This section reports poll staff feedback on the voter identification requirements.
Ninety-seven percent (97%) of poll staff said the identification of electors at their polling location went somewhat well (24%) or very well (73%). The results are similar to 2019 (when 99% said it went at least somewhat well), although a slightly smaller proportion of poll workers said the identification process went very well in 2021 (73% compared to 79% in 2019). However, this proportion is still higher than in 2015, when only 68% said it went very well.
Q48. Overall, how well did the identification of electors proceed at your polling location?
(Base: n=4,042; all respondents; DK/NR: 2%)
This vertical bar chart shows respondents' ratings of how well identifying electors proceeded at their polling location. The breakdown is as follows:
The likelihood of saying the identification of electors went very well at their polling location was higher among the following groups:
Information officers, registration officers, and deputy returning officers (n=3,302) were asked if they noticed electors having difficulties proving their address or identity. One-quarter (26%) noticed electors having difficulties proving their address or identity.
Q50. Did you notice electors having any difficulties proving their address or identity?
(Base: n=3,302; information officers, registration officers, and deputy returning officers)
This pie chart shows respondents' responses as to whether they noticed electors having difficulties proving their address or identity. The breakdown is as follows:
Information officers, registration officers, and deputy returning officers in Alberta (32%) and Atlantic Canada (31%) were more likely than those in Manitoba (21%) and Quebec (18%) to have noticed electors having difficulties proving their address or identity. Registration officers, followed by information officers, were more likely to have noticed electors having difficulties proving their address (37% and 31%, respectively) compared with deputy returning officers (18%). There were no significant differences by type of polling station.
Most poll staff (96%) agreed that the voter information card facilitated the identification of electors, including three-quarters (76%) who strongly agreed that this was the case.
Q52. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that the voter information card facilitated the identification of electors?
(Base: n=2,004; SPLIT SAMPLE: all respondents; DK/NR: 2%)
This vertical bar chart shows respondents' levels of agreement as to whether the voter information card facilitated the identification of electors. The breakdown is as follows:
Poll staff who worked in First Nations communities (78%) and other polling places (76%) were more likely to strongly agree that the voter information card facilitated the identification of electors, compared to those who worked at seniors' residences or long-term care facilities (62%).
Eighty-five percent (85%) of poll staff never witnessed an elector's identity being challenged by a candidate or their representatives, and another 10% said they witnessed this rarely. This is a slight decrease from the 2019 election, when 92% said they never while 6% said they rarely witnessed a challenge to an elector's identity. Although the difference is small, it should be noted that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, poll workers in 2021 were instructed to allow electors wearing a face covering such as a mask to register and vote without having to remove the covering or go through additional procedures. This may be one reason why a slightly higher proportion of poll staff might have rarely witnessed challenges to an elector's identity as opposed to never witnessing them.
Q53. How often, if at all, did you witness an elector's identity being challenged by a candidate or a candidate's representative?
(Base: n=2,038; SPLIT SAMPLE all respondents; DK/NR: 2%)
This vertical bar chart shows the frequency with which respondents witnessed an elector's identity being challenged by a candidate or a candidate's representative. The breakdown is as follows:
The following groups were more likely to say they had never witnessed an elector's identity being challenged by a candidate or a candidate's representative: