Internet Voting is Central to Direct Democracy

As municipalities and telecommunications providers partner on WiFi and WiMax infrastructures – and as debate still rages along the many ridges of the digital divide – the promise this broader web access can bring to the public with respect to digital democracy is said to be decades away.  The positive implications of electronic voting to unencumbered democracy far exceed the hurdles of implementing the necessary technological foundations.  At least this is how it could be understood.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
The 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was conceived to replace punch card and lever voting machines throughout the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>.  After the embarrassing debacle of the 2000 <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> presidential election, it was widely determined that the American republic needed a modern solution to its bingo-like voting methodology.  HAVA established another mild bureaucracy, and committees are now working with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to recommend solutions that do not necessarily need to center on electronic alternatives.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
However, one of the key recommendations is the establishment of a national electronic voting platform.  Electronic voting solutions are comprised of two camps – electronic voting machines installed at local voting facilities or internet-based electoral options.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Most of what is being written in the press and debated among state agencies centers on electronic voting hardware, and there have been numerous shortfalls among the different machine models currently being tested in states across the country.  Success or failure with electronic voting machine implementation has obvious financial implications for a variety of hardware manufacturers, and the lobbying efforts of these manufacturers may be clouding the perspective of the relevant government agencies charged with assessing the entirety of options.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
The most promising option for a more direct democracy – defined here as an immediate dialogue, without an electoral college, between citizens and their elected government – is found in internet-based voting applications.  According to InternetWorldStats.com, 70% of the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> population is online – 233 million people.  Of the additional 30% that may not have access at home or at work, access can be found at traditional voting centers.  <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Internet penetration is not a hindrance to electronic voting in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>.  <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
The internet-based option is also considerably less expensive to taxpayers than the purchase and installation of specialized hardware – and the more lucrative contractual upkeep of that hardware over time.  <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
But the web-based model is continually described as less realistic – and the lead reasons for this dismissal are identified under the socioeconomics of access as discussed above and perceived technological hurdles around security.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
“Online voting is much more problematic than electronic voting machines,” said Annalee Newitz, President of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.  “We do not yet have the appropriate security online to handle any election of significant importance,” she said.  “Hackers can manipulate results, and there is no way to provide a valid paper audit trail – as you can with electronic voting machines.  Internet voting is decades into the future.”<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
But are there not a vast amount of financial transactions that occur daily over the internet?  Everything from consumer online banking to corporate stock and bond transactions occurs at a high volume over the web.  Many people now pay their taxes through online offerings, and surely the U.S. Treasury Department is going to demand security to ensure receipt of those payments.  <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
The financial institutions that offer these complex interfaces do so with a number of security measures that cannot be spoofed or hacked or in any way compromised – otherwise these firms simply would not be in business.  It could be argued certainly among software programmers that immense financial data is a more unwieldy item to secure than a voting record.  <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
There has to be a lesson in this among those who have been selected to think through the question of online voting.  What have the banks figured out that the committees assembled after HAVA have not?  Or is the internet simply going to remain a scary and insecure place among the minds of these decision-makers?  <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
In order to move forward with direct and accountable democracy, the internet-based voting model will need to see implementation.  Prior American generations built a physical infrastructure – roads, schools, bridges, etc. – to democratize mobility.  Today, with 70% of the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> population online, providing immediate access to the remaining 30% is a considerably lesser task than building a single skyscraper.  <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
It can be done if it is simply understood that it already has been done.       <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
     <o:p></o:p>

Leave Your Comments Cancel reply