Internet Voting: socio-political considerations

Jordi Sŕnchez i Laia Torras
Fundació Jaume Bofill

From the mid-nineties, some trials of online electoral processes and real ballots have been carried out. In most of these trials the elector had the opportunity to cast his/her vote from a computer terminal situated anywhere in the world. These electoral processes have also been useful for analyzing the impact that they have on society, the political system and the existing legal code. We must assume that in the future we will have new events that will progressively take us to a scene where electronic voting via the Internet will be a fact in any electoral consultation. This possibility is what forces us to analyze the social and political consequences that electronic voting may have.

The debate on Internet voting cannot solely be limited to a reflection on the security technologies and protocols. This is essential but insufficient. Voting in itself is a mechanism that socially legitimates any democratic political system. Whatever the new voting mechanism or procedure is, it has to take into account this fact in order to guarantee that it does not debilitate the political system. This section specifically focuses on these socio-political aspects:

ˇ The danger of the digital divide
ˇ The possible increase in electoral participation
ˇ The symbolic aspects of voting
ˇ The public control of the electoral process
ˇ The impact on representative democracy

The Digital divide

The fact that new technologies in general and the Internet in particular are rapidly penetrating our societies is beyond discussion. However, their impact is still unequal and affects only a minority of the population. According to the last European Commission figures, Internet penetration into EU households was 28% in October 2000, while being 18% in March (European Commission, 1999). In any case, Internet users in most western countries were never, in 1999, more than 50% of the respective population, while in the majority of these countries they were less than 25% (Computer Industry Almanac, 1999; NUA Internet Surveys, 1999). It is true that only the northern countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Holland had an Internet usage very near or above 50%. In contrast France, Spain, Portugal and Greece were countries that had an Internet penetration of less that 20% in October 2000.

This reflection must be accompanied by other data that helps us measure the unequal proliferation of new technologies in our society. Socially disadvantaged groups (with less economical resources and a lower level of education) as well as older people are the slowest to take up new technologies if at all. In the unfolding of the "information society" there is a risk of a new social fracture, the digital divide. This digital divide can increase the existing socio-economic differences and make them even less surmountable. This text is not the place to refer to the social policies that the governments should boost to overcome this risk of a new social division; however reference to this data is essential in order to evaluate the possibilities and consequences of setting up Internet voting.

Following the facts given by statistics and accepting the resistance to technological changes that exists in large sectors (mainly due to cultural questions) (National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 1999), we can note the following point: the Internet will be condemned for years to be complementary to the traditional procedure currently carried out at polling stations. Presently no one can consider making Internet voting obligatory. This would be to commit an act of social and political irresponsibility that would have devastating consequences for the legitimacy of our democracies.

One of the principal arguments, specially in the US, against using Internet in elections is, as the Governor of New York, the Republican George Pataki says (The Brookings Institution, 2000), that there exists a risk of giving an unfair advantage to part of the electorate. Bearing in mind that suffrage is a universal right for all citizens of age, and that there is a low and unequal use of new technologies in our societies, we might ask ourselves if Internet voting violates the equality principle that must always preside in the exercising of suffrage. This is not a minor question as we could even consider the following hypothesis: the results of any election that had the possibility of Internet voting would be advantageous to those who could participate more easily. Everyone agrees that voting from a computer connected to the Internet or having the possibility of voting during a longer period of time, instead of the single voting day, means a lower cost than going to a polling station on a specific date.

We could assume that the incentives derived from the lower costs of exercising the the-right-to-vote via the Internet would cause those sectors that had access to the Internet to vote in a bigger percentage than those who did not have these facilities. It is true that the interests of these two segments of society do not necessarily need to be different or polarized, or homogeneous in each sector, but it cannot be guaranteed that it is not like this. Given that the digital divide is proportionally related, for example, to income level, and that income level is an explanatory factor of one's vote, we would need to accept the risk that the results over-represent the interests of those who had bigger incentives to vote (Alvarez and Nagler, 2000).

