By John OLooney
The Arizona Democratic Partys recent experience with Internet voting likely marks the beginning of a wave of controversial experiments with electronic voting. Even before the votes had been tabulated, the results of the Arizona experience were being hotly debated. The facts are these: Of the over 80,000 citizens voting, approximately half voted online. This 80,000 represented approximately 10 percent of the registered Democratic Party voters and a large gain in the number and proportion of citizens voting in comparison to the previous presidential primary.
The debate about the meaning of these facts has been intense on a couple of points. The election this year was contested, compared with the 1996 uncontested Democratic primary. Also, the private company spent considerable resources marketing the Internet voting option, and Internet voters had a longer period of time for exercising their vote. These factors made it more difficult to assess the effects of Internet voting alone on participation rates.
More controversial still has been the debate over whether Internet voting is appropriate where there exists a digital divide. The argument here is that if the affluent, i.e., those who are more likely to own an Internet-connected computer, are the ones to receive the largest share of the benefits of Internet voting, then it is also likely that the voting rate among affluent citizens will increase relative to that among the less affluent groups. This argument is voiced both by representatives of minority groups and by public interest groups whose chief concern is with the integrity of the voting process. One of these
groups, the Voting Integrity Project (VIP) www.voting-integrity.org/ filed a voting rights lawsuit challenging the Arizona Democratic Partys plan to conduct their presidential primary utilizing remote online Internet voting. Citing Commerce Department statistics to the effect that African-American and Hispanic households are only 40
Ironically, VIPs paper, "Are We Ready for Internet Voting?" argues that Internet voting is likely to have an impact just the opposite of that claimed by VIP in their lawsuit challenging the practice in Arizona. Specifically, in the paper, VIP argues that voting convenience may actually reduce voter participation. Comparing Internet voting to relaxed absentee ballot and early voting policies for their impact on voter turnout, VIP argues that policymakers should attend to research that indicates a negative relationship between policies allowing no- fault absentee or early voting and voter turnout. That is, the more convenient the voting, the lower the turnout. VIP quotes from a study of no-fault absentee and early voting policies conducted by the Center for the Study of the American Electorate (CSAE) to suggest that states that adopt other policies that are likely to have the same
convenience-boosting effect (i.e., Internet voting) are no more likely to experience an increased turnout. To explain this paradoxical impact, VIP argues "that which is too easy is often forgotten." This conclusion is drawn from calls to the VIP hotline following Oregons first mail-only ballot program. "Voters stated that a ballot mailed days or weeks in advance of an election was too easily set aside for later execution and then forgotten." The implication here is that Internet voting, which currently depends on voters being sent a PIN number through the mail, will similarly be forgotten by busy voters.
It is unlikely that either of the major political parties will choose to be anti-Internet voting in the long run. In fact, it is no fluke that Internet voting came first to a primary election rather than to a general election. The party seen to be the most innovative in terms of Internet voting will likely gain a first-adopter advantage among
educated, but disaffected citizens. The Internet "bandwagon effect" can clearly be seen in the joint editorial in the San Diego Union-Tribune by the governor of New York, a Republican, and the governor of California, a Democrat. While this editorial was far from being a ringing endorsement of Internet voting, it suggested that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans wanted to be seen as out-of-touch with the call for Internet convenience.
Currently, a bill (H.R. 3232) to study Internet Voting introduced by Rep. Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. has been referred to a House committee. This bill directs the president to study the most frequently cited issues related to the use of Internet technologies in voting -- security, the standardization of systems, effects on participation rates, system accessibility, and the potential to advantage particular groups. While these are important issues, the current trends in improved computer security and in improved access to the Internet by minority groups suggest that these issues relate to concerns that are likely to be short-lived.
The deeper discussion of Internet voting is likely to concern a different set of issues -- three in particular. First, as VIP and others have pointed out, there are no guarantees that voters will not share their passwords with other people. By allowing Internet voting, are we not also essentially giving our approval to proxy voting? This
is not necessarily a criticism of proxy voting in certain
circumstances. Most would not object, for example, to the kind of informal proxy voting that would result in a wife voting for a husband or close friends voting for each other as the need arises. Such familial proxy voting would not substantially change our political culture. However, the same process that allows this type of proxy voting would also allow more wholesale efforts to garner proxies. It
does not take much imagination, for instance, to visualize a situation where a political activist comes to your door to solicit your vote -- only now the activist has a hand-held wireless computer connected to the Internet. In this case, a simple nod in agreement to political persuasion can easily be transformed into a completed vote.
Alternatively, unless restrictions are put in place as to the number of proxies that any one person or group could gather, the activist could simply ask for the voters PIN or for an imprint of a bio-metric signature that would then be used at a later time to complete the vote. In either case, the situation represents a substantial change in our political culture.
Second, people who object to Internet voting frequently cite the potential for coercion of voters. This coercion could take place in a work setting or as part of a civic or social group or association such as a neighborhood association. While one could imagine such scenarios, one can also imagine that the institution of strong laws when combined with existing social taboos against such behavior could prevent any substantial threat to voting integrity from this direction. Legal regulations of this type would also tend to work against political activists being as forward as described in the previous paragraph.
The third source of concern about Internet voting -- that it may undermine a long-standing ritual -- is one that is difficult to ignore or to legislate against. At a time when the amount of public space has dwindled due to the "Malling" of America, the expansion of private ducation, and the growth in gated communities, it may be imprudent to add on-site voting to the list of diminished civic spaces and rituals.
Unfortunately, most polling places have in recent times already lost (or never had) many of the features that could help the space to be a valuable facilitator of public dialog. The key feature that comes to mind in this regard is waiting. While having to wait is generally seen as one of those negative features that tends to reduce voter turnout, the positive aspect of waiting is the tendency of citizens to talk about the candidates and issues with their neighbors. With more efficient polling places and automated voting booths, the wait at polling sites has been considerably reduced in recent decades.
Unfortunately, it is probable that pre-voting discussions have experienced a similar decline. Obviously, waiting could be made more comfortable and inviting (e.g., take a number and go to a room where you and your neighbors can talk over coffee and donuts) while retaining the pro-dialog feature of this inconvenience. Moreover, this waiting room could be equipped with Internet hook-ups where citizens can do last-minute research.
Given that most polling places do not possess or even strive to possess the kind of positive, comfortable and dialog-initiating combination of conveniences and inconveniences, perhaps not much would be lost by moving to Internet voting. However, the movement to Internet voting
might be one that attempts to emulate the best features of public space. For example, perhaps some of the time saved by getting to vote on the Internet should be "lost" through a series of online invitations to visit informative Web sites and to enter public dialogs about the candidates and the issues.
