LAPTOP computers will slumber into screensaver mode, virtual in-trays will
fill up with e-mail messages and answering machines will fill up with telephone
calls. And where will the people be? Slogging to the polling station in person
to pencil their choices onto ballot papers鈥攚hich must then be counted by
hand.
Yes, next week British voters go to the polls to select a new batch of
MPs鈥攖he 650-odd characters who for the next few years will make the
country鈥檚 most important decisions. Before the year鈥檚 end, Canadians too will
probably elect a new crowd of law-makers, while Americans have barely recovered
from the trauma of last November鈥檚 plebiscite.
More than a few voters participating in this ancient democratic rite will be
wondering if the whole affair isn鈥檛 just a bit outmoded. Couldn鈥檛 we, for
instance, vote by e-mail? E-mail is cheap, easy and quick. How much more
pleasant it would be to vote over breakfast with a fresh coffee at your elbow,
or from the office during a spare moment in the afternoon.
Advertisement
Electronic voting may sound futuristic, but there are groups already busily
testing it. Members of the Reform Party of America, for instance, last year had
the option of e-mailing their choice of the party鈥檚 presidential candidate.
About 7 per cent of the 40 000 or so party members casting a vote did so via the
Net, according to Michael Hicks, the party鈥檚 director of information systems.
The others telephoned or posted their decisions.
Nova Scotia鈥檚 1992 provincial Liberal leadership convention was
conducted鈥攚ith some technical difficulty at first鈥攅ntirely by
telephone vote. And in 1994 and 1995, the Canadian Reform Party MP, Ted White,
conducted electronic referendums by telephone on policies involving young
offenders and gun control and promised to act on the results.
But how safe would electronic voting be? If you don鈥檛 show up in person and
cast the ballot yourself, can you really be sure that your vote will not be
tampered with? And how can you be certain that the way you voted will remain a
secret? Dennis Miyoshi, who developed a prototype system to permit phone ballots
in the state of New Mexico, says that security is an important challenge, but
not an insurmountable one. 鈥淚 testified before Congress that these [telephone
voting] systems are feasible,鈥� he says. 鈥淭he Internet ought to be equally
辫辞蝉蝉颈产濒别.鈥�
Top security
Hicks agrees. 鈥淚t鈥檚 much more secure than if you鈥檙e stuffing ballot boxes in
some remote region of Montana,鈥� he says. The Reform Party鈥檚 Internet voters
simply went to the Web site, keyed in their 12-digit PIN number and clicked on
the candidate they wanted. Voting by the Internet also has what he calls a good
audit trail. 鈥淚t鈥檚 easy to verify the accuracy of the outcome.鈥� The
multinational accounting firm Ernst and Young gave their approval to the Reform
Party race.
Indeed, voting by Internet has a lot going for it. There is plenty of
evidence that if voting is made easier, more people take part. In Oregon, for
instance, postal referendums typically increase turnout by 15 percentage points,
says Priscilla Southwell, a political scientist at the University of Oregon in
Eugene.
Meanwhile, the Canadian province of Ontario last year amended its municipal
electoral laws to allow 鈥渁lternative鈥� methods of voting. In March, for the first
time, Toronto tested out postal balloting, and in one area, telephone voting was
permitted as well. They got a 鈥渉uge鈥� turnout, according to Syd Baxter, Toronto鈥檚
City Clerk鈥�37.5 per cent of all eligible voters, compared to about 18 per
cent in conventional municipal polls.
Think of all the sloths who won鈥檛 write a letter, let alone pay a personal
visit, but suddenly find it in themselves to send out daily electronic updates
of their lives, and it seems reasonable that e-voting will extend popular
participation. With this in mind, some Minnesota state legislators have proposed
a bill to investigate Internet voting. 鈥淲e need to make voting more convenient,鈥�
says Linda Runbeck, Republican senator and the main author of the bill. She
believes that many more people would vote if they had an electronic option. The
bill is the first of its kind, says Steven Clift, a founder of the Minnesota
E-Democracy project.
But probably the biggest advantage of e-voting is that it will be cheap.
Baxter says that the Toronto postal referendum cost only about $1
million鈥攍ess than half the cost of a conventional ballot, which requires
security people, poll clerks and district returning officers. Hicks agrees. He
reckons the Reform Party poll cost only 26 cents per voter, compared to the 40
to 50 cents of traditional leadership polls.
So if electronic voting could be safe, easy and cheap, why not conduct all
our elections this way? And why stop there? Instead of one grand election every
four or five years to pick people to make choices for us, why not cast an
electronic vote every few months, on all the issues that affect us? Should the
city centre be car-free? Click Yes or No. At what level should income tax bands
be set? Click your priorities from the list of 25. Should redundant politicians
qualify for the dole? Click Yes or No. The Internet could be the pillar of a new
electronic Athens and sleaze-ridden politicians could be out in the cold.
This spring, residents of the London borough of Brent got part of the way
there. They had the chance to offer their views not only about how they wanted
the local council budget to be spent, but even how much tax they thought should
be levied. About 12 per cent replied electronically. 鈥淭he maturity of the
response was gratifying,鈥� says John Walker, director of marketing and
communications for the council, with people accepting that taxes would go up and
services would be cut.
But imagine having to grapple with everything from the ethics of cloning to
where to set the interest rate. It would take plenty of homework to be confident
that you came to a sound decision. And wouldn鈥檛 at least a few of these issues
draw a yawn? Telecommunications regulation? Inflation targets? Relations with
Europe?
Citizens in some American states are used to voting on just such complicated
issues. Every November in California, for instance, when they vote people into
public office, Californian voters also have to consider some 20 supplementary
questions, on anything from abolishing affirmative action to restrictions on how
much money is paid out following a court trial.
Before the ballot, electors get thick 鈥渧oters鈥� handbooks鈥� by post, setting
out the proposed law and providing lengthy arguments for and against. Sounds
ideal? 鈥淰ery few people read them,鈥� laments Richard Brody, a political scientist
at Stanford University in California.
Perhaps the solution is to spare the many and just poll a representative few.
When your turn came, you could invest some time brushing up on the issues.
Christa Slaton, a professor of political science at Auburn University in
Alabama, has experimented with 鈥渟cientific samples鈥濃�攑eople selected
randomly by telephone numbers鈥攊n polls at all levels of government, in
California, Hawaii and New Zealand. Her experimental votes have been conducted
by telephone, but she reckons that someday they could also be carried out
online.
In her model, between 400 and 1200 voters are contacted and given a packet of
information to pore over and discuss with friends in advance of the vote. Slaton
is convinced that in this way the public can make informed decisions on almost
any issue.
Brody is not so sure. Some issues lend themselves to public consultation
better than others, he cautions. Setting closing hours for bars, for instance,
or deciding whether or not to ban smoking in public places may be fine. But
decisions on complex tax laws are different. He refers to California鈥檚 own
鈥減roposition 13鈥�, which proposed a big reduction in property taxes. Not
surprisingly, voters expressed overwhelming support for the idea鈥攏ot
realising that at a single stroke they emaciated their education budget. 鈥淭he
possibilities for unintended consequences are enormous,鈥� says Brody.
So politicians may be good for something after all. Perhaps we really do need
to elect people to plough through all the information and make complex decisions
for us, regardless of how easy and cheap the voting system. But roll on
electronic alternatives: at least they could save us from the muddy tramp to the
polls.