Delayed Postal Ballots Inhibit UK Overseas Votes; Estonia’s Online System Shines as an Example

 

In the recent UK General Election, tens of thousands of overseas voters faced disenfranchisement due to delays in receiving their postal ballots. A survey by New Europeans UK, Unlock Democracy, and the British Overseas Voters Forum revealed that less than half (46%) of those surveyed managed to return their ballots on time. The issue was prevalent even in countries with efficient postal systems such as France, where only 55% of the respondents received their ballots in time. 191,338 overseas voters were registered for the 2024 general election.

The findings of the survey presented to the UK Parliament were disheartening. Many Britons abroad reported receiving their postal ballots well after the election had concluded, rendering their votes useless. The inefficiency was particularly egregious in countries like Australia, where only 6% of voters eligible to vote from abroad managed to get their vote counted. Some overseas voters resorted to traveling to the UK or using expensive courier services to ensure their votes were counted.

Efforts to modernize the voting process for overseas Britons have been discussed. Recommendations include extending the election period and allowing citizens to vote at UK Embassies or High Commissions. However, these measures might only bring minimal improvements. Online voting stands out as the most viable solution to this recurring problem.

UK lawmakers would do well to study the successful implementation of online voting in Estonia. Since 2005, Estonian voters have been able to cast their ballots online from anywhere in the world. The system has proved to be efficient, secure, and highly inclusive, drastically increasing voter participation among citizens living abroad.

Estonia's success serves as a valuable example and highlights the need for the UK to modernize its voting systems to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their location, can effectively exercise their right to vote. The technology required for secure online voting is available and has been successfully implemented. There is no valid excuse for the UK not to adopt similar measures to prevent the disenfranchisement of its overseas citizens.

The UK government must urgently address the inefficiencies in the current postal voting system and consider the introduction of secure electronic voting. By doing so, they can ensure that every citizen's vote counts, regardless of where they are in the world.

Conspiracy Against Common Sense: How Wild Theories Derail Electoral Reform

 

Disinformation and misinformation around elections are leading policymakers in Canada to make erroneous decisions. Conspiracy theories targeting electronic voting equipment are putting undue pressure on politicians, resulting in misguided initiatives that undermine the accuracy and efficiency of elections, rather than advancing meaningful reforms.

In Calgary, Alberta, for instance, some officials have proposed reverting to manual counting of ballots. This knee-jerk reaction is rooted in conspiracy theories about the security of electronic voting systems. Fueled by fears of fraud and misinformation, this sentiment exemplifies the dangerous trend of abandoning proven efficient technologies for outdated methods that have been repeatedly shown to be less accurate and more prone to error.

Hand-counting is often romanticized as a return to simplicity but has been proven to be less accurate, more resource-intensive, and far slower. The belief in hand-counting’s superiority over machine tabulation is not only unfounded but also dangerous, diverting attention from genuine vulnerabilities in the electoral system.

Research from MIT and the Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project has demonstrated the superior accuracy of optical scanners over manual ballot counting. The MIT study found that the error rate for ballots counted by optical scanners was around 0.5%, compared to approximately 0.9% for hand-counted ballots. Similarly, the Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project highlighted that optical scanners significantly reduce discrepancies between initial counts and recounts, ensuring more reliable results. These findings underscore the effectiveness of optical scanners in improving the accuracy of ballot counting.

Beyond accuracy, the efficiency of electronic tabulators is indispensable. In the United States, where ballots often span dozens of races and propositions, hand-counting would create logistical nightmares. Counting such complex ballots manually would require weeks or even months, delaying results and fostering uncertainty. Furthermore, in the vacuum left by delayed counts, candidates and commentators could exploit the situation, sowing further doubt about the legitimacy of the outcomes. Tabulators, on the other hand, deliver timely results that align with public expectations and preserve trust in the process.

The financial and logistical strain of hand-counting cannot be overstated. Many jurisdictions have not used manual counting in decades and lack the infrastructure to pivot back. Training and deploying the necessary workforce would be a monumental challenge, especially amid ongoing poll worker shortages. One analysis estimated that counting 90,000 ballots manually in a single day would require 1,200 workers—an unsustainable and costly prospect for most municipalities.

A 2023 study by Arizona’s Mohave County Elections Department found that hand-counting the 2024 general election results would require 245 people working 19 eight-hour days, which would cost about $521,000. Accounting for other expenses such as security guards, cameras and additional staff, the study estimated hand-counts for both the 2024 primary and general elections would cost the county $1.1 million.

The push to abandon tabulators in favor of hand-counting is a step backward, driven by myths rather than evidence. The proposal in Calgary to abandon electronic tabulation exemplifies how such decisions, based on misinformation, can undermine trust in the electoral process.

By confronting conspiracy theories with facts and embracing evidence-based solutions, we can protect the foundations of democracy. Elections should inspire confidence, not controversy—and that begins with common sense prevailing over baseless suspicion.

Scholars Unveil How Maduro Stole Venezuela’s Vote

 

The 2024 Presidential election in Venezuela, like most elections since the introduction of electronic voting 21 years ago, was heavily guarded and audited by citizens. Despite this oversight, incumbent president Nicolás Maduro stole the election. Due to the system's design and its built-in safeguards, the manipulation could not be concealed.

As reflected in the academic paper entitled “How Maduro Stole Venezuela's Vote,” by Javier Corrales and Dorothy Kronick: “Each voter cast a ballot on one of Venezuela’s electronic voting machines, inspected her individual ballot receipt (an actual piece of paper), and then dropped that receipt into a ballot box.

Later that evening, hundreds of thousands of people worked in concert to collect the results. They printed tally sheets from each voting machine. They counted millions of individual paper ballot receipts. They took photographs and videos documenting their work. And two days later, the González campaign published the results online. The campaign posted images of tally sheets that, taken together, accounted for more than 80 percent of ballots cast. González had won in a landslide. Shortly after midnight on election night, however, Venezuela’s National Electoral Council (CNE) declared that Maduro had won. He remains in office.”

To steal an election in which voters had proof of the results, incumbent President Nicolás Maduro simply relied on his tight control of Venezuelan election authorities and the military to announce fake results and get away with it. It mattered little that the electronic voting system, in its various versions, had been extensively audited for years and reflected a victory for Edmundo Gonzalez. As Corrales and Kronick conclude: "Venezuela is a dictatorship in which people count votes democratically."

The electronic voting technology was implemented in 2004 for the Presidential Recall referendum, at a time when most Venezuelan voters supported then-President Hugo Chavez. “As the beneficiary of the biggest oil windfall in the history of the Americas, Chávez had no need to steal elections.” After winning that referendum, Chavez quickly realized that an efficient and transparent electronic voting system would provide the legitimacy he craved. Consequently, from 2004 until 2017, Venezuelan elections were closely monitored by the world's most prominent election observation missions, including the Carter Center, the Organization of American States, and the European Union. These institutions repeatedly validated the legitimacy of the results. Chavez simply had the votes.

“Unlike Chávez, his handpicked successor Maduro had little luck hanging on to popular support. Yet he chose not to uproot the transparent vote-counting system. Instead, he opted to buy election-loss insurance in the form of the armed forces’ loyalty. This loyalty is the base from which Maduro has safely defied the constitution and laws, not only by his reaction to the 2024 election but also by his behavior in previous elections, by the indiscriminate killing of thousands of innocent Venezuelans, and by political assassinations, among other crimes.”

As inauguration day approaches in Venezuela, widespread concerns about the legitimacy of the 2024 elections continue to intensify. There is wide consensus—from sworn adversaries like the United States and Argentina to former allies such as Colombia and Brazil—that Nicolás Maduro’s claim to the presidency on January 10 is illegitimate. The electronic voting system was designed to provide copies of tally reports to all political parties, serving as evidence capable of exposing electoral fraud if it were to occur. Citizens have diligently collected and safeguarded this proof.  Despite this, Maduro has refused to accept defeat and relinquish power.