Arizona's Democratic Party decision to offer the possibility of Internet voting during its 2000 presidential primary election provoked an intense debate on the advantages and disadvantages of this procedure. The association The Voting Integrity Project (VIP) became one of the most active bodies against Internet voting and based most of their criticism on the digital divide. However, in spite of the attempts to legally stop the process in Arizona, the request was refused by the federal judge responsible for the case. He gave his direct assent to the promoters judging that "we haven't restricted anyone from voting, we've just enabled more people to vote". Apart from the pros and cons of the debate (Hoffman and Cranor, 2000), in that presidential primary 35,768 people voted remotely via the Internet and 4,174 voted via the Internet at polling stations (altogether close to one half of the total participating voters). This is, therefore, a very good first opportunity to examine rigorously and without euphoria the socio-political impact of electronic voting.

Increase In Participation

Another remarkable aspect is that Internet voting may provoke a rise in participation in the electoral process. The possibility that the use of the Internet will permit greater participation is something that should be considered seriously by democracies where the tendency has been a progressive increase in abstention. The reasons for greater participation could be that the new voting method would be more convenient for the voters, would offer greater accessibility for mobile voters, and would be more appealing to the younger. The Arizona experience can give us some clues in this sense. The first analysis was very optimistic from a participation point of view: 85,970 voters in 2000 in contrast to 12,800 in 1996. However, subsequent studies have put doubt on the validity of such a comparison between the primaries of 1996 and those of 2000. The findings argue that Arizona Democratic Party did not conduct a true state wide presidential primary (Alvarez and Nagler, 2000). In any case, one cannot attribute the rise of participation, if real, to a single factor (in this case Internet voting) and at the moment there is still no sociological study on the impact of distance electronic voting among the electorate.

Also, in this area it is important to be moderately optimistic in the light of the tendency to abstain. The best studies on the phenomena of abstention tell us that the main causes are more to do with a lack of interest in politics rather than in the supposed cost that participation represents (Doppelt and Shearer, 1999; Anduiza, 1997). That is to say, Political Science cannot advocate that having more facilities to go and vote would mean a permanent increase in current participation levels. In whichever case, the hypothesis that an increase of electoral participation can be a consequence of utilizing the Internet is perfectly tangible and arguable. It will be important to verify this in successive trials and specially when the Internet stops being a novelty.

The Act Of Voting Symbolism

Outside the realms of the digital divide, the possibility of Internet voting opens up other avenues for reflection. The exercising of the-right-to-vote by traditional means, such as in a polling station, carries a certain liturgy: the booth, the selection of voting cards and candidates, the identification of oneself in front of the electoral authorities, the insertion of the ballot paper into the urn, the presence of the supervisors as a guarantee of the clarity of the process. An extra charge is conferred upon the act of voting for an electoral representative. For many, the fact of voting in a community space is an expression of civil obligation, a form of renewing publicly the adhesion to democratic principles and to grant legitimacy to the governmental institutions.

Internet voting could make this added value disappear and could accentuate a tendency to isolate the individual. This possibility has to be considered as something in the future and framed in a specific socio-cultural dynamic where the effects of digitalization would be increasing. It is important to see that in the near future a huge number of activities, which today we perform in person, will soon be carried out virtually. Like so many other electronic procedures, which are becoming normal, the digital vote via the Internet will be an option. Digital commerce, online administration, or education through the Internet, are examples. Is this development good new for our society? The answer yes or no depends on our own perception of the consequences of this information society and of new technologies.

It is important to bear in mind however, that politics is going through a momentous crisis of legitimacy and credibility before digitalization has had an opportunity to show its results (Barber, 1994). The explosion of virtual activities for political action, and in particular the right to vote, does not necessarily have to carry more problems to the political system than those that already exist. One can even argue that keeping the present general systems of political action, in particular the system of voting, could have negative consequences for their credibility and vitality. One of the reasons for this would be the increasing presence that virtual realities have in our environment. The risk that politics and its electoral processes are perceived as archaic in contrast to the evolution of other realities could distance certain social segments, for example young people. As said before, it is difficult to categorically state that the use of the Internet automatically means an increase in participation. However, on the other hand it is easier to affirm that to not use the Internet would mean a lost of opportunities for encouraging certain sectors of society to vote.

