Election by computer? Deal with access and security first.

Mario Canseco

Over the next two days, voters in the United States will be able to participate in the first virtual presidential primary. Liberal group MoveOn.org is expecting half a million people to cast their electronic ballots in the non-binding referendum, to choose from nine declared Democratic presidential candidates for 2004.

Web users have grown accustomed to non-scientific polls in the past, but this exercise will have much more serious implications than picking Frodo over Harry. MoveOn.org has decided to officially endorse the candidate who gets 50 per cent of the electronic vote. Former Vermont governor Howard Dean appears to have the best chance.

People who registered to participate in the vote will get an e-mail with a ballot. They choose, and send the message back. It seems simple enough, but questions over the democratic value of the process have emerged. People without a computer, web access or an e-mail account are effectively wiped out of the exercise.

While the U.S. virtual primary is more survey than election, real online voting has been used sparingly in Europe. Britain's local vote last May allowed some constituents to cast their ballots on the Internet. Proponents believe the system is the best way to bring young adults into elections, a generation that definitely feels more at ease with text messaging and e-mail than deciphering the infamous Florida butterfly ballot.

While the current British government pledged to revamp online services, a full-fledged online vote for the 2006 general election seems unlikely. Sweden, Germany, France and Switzerland have also held or considered e-votes for local elections, but an unlikely European country is leading the way. Estonia allowed its citizens to vote online during the March 2003 general election.

The latest parliamentary elections in Britain (2001) and Canada (2000) had the lowest recorded turnouts. Less than 50 per cent of eligible American voters participated in the 2000 presidential election. Those low numbers seem a good reason to allow for alternative modes of suffrage, yet the Estonian experience provides a counterpoint. In 1999, 57.4 per cent of registered Estonian voters cast their ballots. In 2003, with the new e-voting system in place, turnout was increased by less than one per cent. The technology may be there, but proposals and ideas ultimately get people to the polling station—or computer.

The debate over when and how to implement online voting is sure to drag on. Access and security are the main problems. Not every voter will be able to possess the required hardware or software, let alone understand it. Even worse, a seasoned hacker might find a way to effectively doctor the results.

It will take more feats of technological advance to come up with a fraud-proof system that can be knowledgeable for all voters, and as easy to understand as the classic ballot or punch card. Nothing would hurt the proponents of e-balloting more than the cryptic "404" message in the screen of voters.

Archive Search

Search the Angus Reid Global Monitor Politics In Depth archive.