 |
| Source: Google Images |
The way that election officials verify the
identity of voters varies widely from country to country, jurisdiction to
jurisdiction. In some cases, voters can show any government-issued identification
to receive their ballots. In other countries, an ID card may expedite the
process, but isn't even necessary given some other supporting documentation or
even the solemn promise of another registered voter. These kinds of systems
inherently run the risk of voter fraud where a voter could potentially cast
more than one vote. Technology, specifically biometric technology, can help to
address this concern.
Indeed, this is the main reason why
Tanzania will
be adopting a biometric voter identification system for its national
elections in 2015. While still in the early stages of planning, the proposal
for this system calls for technology to capture the facial features of voters,
in addition to fingerprints and identification documentation. This multi-factor
approach is very robust and should guard against voter fraud.
In order for the biometric system to work
during Election Day, voter registration will also involve the use of technology
to match the facial, identification document and fingerprint data of voters.
When entered into a central system, this data can then be checked by election
officials when a voter comes to cast his or her vote. If the records show that
a vote has already been cast, then the ballot can be denied.
As with the open nature of collaboration
and transparency seen in Switzerland, Brazil and Estonia, the government in
Tanzania also aims to be as open as possible regarding its introduction of
biometrics in the 2015 election. The National Electoral Commission chairman
said that the “whole decision was made by the government. As a result, there is
no need of hiding the process from the public. Everything will be known after
we complete the whole tendering procedure.”
This move toward biometric authentication
in Tanzania follows in the footsteps of two other notable African countries
where such technology was also used. Unfortunately, the elections in
Ghana and in
Kenya faced their share of issues. While they should be applauded for
working to modernize its elections, the implementation of the technology was
poorly executed. In Ghana, machines were stolen and documentation was set
ablaze. Furthermore, the actual voting was still done manually with the results
being sent via fax. This resulted in technical glitches and long delays.
However, similar biometric devices were
successfully used to identify and authenticate 100% of voters in the
Venezuelan presidential elections in 2012. Automation was used for the entire
election, providing a greater deal of trust and transparency. The Integrated
Authentication System, developed by Smartmatic, was used for the
fingerprint scanning, verifying the identity against a central electoral roll.
Very successful electronic elections in
countries like Brazil and the Philippines also demonstrate that the technology
itself isn't to blame. Governments and providers just need to be more conscious
about their implementation, ensuring that the infrastructure is suitably in
place to prevent voter fraud and to allow for the smoothest and most efficient
election possible.
Biometric technology can provide for far
more reliable and accurate voter authentication in elections, particularly if
multiple modalities are used as fail-safes against one another. By combining
digital fingerprints with voter photographs and government-issued
identification documentation, election officials can be far more assured of a
voter's identity before allowing the citizen to cast his or her vote. It is
important, as demonstrated by the experiences in Kenya and Ghana, that such
technology is used with the context of a better organized and more
comprehensive e-voting system as a whole.
