Source: Flickr |
In many ways, this is not unlike how e-voting
could be implemented in town meetings, board meetings and other gatherings
where an instant poll among attendees could be invaluable. Traditionally, these
kinds of polls would be conducted with those in favor of a motion verbally
voting “yes” and those opposed verbally voting “nay” when prompted. This is
hardly efficient or accurate, but electronic voting technology can be adapted
to this purpose, just as the handheld devices used in 1 vs. 100 were
used to quickly record the answers of the “mob” members.
While most conversations of voting
technology understandably focus on how the machines and infrastructure can be
best utilized in government elections for new members of parliament or a new
president for a country, they can also be used under other scenarios. Online
voting was utilized for
the 2014 Academy Awards, for instance. With in-person e-voting, the system
could be even more streamlined and easy to implement. It could be anonymous or
the individual votes by the individual members could be recorded for public
scrutiny.
This is an idea being proposed for the
town of Eastham. Located in the Cape Cod area of Massachusetts in the
United States, Eastham voters are deciding whether or not to adopt electronic
keypads for voting in their town meetings. The simple devices, which are
similar to TV remotes in outward design, would be distributed among those in
attendance at the team meetings. When a vote is held, attendees would push the
corresponding buttons on their handheld electronic voting devices and the
ballots could be recorded and tabulated in mere moments.
Counting paper ballots manually is very
time-consuming and voice-based votes can be inaccurate and they do not allow
for the anonymity of a secret ballot. Online voting could not only save a
tremendous amount of time, but it could also improve accuracy, save money, and
better protect the privacy of the vote. Hand counting the ballots in a recent
secret vote took about an hour, according to Eastham town meeting moderator David
Schropfer.
The cost to rent the necessary equipment
ranges from $10,000 for a small meeting up to $50,000 for a larger town meeting
involving 2,000 voting attendees.
But online voting isn't just restricted to
large elections and town meetings either. Washington County in New York State
is also considering the implementation of voting technology for
its county board meetings. The current system calls for a verbal vote from
the Washington County supervisors in the same specified order, getting each
individual to voice his or her vote into a microphone. The same person always
votes first and the same person always votes last. This can understandably have
an impact on the results, as those voting later in the order may be influenced
by those who voted before them. And the results could already be determined
well before reaching voters further down the list. An online voting system
would suitably address all of these concerns and at a minimal cost.