JOIN AFCEA

---

---

Remote Internet voting could significantly change voting habits in the United States, but assessing its opportunities and challenges has been difficult in the absence of hard evidence. Complex social issues and security concerns will be primary factors in determining the viability of this e-government endeavor.

Supporters of Internet voting see it as a natural result of the spread of technology. They believe it is a way to avoid poorly designed poll papers and a means to speed up vote counting and recounts. Opponents cite Internet security limitations and the lack of nationwide regulations and standards as major constraints. They also express concern about how unequal access to technology, known as the digital divide, would affect democracy.

But Internet voting also could create new channels of representative democracy. “I see a vast democratic divide, much larger than the digital divide, where the scarcity of time and attention is eroding the fabric of civil society and undermining the legitimacy of government,” Democracies Online Newswire Editor Steven Clift relates.

In a 2002 study of voter turnout in America, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that only 60 percent of citizens in the United States voted. These voters represent similarly privileged groups as those who tend to be represented on the Internet. They are the people who hold the biggest stakes in society: older individuals, homeowners, married couples and people with more schooling, higher incomes and good jobs, says Alinta Thornton in her online work Does Internet Create Democracy?

According to Clift, “it is essential to create new channels, enabled by information and communication technologies, that encourage ‘on-your-own-time’ participation as a legitimate complement to in-person, often time-discriminatory forms of political participation.”

Leaders at Rock the Vote—a music-industry-sponsored nonprofit that engages young people in the political process—believe that, to get people to come to politics, politics must be where the people are. Venues might include clubs, coffeehouses, concert tours, sporting events and educational events. “Internet voting could result in a total shift in who controls the outcome of the primary election … This could be the first time that younger generations could determine the outcome of a presidential caucus,” reports author Charlie Cain.

But bringing the vote to the people may not solve the underlying problems with voter participation. “The solution to a lack of commitment of voters is not to reduce the necessary commitment needed to vote,” says Kevin J. Coleman, American national government analyst, Council of Residential Specialists. Internet voting will erode and replace the most basic form of citizen participation in the democratic process, he suggests. “Reducing a vote to a mere key stroke on a personal computer may diminish, not heighten, the significance of the act. … At a minimum, voters who bother to actually go to the polls tend to be people who are motivated enough to learn about issues.”

Still, Internet voting could increase vote quality and help voters avoid common mistakes. In addition, voters could spend more time becoming informed about the decisions they face. A voter could open one browser window to display a ballot and one window to display a voter guide, suggests R. Michael Alvarez, professor of political science, California Institute of Technology, who conducted a study called American Opinion on Election Reform.

Technological issues can be as complex as social ones. While Internet security allows many transactions to occur safely, voting online would require a degree of security beyond the current standard for everyday Internet use.

“Establishing public trust in the security of Internet voting systems may take time and perhaps the use of an independent oversight or audit organization,” Coleman says. Uncertainty also exists about how to ensure voter identity, produce an audit trail and conduct a recount.

Some civic, labor and business organizations are using Internet voting to elect their governing bodies. Election.com has 600 organizational customers that use its Internet voting service. However, with such commercial polling entities, ownership becomes an issue. A majority stake in Election.com was purchased by Osan Limited, a group of Saudi investors, and the public sector assets of Election.com were bought by Accenture, reports Lynn Landes, publisher of EcoTalk.org. “Neither the Federal Election Commission nor the National Association of State Election Directors publicly lists one of the largest Internet voting providers, Bermuda-based Accenture,” Landes states.

In addition, no government or industry standards specifically address Internet voting, Landes says. The federal standards that apply to other voting systems are outmoded and voluntary.

Preliminary statistics on using the Internet for voting indicates that this concept would have an effect on elections. The 2000 Arizona Democratic presidential primary was the first binding political election to include Internet voting, Thornton says. Voter participation rose by 600 percent with 40,000 voters--80 percent of the total--voting online. Participation was particularly high among 18 to 34 year olds.

In January 2004, a panel appointed by the U.S. Defense Department’s Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) noted that the fact that no successful attacks have been detected in trials does not mean that none occurred. In February 2004, the Pentagon canceled its first major trial Internet Voting System—the Secure Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment (SERVE). Pentagon officials said they were uncertain whether they could ensure the legitimacy of votes that would be cast.

Experts agree that because of the wide range of issues regarding Internet voting, more research, including how Internet voting would affect participation, the character of elections and democracy itself, is needed.

Sharon Berry is a freelance writer.