Holy Grail of Elections: Does Ranked Choice Voting Produce True Majority Winners?

Source: fairvote.org

In the ongoing search for electoral systems that meet the demands of modern democracies, ranked choice voting (RCV) is gaining momentum. Advocates present it as a smarter alternative to plurality voting—one that strengthens majority rule, reduces negative campaigning, and offers voters more meaningful choices. By ranking candidates rather than selecting just one, voters can express preferences more fully and support their ideal candidate without fear of "wasting" their vote.

Proponents also argue that RCV encourages a more diverse field of candidates, giving independents and third-party contenders a better chance to compete. Critics, however, caution that RCV may simply exchange old problems for new ones. They point to the complexity of ballots, the need for extensive voter education, and the risk of confusion or ballot errors, particularly in lower-information elections.

How RCV Works

RCV allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, the one with the fewest is eliminated. