfied. Fifteen percent indicated dissatisfaction, although only 5% said they were very dissatisfied. Results are less positive than in 2015 when 58% were satisfied, although a similar proportion were very satisfied (23%).

Chart 14: Satisfaction with Quality of List of Electors

Text version of "Chart 14: Satisfaction with Quality of List of Electors"

Chart 14: Satisfaction with Quality of List of Electors

	2019	2015
Very dissatisfied	5%	5%
Somewhat dissatisfied	10%	8%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	31%	24%
Somewhat satisfied	27%	35%
Very satisfied	21%	23%

Q17ax. How satisfied were you with the overall quality of the list of electors?
Base: n=300: respondents who used a list of electors (split sample). *Includes those respondents – 6% – who said “Don’t know.”

• Satisfaction was marginally higher among men (53%) than among women (40%).

Most Useful EC Tools

Over two in five (43%) candidates found the Guide to the Federal Election (also known as the Booklet) most useful to communicate with electors, followed by the infographics (21%), the videos (18%) and the banners for their website (15%).

Chart 15: Useful Communication Tools

Text version of "Chart 15: Useful Communication Tools"

Chart 15: Useful Communication Tools

	2019
Guide to the federal election / Booklet	43%
Infographics	21%
Videos	18%
Banners for your website	15%
Don’t know/no response	38%

Q18. Which of the following EC's tools to communicate with electors were the most useful for your campaign?
Base: n=206: respondents who used Elections Canada’s tools to communicate with electors. Multiple responses accepted

• Candidates who were elected (36%) were more likely than those not elected (18%) to have found the infographics useful. Those born outside of Canada (33%) were more likely than those born in Canada (14%) to see the videos as useful. Caution should be used in interpreting each of these differences, however, since they are based on less than 15 candidates in each case.

Maps of Polling Service Areas

Most candidates (82%) used the paper format of the maps of polling place services areas. Over one in three (35%) used the PDF format, while 17% used the Event Map Viewer. Use of paper has increased from 68% in 2015.

Chart 16: Format of Polling Place Maps

Text version of "Chart 16: Format of Polling Place Maps"

Chart 16: Format of Polling Place Maps

	2019	2015
Paper	82%	68%
PDF	35%	41%
Event Map Viewer (online version on the portal)	17%	21%
None/Did not use any maps of the polling divisions	2%	7%

Q19. Which format of the maps of polling place service areas did you use? Did you use...?
Base: n=808: respondents who used maps of pilling place service areas. *Includes those respondents – 6% – who said “Don’t know.” (Multiple responses accepted)

• Those who were the incumbent or elected were more likely to have used the PDF format (44% and 48% respectively vs. 33% of non-incumbents and 31% of candidates who were not elected) or the Event Map Viewer (31% and 30% respectively, compared to 14% and 13%).

Satisfaction with the Event Map Viewer

Satisfaction with the Event Map Viewer was moderately high at 48% satisfied (24% very satisfied), although many candidates said that they do not know or did not provide a response (24%). Only 9% indicated dissatisfaction (6% somewhat and 23% very dissatisfied).

Chart 17: Satisfaction with the Event Map Viewer

Text version of "Chart 17: Satisfaction with the Event Map Viewer"

Chart 17: Satisfaction with the Event Map Viewer

	2019
Very dissatisfied	3%
Somewhat dissatisfied	6%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	20%
Somewhat satisfied	24%
Very satisfied	24%

Q20ax. How satisfied were you with the Event Map Viewer?
Base: n=60: respondents who used the Event Map Viewer (split sample). *Includes those respondents – 24% – who said “Don’t know.”

• The sample size for this question is too small to discuss differences by subgroups.

Overall Usefulness of Products

Most candidates (85%) found Elections Canada’s products to be useful in running their campaign. Over half (55%) found the products somewhat useful, and 30% found the products very useful. One in ten said the Elections Canada products were not useful.

Chart 18: Usefulness of Elections Canada Products in the Campaign

Text version of "Chart 18: Usefulness of Elections Canada Products in the Campaign"

Chart 18: Usefulness of Elections Canada Products in the Campaign

	2019
Not useful at all	2%
Not very useful	8%
Somewhat useful	55%
Very useful	30%

Q22. Thinking about what you needed to run your campaign, how useful were Elections Canada's products? Were they...?
Base: n=1015: all respondents. *Includes those respondents – 4% – who said “Don’t know.”

• Candidates who were elected (92%) were more likely than candidates who were not elected (84%) to say the products were useful. This was also the case among those who are from a party represented in the House of Commons (87%) compared to those who are not from a represented party (81%).

Of those who did not find Elections Canada’s products useful (10% of the candidates), one-third of candidates listed as products that were not useful: bingo sheets (30%), tools to communicate with electors (30%), and lists of electors (29%). Other products mentioned to a lesser extent include polling place service area maps (16%) and lists of polling stations (12%). One in five provided a variety of responses with no central theme.

Table 8: Products not Useful

Q23. Which Elections Canada's products did you think were not useful? (Multiple responses accepted)	Total
n= (Candidates not finding EC products useful)	103
Bingo sheets	30%
Tools to communicate with electors	30%
List of electors	29%
Polling place service area maps	16%
List of polling stations	12%
Other	22%
Do not know/No response	27%

All Candidates Briefing

In total, 75% of candidates attended the briefing or sent someone else to attend, up from 62% in 2015, although 22% said they did not know in 2015. Among the 75% where there was attendance, 47% of the time it was the candidate themselves who attended, from 40% attendance 2015. In 37% of the cases, candidates assigned their campaign manager to attend (either with them or on their own), down from 45% in 2015. The official agent attended (either with them or on their own) about one-fifth of the time (19%), up from 16% in 2015.

Of those who attended or had a representative attend, most found the briefing somewhat (45%) or very (35%) useful. Only 12% found the briefing not to be useful. Overall, the 80% indicating usefulness is on par with 81% in 2015, although more candidates found it very useful in 2019, compared with 28% in 2015.

Table 9: All Candidates Briefing

Q24. The returning officer in your riding organized an “all candidates briefing” for the general election. Could you tell us if…? (Multiple responses accepted)	Total 2019	Total 2015
n= (All candidates)	1170	916
You personally attended	47%	40%
Your campaign delegate/manager attended	37%	45%
Your official agent attended	19%	13%
No one attended	21%	16%
Do not know/No response	4%	22%
Q25. How useful was the briefing? Was it...?	Total 2019	Total 2015
n= (Candidates with some attendance at briefing)	882	712
Very useful	35%	28%
Somewhat useful	45%	53%
Not very useful	9%	10%
Not useful at all	3%	3%
Do not know/No response	8%	6%

• Candidates who were in their first election (52% vs. 38% of those not in their first election), not incumbents (50% vs. 34% of incumbents), and not elected (50% vs. 33% of those elected) were more likely to have personally attended the briefing, while other candidates were comparatively more likely to have their official agent or manager/delegate.
• Personal attendance by a candidate is highest in Quebec (58%) and lowest in Ontario (41%).
• Candidates under 35 years of age (30%) were more likely than older candidates (17% to 20%) to report that no one attended the briefing.

Contact with Elections Canada

There was moderate use reported for the 1-800 support line for candidates. Nearly two in five (39%) candidates said that they or their representatives contacted Elections Canada with the 1 800 support line, while 43% did not and 18% said they were unsure. This compared with 42% indicating use in 2015.

Chart 19: Use of 1-800 Support Line

Text version of "Chart 19: Use of 1-800 Support Line"

Chart 19: Use of 1-800 Support Line

	2019	2015
Yes	39%	42%
No	43%	50%
DK/NR	18%	8%

Q26a. During the election, did you, or any of your representatives, contact Elections Canada with the 1-800 support line for candidates?
Base: n=561: all respondents (split sample)

• Those in Atlantic Canada (53%) were more likely than those in other regions to call the 1 800 line, compared with 31% to 42% elsewhere in the country.

Satisfaction with services received from the 1-800 support line was moderately high at 74%, with 42% indicating they were very satisfied. Another 21%, however, indicated dissatisfaction (11% very dissatisfied).

Chart 20: Satisfaction with the 1-800 Support Line

Text version of "Chart 20: Satisfaction with the 1-800 Support Line"

Chart 20: Satisfaction with the 1-800 Support Line

	2019
Very dissatisfied	11%
Somewhat dissatisfied	11%
Somewhat satisfied	32%
Very satisfied	42%

Q27ax. How satisfied were you, or your representative, with the services you received from the 1-800 support line for candidates?
Base: n=185: respondents who said they used the 1-800 support line for candidates. *Includes those respondents – 5% – who said “Don’t know.”

Most (86%) candidates, or their representatives, contacted or visited their local Elections Canada office during the election. This compares to 80% in 2015.

Chart 21: Contacted or Visited an Elections Canada Local Office

Text version of "Chart 21: Contacted or Visited an Elections Canada Local Office"

Chart 21: Contacted or Visited an Elections Canada Local Office

	2019	2015
Yes	86%	80%
No	12%	16%
DK/NR	2%	4%

Q26b. During the election, did you, or any of your representatives, contact or visit the local Elections Canada office?
Base: n=611: all respondents (split sample).

In terms of services provided by the local office, satisfaction was higher at 88% (64% very satisfied and 24% somewhat satisfied), compared with the services provided by the 1-800 line (74%). Only 9% said they were dissatisfied (4% very dissatisfied).

Chart 22: Satisfaction with Local Office

Text version of "Chart 22: Satisfaction with Local Office"

Chart 22: Satisfaction with Local Office

	2019
Very dissatisfied	4%
Somewhat dissatisfied	5%
Somewhat satisfied	24%
Very satisfied	64%

Q27dx. How satisfied were you, or your representative, with the services you received from the local Elections Canada office?
Base: n=522: respondents who said they contacted or visited the local EC office. *Includes those respondents – 2% – who said “Don’t know.”

E. The Campaign

Overview:

One in five candidates reported that they provided the returning officer with a list of names of election staff to work at polling stations. Of those who reported that they used a voters list (72% of the candidates), 94% said that they took measures to ensure the protection of personal information contained in it.

Four in ten of candidates reported taking measures to ensure their campaign materials were accessible to electors with a disability.

The financial incentives provided by the Canada Elections Act were not well known, with just over one-third of candidates (36%) reporting awareness that the Act provides for partial reimbursement of elections expenses as well as some personal expenses like childcare costs and expenses related to a disability.

List of Election Staff

One in five (21%) candidates provided the returning officer with a list of names of election staff to work at polling stations. The majority (60%) did not, and a further 9% did not know they could provide one. Another 10% of the candidates did not know if they provided a list of election staff to the returning officer (or did not answer the question).

Of those who did not provide a list, nearly half (46%) said that they did not have anyone interested, available or competent to work at the polling stations. About one in ten said that there was not enough time to find people (10%), or that there were difficulties in finding someone because they were independent candidates or running for a small or new party (8%).

Table 10: Provision of List of Election Staff

Q28. Did you provide a list of names of election staff to work at the polling stations to the returning officer?	Total
n= (All candidates)	1172
Yes	21%
No	60%
Did not know I could provide one	9%
Do not know/No response	10%
Q29. Why did you not provide a list of names?	Total
n= (Candidates who did not provide a list)	724
Did not have anyone/unable to find people interested or available/unable to find competent people	46%
Not enough time to find people	10%
Difficulties as independent candidate/small party/new party	8%
I did not want to provide a list	5%
Elections Canada/returning officer should do this	4%
Procedures not explained	4%
Returning officers did not request such a list	4%
No need to provide a list	3%
Other	2%
Do not know/no response	22%

• Candidates who were more likely to have provided a list of names were the incumbent (53% vs. 16% who were not the incumbent), elected (49% vs. 16% of those not elected), not in their first election (32% vs. 16% in their first election) or from of a party represented in the House of Commons (24% vs. 8% not from a party represented in the House of Commons).
• Those in Quebec (32%) and Atlantic Canada (34%) were more likely to indicate they provided a list of names compared with candidates in other provinces. Candidates in Alberta and Northwest Territories (11%) were less likely to do so.

Protection of Personal Information

One in five candidates reported not using the voters’ lists. Among those who did, 94% of candidates said they took measures to ensure the protection of personal information contained in the lists they received. Only 6% did not take any measures to protect personal information.

Of those who took measures to ensure the protection of personal information, almost two in five said they ensured limited access to lists to themselves or their campaign manager or agent (38%), or they kept lists in a secure or locked place (36%). One-quarter (24%) stated that they ensured the destruction of voters lists at the end of the election, while 14% ensured limited access in general.

Table 11: Protection of Personal Information

Q30. Did you take any measures to ensure the protection of personal information contained in the voters' lists that you received?	Total
n= (Candidates who used voters’ lists)	848
Yes	94%
No	6%
Q31. What measures did you take to ensure the protection of personal information? (Multiple responses accepted)	Total
n= (Candidates who took protection measures)	789
Ensured limited access to lists to self/campaign manager/agent	38%
Kept lists in secure place/Kept locked away	36%
Ensured the destruction of voters lists at end of the election	24%
Ensured limited access in general	14%
Issued instructions regarding use of voters lists	8%
Encrypted the lists	4%
Brought voters lists back to returning officer	3%
Issued procedures to re-collect copies of voters lists after event	2%
Kept at home/office	2%
Do not know/no response	15%

• Candidates who were from a party represented in the House of Commons (96% vs. 84% of those not from a party represented in the House of Commons) were more likely to have taken measures to protect personal information.

Accessibility Measures

Two in five (39%) candidates said they took measures to ensure that their campaign’s materials, events or website were accessible to electors with a disability. There were 27% who did not, and a further 33% did not provide a response or did not recall.

Wheelchair-accessible venues were provided by 27% of candidates who took some measures. About two in five had campaign offices that were accessible to those with mobility issues (22%) or developed websites that were accessible to electors using a screen reader (20%). Fifteen percent said they conducted personal outreach to those in need of options or those who are marginalized.

Table 12: Accessibility Measures

Q32. Did you take any measures to ensure that your campaign's materials, events or website were accessible to electors with a disability?	Total
n= (All candidates)	1172
Yes	39%
No	27%
Do not know/no response	33%
Q33. Which measures did you take to make your campaign accessible? (Multiple responses accepted)	Total
n= (Candidates who took measures)	443
Venues were wheelchair accessible	27%
Campaign office was accessible to mobility issues	22%
Website was accessible to electors with a screen reader	20%
Personal outreach to those in need of access options/marginalized	15%
General mention of accommodation	9%
Social media content was accessible to electors with a screen reader	7%
Large print materials were available	6%
Videos/Audio with closed captioning	5%
Asking electors with a disability about accessibility needs	4%
Braille/ESL materials were available	3%
Offered transport to the polling station	4%
Other	6%
Do not know/no response	17%

• Candidates who were the incumbent (63% vs. 35% of non-incumbents), elected (58% vs. 36% of those not elected), those who were not in their first election (46% vs. 36% who were in their first election) or those from of a party represented in the House of Commons (41% vs. 31% not from a party represented in the House of Commons) were more likely to have taken accessibility measures. Most often, the measure taken for these candidates was to have a campaign office that was accessible to mobility issues.
• Candidates in Atlantic Canada (54%), or Ontario (44%) were more likely than others across the country to take measures to ensure accessibility. Those in Quebec (29%) were least likely to do so.

Financial Incentives Provided by the Canada Elections Act

The financial incentives provided by the Canada Elections Act were not well known. Just over one-third (36%) of candidates said they were aware that the Act provides for partial reimbursement of elections expenses as well as some personal expenses like childcare costs and expenses related to a disability.

Among candidates aware of these incentives, most (74%) said they had no impact at all on their decision to run in the last federal general election. For those who were influenced by the incentives, 7% said it had a moderate impact, and 6% said it had a major impact on their decision to run.

Table 13: Awareness and Impact of Financial Incentives

Q34. The Canada Elections Act provides for partial reimbursement of elections expenses as well as some personal expenses like childcare costs and expenses related to a disability. When deciding to run as a candidate, were you aware of these financial incentives?	Total
n= (All candidates)	1172
Yes	36%
No	61%
Do not know/no response	2%
Q35. What impact, if any, did these financial incentives have on your decision to run in the last general election? Did they have a...?	Total
n= (Candidates aware of financial incentives)	411
Major impact	6%
Moderate impact	7%
Minor impact	12%
No impact at all	74%
Don’t know/no response	2%

• Candidates who were incumbents (67% vs. 31% of non-incumbents), elected (63% vs. 31% of those not elected), not in their first election (55% vs. 28% of those in their first election), or those from of a party represented in the House of Commons (38% vs. 29% of those not from a party represented in the House of Commons) were more likely to have been aware of the incentives.

F. Voting Process

Overview:

Two in three candidates (64%) were satisfied with how the voting process went on advance polls or election day (up from 56% in 2015). One-quarter of those who said they were dissatisfied listed inadequately trained staff as the reason.

Candidates reported similar satisfaction with the location of polling sites (64%, the same proportion as 2015). Dissatisfaction with the sites included that the polling locations were too far, problems with accessibility, or insufficient space at the polling location. Among the candidates who were present or had staff present at the polling location, four in five didn’t witness any problem related to the voter identification requirements (up from 72% in 2015) or with the use of the voter information card (VIC) as a piece of identification.

Overall Satisfaction with the Voting Process

Satisfaction with the way the voting process went on advance polls and election day was moderately high at 64%, with 38% who were very satisfied. Thirteen percent^{footnote 5} indicated dissatisfaction, although only 5% were very dissatisfied. Satisfaction with the way voting process went on advance polls and election day was lower in 2015 (56%).

Chart 23: Satisfaction with Voting Process

Text version of "Chart 23: Satisfaction with Voting Process"

Chart 23: Satisfaction with Voting Process

	2019	2015
Very dissatisfied	5%	7%
Somewhat dissatisfied	7%	10%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	18%	21%
Somewhat satisfied	26%	29%
Very satisfied	38%	27%

Q38ax. What was your level of satisfaction with the way the voting process went on advance polls and election day?
Base: n=561: all respondents (split sample). *Includes those respondents – 6% – who said “Don’t know.”

• Satisfaction with the voting process was marginally lower among those in their first election (61%) compared with those not in their first election (70%). It was also lower in the Atlantic (49%) and British Columbia (55%) compared with 66% to 72% in other regions.
• Satisfaction was higher among men (70%) compared to women where it was 53%.

About one-quarter (24%) of candidates dissatisfied with the voting process mentioned that the staff was inadequately trained or prepared. Other reasons cited by more than one in ten include inappropriate handling or storage of ballots or staff not following procedures (20%), too few stations or long lineups (15%), and deliberate influencing of voters or mistrust in counting (15%).

Table 14: Reasons for Dissatisfaction with the Voting Process

Q39. Why were you dissatisfied with the voting process? (Multiple responses accepted)	Total
n= (Candidates dissatisfied with the voting process)	130
Staff inadequately trained/prepared	24%
Inappropriate handling/storage of ballots, irregularities, staff not following procedures	20%
Too few stations/long line ups	15%
Fraudulent/Deliberately influencing voters/Mistrust in counting	15%
Delays/early closures at stations on certain polls did not open	10%
Inadequate ID/voter requirements	9%
Use of pencil, ballots susceptible to tampering	9%
Other	2%
Do not know/no response	16%

Satisfaction with the Location of Polling Sites

Satisfaction with the location of polling sites was moderately high at 64%, with 37% who were very satisfied. One in ten (12%^{footnote 6} ) indicated dissatisfaction, but only 5% were very dissatisfied. Results are similar to those in 2015.

Chart 24: Satisfaction with Location of Polling Sites

Text version of "Chart 24: Satisfaction with Location of Polling Sites"

Chart 24: Satisfaction with Location of Polling Sites

	2019	2015
Very dissatisfied	5%	8%
Somewhat dissatisfied	8%	8%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	18%	16%
Somewhat satisfied	27%	33%
Very satisfied	37%	31%

Q36ax. What was your level of satisfaction with the locations chosen as polling sites for advance polls and election day?
Base: n=561 all respondents (split sample). *Includes those respondents – 5% – who said “Don’t know.”

• Satisfaction with the location of polling sites was marginally lower among the candidates in their first election (61%) compared with the candidates not in their first election (71%).
• It is also higher among men (70%), compared to women (54%).

Candidates who were dissatisfied with the location of the polling sites cited a variety of reasons, including: that polling stations were too far (33%), problems with accessibility of polling stations (20%) or insufficient space at the polling stations (19%). About one in ten said that the polling stations were inappropriate (12%), far from public transit or had insufficient parking (10%), that it was hard to find the polling stations (9%), or that there were not enough polling stations or outreach to marginalized individuals (9%).

Table 15: Reasons for Dissatisfaction with Polling Site Locations

Q37. Why were you dissatisfied with the location of the polling sites? (Multiple responses accepted)	Total 2019
n= (Candidates dissatisfied with polling site locations)	111
Polling stations on election day located too far/Advance polling stations located too far	33%
Problems with accessibility of polling stations	20%
Poor/insufficient space at polling stations	19%
Inappropriate polling stations	12%
Polling stations far from public transit/insufficient parking	10%
Hard to find polling station	9%
Lack of polling stations/outreach to marginalized	9%
Other	9%
Do not know/no response	14%

Voter Identification Requirements

Among the candidates who said they were present or represented at the polling location, 20% said they witnessed problems related to the voter identification requirements, while 80% did not. This is lower than the 28% reporting problems in 2015.^{footnote 7} Problems related to the voter identification requirements were mostly attributed to inadequately trained staff, inconsistencies in identification requirements, and electors having problems proving their identity, with only small numbers of candidates reporting each type of issue.

Table 16: Voter Identification Requirements

Q40a. Did you, or your representative, witness any problems related to the voter identification requirements?	Total
n= (Candidates who were or had a representative present at the polling location, on a randomly selected half of candidates)	415
Yes	20%
No	80%

• Those who were elected (28% vs. 12% of those not elected) or incumbents (25% vs. 13% of non-incumbents) were more likely to report witnessing issues. This was also higher in Atlantic Canada (31%) than in other regions.

Among the 20% of candidates reporting problems with the voter identification requirements, 37% said this occurred very often, and another 19% said it occurred somewhat often, while 35% said it did not occur very often and 15% not often at all.

Chart 25: Frequency of Problems with Voter Identification Requirements

Text version of "Chart 25: Frequency of Problems with Voter Identification Requirements"

Chart 25: Frequency of Problems with Voter Identification Requirements

	2019
Very often	37%
Somewhat often	19%
Not very often	35%
Not often at all	15%

Q43. How often did you observe those problems?
Base: n=68: respondents who observed problems with voter identification requirements. *Includes 14% – who said “Don’t know.”

Voter Information Card (VIC)

Among the candidates who said they were present or represented at the polling location, 16% witnessed a problem related to the use of the voter information card (VIC) as a piece of identification, although the majority (84%) did not witness any problems. The majority of the VIC-related problems reported are related to the management of the VIC. This included inappropriate receipt of VICs (non-eligibility), the VIC not being received, or electors having problems proving their identity. Each type of concern was reported by a small number of candidates.

Table 17: Voter Information Card

Q40b. Did you, or your representative, witness any problems related to the use of the voter information card (VIC) as a piece of identification?	Total
n= (Candidates who were or had a representative present at the polling location, on a randomly selected half of candidates)	457
Yes	16%
No	84%

• Those who were elected or incumbents (21% in each case) were more likely than those who were not elected or non-incumbents (10% in each case) to report problems related to use of the VIC as identification.

Among the 16% of candidates reporting problems with the use of the VIC as a piece of identification, 17% said this occurred very often and another 27% said it occurred somewhat often. Just under half said it did not occur very often (30%) or often at all (16%).

Chart 26: Frequency of Problems with Voter Information Card

Text version of "Chart 26: Frequency of Problems with Voter Information Card"

Chart 26: Frequency of Problems with Voter Information Card

	2019
Very often	17%
Somewhat often	27%
Not very often	30%
Not often at all	16%

Q43. How often did you observe those problems?
Base: n=146: respondents who reported observing problems with voter identification requirements. *Includes those respondents – 10% – who said “Don’t know.”

Suggested Improvements to Elections Canada Services

Candidates were asked for their suggestions on how to improve the services they received from Elections Canada. Although 46% did not provide a response, 54% provided one or more suggestions. As in 2015, top responses related to more timely or accessible information (12%), or more training for staff (10%). A general increase in the level of service (8%) was also suggested as well as improved access or user experience (e.g. better navigation) on the portal (7%). Increased accuracy of the voter lists was also noted (4%), as was less use of paper (3%) and equal treatment for independent candidates (3%). Results are generally similar for 2015.

Increasing voter turnout, while not a service provided to candidates, was also suggested as an important area for focus among six percent, and five percent spoke of better enforcement of the rules and regulations at polling stations. Better or timelier access to information for voters was also put forward (4%). Other suggestions, noted by 2% or fewer candidates, are indicated in the following table. Results are similar for 2015.

Table 18: Suggestions for Improvements to EC Services

Q48. Thinking about the services you received from Elections Canada during the election, what is your main suggestion, if anything, to improve those services? (Multiple responses accepted)	Total 2019	Total 2019
n= (All candidates)	1172	916
More timely/accessible information	12%	10%
More training for staff	10%	9%
Improve service levels	8%	7%
Better access/user experience on portal	7%	--
Increase voter turn out	6%	4%
Enforce rules and regulations	5%	3%
More accurate voter lists/boundaries/maps	4%	7%
Better access/more timely information for voters	4%	4%
Less paper waste (more use of electronics)	3%	2%
Equal treatment/rules for independents	3%	--
Better voting process	2%	--
Better prepared for advance voter turnouts	2%	4%
Simplify processing/qualification requirements for candidates	2%	--
Better access at/to polling stations	1%	--
Other	7%	5%
Do not know/No response	46%	24%

*2% or higher shown in table

• Candidates who were elected as well as incumbents were more likely than other candidates to point to more training for staff (19% in each segment) and increasing voter turnout (14%–15%).

G. Technology and Elections

Overview:

Based on what candidates had recently heard, nearly two in three felt that there was a problem in this election with the spread of false information online. Over two in five felt that foreign countries or groups were using social media and other means to influence the political opinions of Canadians. Relatively few (8%) perceived that there was hacking by foreign countries or groups into the computer systems that supported this election. Among those who perceived that the spread of false information was a problem during the election, 30% perceived that it had a major impact on the outcome of the election. The proportion was slightly lower (21%) among those who expressed concern about foreign countries or groups using social media and other means to influence the political opinions of Canadians.

Support for online voting among candidates was low, with just over one-third believing that electors should be able to vote by using the Internet (down from 54% in 2015); the majority of candidates felt that voting online is risky.

False Information, Foreign Influence and Foreign Interference

Based on what candidates had recently heard, nearly two in three (64%) felt that there was a problem in this election with the spread of false information online. Over two in five (44%), said that there was a problem with foreign countries or groups using social media and other means to influence the political opinions of Canadians. Relatively few (8%) perceived that there was a problem with hacking by foreign countries or groups into the computer systems that support the election.

Chart 27: Perceived Spread of False Information, Foreign Influence and Interference (%)

Text version of "Chart 27: Perceived Spread of False Information, Foreign Influence and Interference (%)"

Chart 27: Perceived Spread of False Information, Foreign Influence and Interference (%)

	DK	NO	YES
The spread of false information online (n=892)	14%	22%	64%
Foreign countries or groups using social media and other means to influence the political opinions of Canadians (n=923)	23%	32%	44%
Hacking by foreign countries or groups into the computer systems that support the election (n=909)	39%	54%	8%

Q49a-c. Based on what you have heard recently, do you think.....was a problem in this election?
Base: All respondents (split sample).

• Candidates from a party represented in the House of Commons (67% vs. 47% of those from a party not represented in the House of Commons), along with candidates under the age of 35 (76%), were generally more likely than their counterparts to perceive that there was a spread of false information online.
• Candidates in Alberta were more likely than those in other regions to feel there was a problem with both general spread of false information online (80%), and foreign countries using social media to influence political opinions (57%, also more prominent in British Columbia at 54%). Those in Quebec were least likely (44% and 29% respectively) to say this.
• Men (57%) were also more likely than women (47%) to believe that hacking by foreign countries or groups into the computer systems that support the election was not a problem during the election.

Among the candidates who perceived that the spread of false information was a problem during the election (64%), 65% stated that it has had an impact on the outcome of the election (30% perceived a major impact).

Among the candidates who perceived that the use of social media by foreign countries or groups to influence political opinions was a problem during the election (44%), 56% stated that it had an impact on the outcome of the election (21% perceived a major impact).

Considering the small proportion of candidates who perceived that there was a problem with hacking by foreign countries or groups into the computer systems that support the election, it is not possible to report on the impact they think this might have had on the outcome of the election.

Chart 28: Impact of Perceived Spread of False Information and Foreign Influence

Text version of "Chart 28: Impact of Perceived Spread of False Information and Foreign Influence"

Chart 28: Impact of Perceived Spread of False Information and Foreign Influence

2019	Spread of False Information	Foreign Influence on Social Media
Major impact	30%	21%
Moderate impact	35%	35%
No impact	32%	34%

Q50. What impact, if any, do you think this had on the outcome of the election?
Base: Social Media: n=108, DK/NR - 4% / Foreign Influence n=275, DK/NR - 10%

• The sample size for this series of follow-up questions is too small to discuss differences by subgroups.

Use of Technology in Elections

When asked whether they prefer that poll workers use paper or computer lists to find a voter’s name and keep track of who voted, 41% of candidates indicated a preference for paper lists, with 33% preferring computer lists. One in five (21%) did not have a preference.

Regarding the ballot counting method, just less than half (46%) of candidates indicated a preference for hand counting and 31% preferred machine counting. Nearly one in five (16%) said they had no preference.

Table 19: Computer Lists and Machine Counting

Q51a. In a Canadian federal election, workers at the polls use paper lists to find a voter's name and keep track of who voted. In some provincial elections, poll workers use computers or tablets to do this electronically. Which method do you prefer?	Total
n= (Randomly selected half of candidates)	561
Paper lists	41%
Computer lists	33%
No preference	21%
Do not know/no response	5%
Q51b. In Canadian federal elections, each paper ballot is counted by hand. In some provincial elections, paper ballots are scanned into a machine that counts the votes. Which vote counting method do you prefer?	Total
n= (Randomly selected half of candidates)	611
Hand counting	46%
Machine counting	31%
No preference	16%
Do not know/no response	7%

• Candidates 60 years of age or older (52%), as well as candidates in British Columbia (51%) were more likely than their counterparts to have a greater preference for paper.
• Candidates born outside of Canada (45% vs. 31% of those born in Canada), those in their first election (37% vs. 25% of those not in their first election) and those from a party represented in the House of Commons (35% vs. 25% of those not from a party represented in the House of Commons) were relatively more likely to prefer computer lists.
• Candidates in Ontario were more likely (43% vs. 25% of the candidates in Quebec and 19% respectively of those in other regions) to prefer machine counting of ballots.
• Those born outside of Canada were more likely (41%) than those born in Canada (29%) to show a preference for both machine counting of ballots than other candidates.

Over one-third (35%) of candidates think that electors should be able to vote using the Internet, down considerably from 54% in 2015. Six in ten (59%) do not, and another 6% were not sure or did not provide a response.

Chart 29: Online Voting

Text version of "Chart 29: Online Voting"

Chart 29: Online Voting

	2019	2015
Yes	35%	54%
No	59%	40%
DK/NR	6%	6%

Q52a. Do you think that electors should be able to vote by using the Internet?
Base: n=561: all respondents (split sample).

• Candidates who were the incumbent (81% vs. 56% of non-incumbents) or elected (84% vs. 55% of those not elected) were more likely than others to say electors should not be able to vote online.

The majority (67%) of candidates believe that voting online is risky, while just over one in five (22%) said that voting online is safe.

Chart 30: Perceived Risk of Online Voting

Text version of "Chart 30: Perceived Risk of Online Voting"

Chart 30: Perceived Risk of Online Voting

	2019
Voting online is risk	67%
Voting online is safe	22%
DK/NR	11%

Q52b. Which statement comes closest to your own view?
Base: n=611: all respondents (split sample).

• Candidates in their first election (25% vs. 12% of those not in their first election), along with francophones (30% vs. 19% of anglophones), and Quebec candidates (27%) were more likely than other candidates to say voting online is safe.

H. Canadian Democracy

Overview:

Half of candidates were satisfied with the way that democracy works in Canada. The two most frequently cited reasons for dissatisfaction in the way democracy works in Canada include the lack of proportional representation and that the first-past-the-post system does not reflect voters’ preferences.

Just under half of the candidates (46%) agreed that the voting age in the federal election should be lowered from 18 to 16 years old. Candidates’ opinions were divided on whether and how women’s participation in politics should be encouraged, with 47% agreeing that political parties should be required to have more women candidates and 36% thinking that political parties should receive a financial incentive for having more women candidates.

Satisfaction with Canadian Democracy

Fifty percent of the candidates said that they were satisfied with the way democracy works in Canada (16% were very satisfied). A proportion of 23% of the candidates said they were very dissatisfied with the way that democracy works in Canada.

Chart 31: Satisfaction with Democracy in Canada

Text version of "Chart 31: Satisfaction with Democracy in Canada"

Chart 31: Satisfaction with Democracy in Canada

	2019
Not satisfied at all	23%
Not very satisfied	25%
Somewhat satisfied	34%
Very satisfied	16%

Q53. Overall, how satisfied are you with the way democracy works in Canada? Are you...?
Base: n=1172: all respondents. *Includes those respondents – 1% – who said “Don’t know.”

• Dissatisfaction stands out most prominently among candidates from a party not represented in the House of Commons (68% vs. 43% of those from a party represented in the House of Commons), followed by those who were not elected (56% vs. 7% of those who were elected), and those who were not incumbents (54% vs. 12% of incumbents).
• Dissatisfaction was also more prominent in Ontario (53%), as well as among those under 35 (55%) compared with other candidates. Conversely, satisfaction was highest among candidates in Quebec (60%) and those between the ages of 50 and 59 (56%).

The two most frequently cited reasons for dissatisfaction in the way democracy works in Canada include the lack of proportional representation (36%) and that the first-past-the-post system does not reflect voters’ preferences (27%). Over one in ten (12%) were dissatisfied with the influence or bias of media on democracy.

Table 20: Reasons for Dissatisfaction with the Way Democracy Works

Q54. Is there a specific reason why you are dissatisfied with the way democracy works in Canada? (Multiple responses accepted)	Total
n= (Candidates dissatisfied with democracy in Canada)	573
Lack of proportional representation	36%
First-past-the-post does not reflect voters' preferences	27%
Media influence/bias	12%
Needs electoral reform (general mention)	6%
Difficulties as independent candidate/small party/new party	4%
The role of money in politics is increasing	4%
Two party focus/unfair bias toward large parties	4%
Negative/toxic messaging/social media campaign	3%
Foreign/corporate influence/meddling	2%
Limitation on freedom of speech	2%
Other	7%
Do not know/no response	5%

• Those from a party represented in the House of Commons were more likely than the candidates not from a party represented in the House of Commons to be dissatisfied with the way democracy works in Canada because of lack of proportional representation (39% vs. 29%) and the first-past-the-post system (31% vs. 20%).
• Candidates under 35 years of age were also more likely to point to the first-past-the-post system (36%) compared with 20% to 27% among older candidates.
• The first-past-the-post system was also more likely to be a source of dissatisfaction in Atlantic Canada (44%) compared with candidates in other parts of the country, but least so in Quebec (11%).
• Lack of proportional representation was noted more often among Alberta candidates (51%) than other candidates.
• Media influence was noted more among candidates who are 60 years of age or older (19%) than in other age groups (7% to 15%), as well as among those born outside of Canada (23% vs. 10% among those born in Canada).

Voting Age

Over half (52%) of candidates disagree (41% strongly disagree) that the voting age in the federal election should be lowered from 18 to 16 years old, while 46% agree (31% strongly agree).

Chart 32: Lowering the Voting Age

Text version of "Chart 32: Lowering the Voting Age"

Chart 32: Lowering the Voting Age

	2019
Strongly disagree	41%
Somewhat disagree	11%
Somewhat agree	16%
Strongly agree	31%

Q55. How strongly do you agree or disagree that the voting age in the federal election should be lowered from 18 to 16?
Base: n=1172, *Includes those respondents – 1% – who said “Don’t know.”

• Agreement regarding lowering of the voting age is more likely to be favoured by candidates under 35 (61%), followed by candidates between the ages of 35 and 49, those in Ontario, and women (51% in each case) compared with other candidates. Agreement is lowest in Quebec (40%).
• Non-elected candidates are more likely than elected candidates to agree on lowering the voting age (49% vs. 32%). The same is true among candidates who are not the incumbents (48% vs 35% of incumbents).