The Public Control Of The Electoral Process

One question which is much more important and difficult to resolve (and specially in those systems of Phase Four) is the difficulty that public powers would have in wielding control over the electoral process. This is a matter of huge importance in order to offer all the necessary guarantees that make the process legitimate. Speaking about the Internet means speaking about new communication and information technology. It is a synonym for liberalization, that is to say, user and private bodies' participation without which the Net would not function. The Internet is laid out as a space where voting can take place. Obviously, this carries with it the acceptance of the private bodies as an essential part that allows the process to work. How could legal guarantees be offered for the correct functioning of the Internet? It should be ensured that no one had his/her voting right limited by the failure of an ISP, for example, or by the temporary saturation of a part of the network. The powers that be are faced with a challenge that cannot be solved by present methods (in other words, the presence or intervention of the police and corresponding electoral authorities.) For this reason, a good Internet voting system should guarantee the electronic voter that the digital vote reaches its proper destination. It is worth recalling, however, that the traditional voting methods are not completely infallible. Let us remember, for example, how during the 2000 US presidential election two absentee ballots containing official votes sent by mail appeared in Denmark.

On the other hand, and especially bearing in mind the example of Arizona, control over specialised private companies that administrate electronic voting must be granted. Presently there exists no legal guarantee on this point (Phillips and von Spakovsky, 2000). It is essential to regulate the profile of these companies as well as the contracting systems before ever using electronic voting for public elections. This is already being done in many countries with companies that deal with the collecting, processing and the diffusion of voting data in traditional voting processes.

Not only do Internet voting guarantees have to be given, but also the citizens must be convinced that they exist. It is beyond discussion, from a sociological point of view rather than legal, that reality is what the citizens believe it to be. Therefore this is a very important area of work without which Internet voting will never be fully implemented. We must also note that this problem is present in e-commerce as well, and that the users' security perception has been gradually consolidating itself, although many of the problems due to insecurity have probably persisted.

The Impact On Representative Democracy

Finally, we must consider the impact that Internet voting may have on the foundations of representative democracy. Digital voting practiced from anywhere in the Internet opens up possibilities for citizens to participate in public affairs discussions and decisions to a degree hitherto unknown. Technical hitches that have often been presented as the reason for not allowing direct participation will lose weight with the implementation of Internet voting. Could Internet voting, then, pose a threat to the survival of representative institutions? This is a question that must be asked by the political-institutional ambits as well as academic ambits without any fear.

We must realize that in the not too distant future there will be voices asking for larger participation levels than those accepted today. It is reasonable to think that there are participation possibilities in the representative systems that could be allowed without going against the liberal democracy principles. Trials on deliberating processes are starting to have a relatively important presence in some of our democracies, even if in many cases they are realized under informal structures that are not legally provided for (Fishkin, 1992). Opting for Internet voting does not necessarily mean defending direct democracy.

It is possible, though, that the incorporation of new technologies causes the current political actors to develop new strategies in their ways of acting. Political parties themselves will need to change from the rigid present structures into something more flexible and open. It would be extreme to say that present political parties will be surpassed by the possibility of citizens' direct participation in the discussion of public affairs. However, one could say that parties have already started to transform and to change themselves into something which is more predisposed to citizen's opinion and are doing so in an agile and immediate way according to each situation. The visiting of web pages by the main western political parties shows this evolution. We are experiencing a process where existing old political structures have not been put aside but have entered, led by new technologies, a progressive transformation; a progressive transformation with all the risks and opportunities that these dynamics bring into the functioning of the democratic system (Budge, 1996).

In any case, to summarize, it seems beyond discussion that technological advancements will force some rethinking of our democracies. This rethinking will also be impelled by the new characteristics of citizens in our democracies who will enjoy access to information and education in a way never seen before. The final result of this reconsideration does not necessarily mean a break from the democratic practice that our societies have lived with (with more or less fortune) in the last 150 years. The objective of this rethinking must be to incorporate technical advancements to political life, and to give citizens a more central role in the process of decision-making and in discussions in collective affairs, while sustaining basic liberal democratic principles. The practice of permanent citizen consultation, shown by Macpherson (1976) to be a characteristic of the participating democracy model, is today closer than ever. In any case, it is no longer science fiction but rather a future political fact. In spite of this, we must take caution with the evolution of electronic voting, whether it be applied to the election of representatives or citizen consultations. Therefore, we have to be cautious and qualify electronic voting without underestimating its future impact.

(Fragment d'un capítol del llibre "Electronic Government - Design, Applications and Management", coordinat per Ake Grönlund i publicat per Idea Group Publishing l'any 2002.).