-- GueinahBlaise - 11 Nov 2023

Internet Voting: The Battle between Voting integrity and Voting Accessibility

Introduction

As I read the articles on voting I found myself absorbing the knowledge through a hypercritical lens. The repeated sentiments from the McGlinchey? , Raney, and Moglen pieces are that internet voting is far too risky to our democratic and threatens election integrity. While I didn’t necessarily disagree with this analysis, I found myself asking to what extent this all really mattered. I began this essay writing process asking a pretty basic question: Are we not too far gone? Would internet voting be that much worse?

*Security and Privacy Concerns with Internet Voting

As it currently stands, most cybersecurity experts are clear that “widespread internet voting at this point is a bad idea” (https://www.npr.org/2023/09/07/1192723913/internet-voting-explainer). The security concerns with online voting are well documented. When initially thinking about the security concerns of online voting, I fell into the trap that most Americans fall into by thinking: can online voting really be that insecure? We engage in “risky” online activities, both in and out of the political realm, everyday. Our president is on X (formerly known as Twitter). Our medical information is on online portals. Our tax returns, which contain our social security numbers, are done online. Millions of dollars are transferred on the internet everyday. Haven’t we gone too far as a society to really be concerned with online voting. Missing in my initial analysis is the fact that voting is very different from the aforementioned activities in that it is a fundamental right that has heavy implications and effects on our society. The stakes are higher. Additionally, unlike the other activities mentioned, voting requires a level of secrecy and privacy. The votes must be correctly and properly counted, without exposing who voted for whom. In the other activities mistakes are “traceable.” In the case of voting, however, “intentional lack of traceability of a cast ballot back to a voter due to the requirement of a secret ballot demands different technical controls than other types of online transactions" (https://www.npr.org/2023/09/07/1192723913/internet-voting-explainer). If there are any mistakes, perceived or otherwise, there can be some serious repercussions. Take for example the conspiracies around the 2020 elections where there was an insurrection over the election results. That being said, what do we mean when we say the internet is not secure? Coleman and Freelon In Digital Politics Coleman and Freelon discuss how, according to ProPublica? , the NSA is winning its war on encryption and has been able to access the digital footprints of citizens (https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=eN4WCQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA103&dq=%22accessibility%22+internet+voting&ots=R3n2Av7z4a&sig=bRS4xRMKvqc7-uVF4FmSAuHYbMs#v=onepage&q&f=false). For cybersecurity experts their ability to circumvent internet security shows just how dangerous internet voting is (https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=eN4WCQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA103&dq=%22accessibility%22+internet+voting&ots=R3n2Av7z4a&sig=bRS4xRMKvqc7-uVF4FmSAuHYbMs#v=onepage&q&f=false). There are threats of “worms, viruses, and Trojan horses.” Also, this proves that the American government, as well as foreign governments, are willing to throw a large amount of resources towards deciding elections. Even the scientists at the pentagon acknowledge that voting programs like SERVE are especially vulnerable to cyberattacks (See McGlinchey? piece). While many experts understand the the desire to use internet voting, many of them believe that, as a society, we “may have to sacrifice convenience for security” (See Raney piece). In fact, UC Berkeley, with the leadership of Bradley Tusk, Uber’s first political adviser, tried addressing these issues with a working group in 2021. However after more than a year working on this issue, the working group concluded that “The current cybersecurity environment and state of technology make it infeasible for the Working Group to draft responsible standards to support the use of internet ballot return in U.S. public elections at this time," (https://www.npr.org/2023/09/07/1192723913/internet-voting-explainer).

(Perceived) Benefits of Internet Voting: Accessibility and Turnout

While not all states allow voting online, about “26 states and Washington, D.C., allow military and overseas voters to return their ballots by email, and seven states allow those voters to return their ballots using an online portal. A few additional states allow voters to return ballots via fax” (https://www.npr.org/2023/09/07/1192723913/internet-voting-explainer). Additionally, about 13 states permit those with disabilities to vote using one of the aforementioned methods (https://www.npr.org/2023/09/07/1192723913/internet-voting-explainer). If online voting is so risky why do so many states allow it as an option? There are several reasons many states opted to allow internet voting, chiefs among them are ignorance, accessibility and voter turnout. For starters, many of the states who have internet voting options allowed them before 2010, prior to any widespread concern over the security of online voting (https://www.npr.org/2023/09/07/1192723913/internet-voting-explainer). I doubt the policymakers imagined the cyberattack Russian bots launched on social media to influence the 2016 and 2020 elections. A lot has changed since these states implemented the internet voting programs. The push for online voting programs, there were two main concerns: accessibility and voter turnout. For a while accessibility to the ballot was a key topic of discussion of state lawmakers. Unfortunately, it was not out of concern for persons with disabilities. Rather it was because many states were facing lawsuits when voters with disabilities in states like North Carolina and Indian have sued to force “states to expand the pool of voters who are able to return their ballots electronically” (https://www.npr.org/2023/09/07/1192723913/internet-voting-explainer). They argue that the mail-in ballots are not effective and often “leave people behind” (https://www.npr.org/2023/09/07/1192723913/internet-voting-explainer). While it is hard to gage the success of online voting in terms of making voting more accessible for persons with disabilities, there has been extensive research on the ineffectiveness of online voting as it pertains to increasing voter turnout. Many proponents of online voting argue that it will increase voter turn, especially among the youth, voters ages 18-29, who prefer internet voting (Digital Politics). Additionally they point to the fact that even with mail-in ballots there are issues such are transit time and voter mistakes on written ballots, that make voting inconvenient and cause their votes to be rejected. The internet, they argue, not only cuts transit time, but reduces the amount of voter mistakes that can lead to rejected ballots (Digital Politics). But what does the data say? The research both nationally and internationally suggests that internet voting increases voter turnout by a nominal 2-3 percent (Digital Politics). Internet voting simply makes voting more convenient for those who would have voted anyway (Digital Politics). Furthermore, young voters' use of the internet has not increased political action like donating to campaigns or sending emails to public officials (Digital Politics). Their voting patterns are likely to mirror this trend.

Is Internet Voting Here to stay?

In 2020 there were only about 300,000 votes casted online and about 100,000 in the 2022 elections (https://www.npr.org/2023/09/07/1192723913/internet-voting-explainer). As previously mentioned, over 26 states offer an online voting option. Even internationally we are seeing countries like Estonia and Norway have already implemented internet voting in their system. While the numbers are not staggering, there is nothing to suggest that the interest in internet voting is going to decrease. Quite the opposite. With the younger generations still very interested in options, internet voting will continue to be an area of experimentation.

Conclusion

By the end of this process, it became clear that my issue was that I was asking the wrong question. I should have been asking: Are election integrity and election accessibility mutually exclusive? As Coleman and Freelon mention in Digital Politics, “Given that no system is 100% secure, what level of risk can be accepted for such a fundamental democratic process as voting?”