Greater Participation Among and Financial Incentives for Women

Candidates were divided on whether and how the participation of women in elections should be encouraged with 47% of candidates agreeing that political parties should be required to have more women candidates, and 36% agreeing political parties should receive a financial incentive for having more women candidates.

Chart 33: Including More Women

Text version of "Chart 33: Including More Women"

Chart 33: Including More Women

	Require More Women	Financial Incentive for More Women
Strongly disagree	30%	40%
Somewhat disagree	14%	15%
Somewhat agree	20%	18%
Strongly agree	27%	18%

Q56a. How strongly do you agree or disagree that political parties should be required to have more women candidates?
Q56b. How strongly do you agree or disagree that political parties should receive a financial incentive for having more women candidates? Base: n=561-611 split sample, *Includes those respondents – 9% – who said “Don’t know.”

• Candidates most likely to agree regarding increased representation of women were women (69%), candidates under 50 (60% among those under 35 and 55% among those 35 to 49), Quebec candidates (59%), and francophones (62%), as well as those from a party represented in the House of Commons (49%) compared with their counterparts.
• Support for financial incentives for greater female representation is higher among women (53%), candidates in the Prairies (49%) and those from a party represented by the House of Commons (38%) were more likely to agree than other candidates.

I. Sample Characteristics

Following are the characteristics of the sample of the 1,172 candidates included in the survey. Results are presented in terms of weighted percentage distributions, with the exception of results for age and whether they were an incumbent, and whether they were elected, for which unweighted distributions are presented in the table.

Table 21: Key Sample Characteristics

Province	Total
n= (All candidates)	1172
Newfoundland and Labrador	2%
Prince Edward Island	1%
Nova Scotia	3%
New Brunswick	3%
Quebec	27%
Ontario	34%
Manitoba	3%
Saskatchewan	4%
Alberta	10%
British Columbia	13%
Nunavut/Northwest Territories/Yukon	0%
Gender	Total
n= (All candidates)	1172
Male	64%
Female	36%
Age (unweighted results)	Total
n= (All candidates)	1172
<35	16%
35-54	41%
55-64	27%
65+	16%
Language most spoken at home	Total
n= (All candidates)	1172
English	72%
French	23%
Other	4%
Refusal	1%
Disability	Total
n= (All candidates)	1172
Yes	9%
No	89%
Refusal	1%
Do you have any of the following conditions?	Total
n= (Candidates reporting a disability)	109
Impaired mobility	41%
Chronic pain/disease	43%
Emotional/psychological/mental health condition	27%
Impaired coordination or dexterity	20%
Deaf or hard of hearing	13%
Developmental or intellectual disability	14%
Any other condition you would consider a disability	8%
Refusal	7%
Born in Canada	Total
n= (All candidates)	1172
Yes	82%
No	17%
Don’t know	1%
Year of becoming a citizen of Canada	Total
n= (Candidates born outside of Canada)	198
<1980	18%
1980 – 1989	14%
1990 – 1999	18%
2000 – 2009	15%
2010 or later	11%
I was born a Canadian citizen, but outside of the country	8%
Do not know/Do not remember	12%
Ethnic or cultural background	Total
n= (All candidates)	1172
White / Caucasian	69%
Indigenous (First Nations, Métis, Inuit)	4%
South Asian / East Indian	3%
Canadian	3%
European	3%
Black (Africa, Caribbean)	3%
West Asian / North African / Arab	2%
Chinese (Chinese, Hong Kongese, Taiwanese)	2%
South East Asian	1%
Latin American (All Central and South American countries, Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico)	1%
Do not know	1%
Refusal	6%
Highest level of education reached	Total
n= (All candidates)	1172
High school	8%
Completed community college/vocational/trade school/commercial/CEGEP	14%
Some university (No degree or diploma obtained)	10%
Completed university (Diploma or Bachelor’s degree)	33%
Post-graduate university/professional school (Master's, PhD, or any professional degree)	33%
Refusal	2%
Total annual income of household before taxes in 2018	Total
n= (All candidates)	1172
Under $30,000	10%
$30,000 to just under $60,000	16%
$60,000 to just under $90,000	14%
$90,000 to just under $110,000	10%
$110,000 to just under $150,000	10%
$150,000 to just under $200,000	12%
$200,000 to just under $250,000	6%
$250,000 and above	9%
Do not know	2%
Refusal	10%
Including the October 2019 election, how many times have you run as a candidate at the federal level?	Total
n= (All candidates)	1172
1	69%
2	18%
3+	12%
Don’t know	1%
Incumbent	Total
n= (All candidates)	1172
Yes	11%
No	89%
Elected	Total
n= (All candidates)	1172
Yes	13%
No	87%
Candidate from a party represented in the House of Commons	Total
n= (All candidates)	1172
Yes	13%
No	87%

Footnotes

Return to source of Footnote ¹ Satisfaction based on pooling of very and somewhat satisfied is 83% due to rounding.

Return to source of Footnote ² This is the first time this question has been asked to candidates

Return to source of Footnote ³ This is the first time this question has been asked to candidates.

Return to source of Footnote ⁴ Caution should be used in interpreting this result because of the small cell size of those born outside of Canada saying this (n=13).

Return to source of Footnote ⁵ Dissatisfaction is 13% due to rounding.

Return to source of Footnote ⁶ 12% dissatisfaction is due to rounding.

Return to source of Footnote ⁷ The 2015 results may differ from those reported in the 2015 Survey of Candidates report because they have been recalculated for comparability with 2019 data.

• Previous
• Table of Contents
• Next