GlassBooth

There is an expressed trustworthiness in online exchanges that have suggested the United States open its most sacred exchange to the same process. Today, people willingly send hundreds of thousands of dollars across PayPal or Ameritrade to purchase luxury items or stock…so why are we so worried to send our votes across the Internet?

Kit Seelye of the New York Times Caucus Blog opened the question to readers and found mixed results. Not surprisingly, a 2004 PEW poll found that 53% of Americans would still prefer to vote in person, while 27% would prefer voting by the Internet and 17% by mail.

Let’s break down the case for and against online voting, which is currently being used in pilot programs across the country and internationally.

The good:

Americans Abroad - The group Democrats Abroad held primaries for the presidential election this year. The groups has been allocated 11 delegates at the Democratic National Convention representing the interests of many traveling Americans.

Estonia - The Baltic nation is the first in the world to open its elections online. Officials call its first attempt in 2005 largely successful. link

Participation - Only 55.3% of voting age Americans turned out for the presidential election in 2004 - that number being lower among young people. As polls show young people more open to the idea of online voting, there is an opportunity to bring this oft-absent group into the process.

Handicapped - In 2004, only 14% of polling stations were handicap accessible. There are certain special advantages for being able to vote from home.

The bad:

Discrimination - “In March, Arizona Democrats used the Internet for the first time to cast ballots in a legally binding election in that state’s presidential primary race. Nearly 40,000 Arizona Democrats cast online ballots in the polling conducted by Garden City, New Jersey-based Election.com. A voter group tried to stop the election with a lawsuit on behalf of a Hispanic woman and an African-American man, charging the plan discriminated against the poor and minorities.” link

Corruption - “Someone set up a Web auction … to prove that if candidates can sell their votes to companies, why shouldn’t individuals receive money for their votes,” the Internet Policy Institute’s Cheney said. “The challenge in selling votes is to prove you voted. With online voting, you can record your vote and get paid for it,” he said. link

Symbolic - “Around the world, people struggle and die for the right to vote, just as people in this country once did. If you’ve ever seen the once-disenfranchised standing in line all day to cast the first ballot of a lifetime in South Africa or Guatemala, it’s hard not to be appalled at how cavalierly people treat voting in this country. It’s tempting to say that anyone unwilling to sacrifice an hour to exercise the right to vote doesn’t much deserve it. Having to take a bit of trouble to vote reminds you that voting is the cornerstone of all our rights.” link

Security - From Avi Rubin Johns Hopkins professor and expert on technology and voting: “Given the current state of insecurity of hosts and the vulnerability of the Internet to manipulation and denial of service attacks, there is no way that a public election of any significance involving remote electronic voting could be carried out securely.”

The hesitance around online voting seems warranted, and the careful rollout of this process into small pilot programs seems prudent. Certainly any technology that offers to bring more people into the political process must be given careful consideration, and we feel it is very positive to see this debate happening publicly.