A new CBC-commissioned study on online voting in Ontario’s municipal elections has renewed scrutiny over the security, transparency and viability of digital ballots — concerns that could loom large in next year’s Richmond Hill municipal race.

The report highlights several troubling findings: weak voter authentication protocols, poor transparency of results, and a patchwork of cybersecurity practices among municipalities that adopt online voting. In some 2018 elections, misconfigurations forced systems offline, prompting emergency extensions to voting windows to avoid disenfranchising electors. (Many municipalities lacked robust disaster-recovery plans.) The researchers also warn that up to half of online voters could be uniquely re-identified based on their login credentials — a serious threat to ballot secrecy.

For Richmond Hill, these findings carry concrete implications. The town’s leadership — including the mayoral and council candidates — may soon face increasing pressure to commit to rigorous safeguards if they push for online voting. Voters concerned about election integrity may demand full transparency, independent audits, or even hybrid models that preserve paper ballots as a fallback.

In a tight electoral contest, trust in the voting mechanism itself can become a campaign issue. Candidates who are seen as indifferent to cybersecurity risks may face attacks for jeopardizing reliability. Conversely, those proposing robust verification standards or “verifiable online voting” features could gain traction among tech-savvy electors.

Moreover, the study’s findings could push Richmond Hill’s clerk and IT departments to revise protocols well ahead of 2026 — a key preparatory window. The municipality may also come under pressure to release vendor contracts, bolster resilience planning, and increase public education on how votes are cast and counted.

As Ontario readies for municipal elections in October 2026, Richmond Hill will likely become a microcosm of a province-wide debate: can online voting be secure and trusted, or is it an undue risk to democracy?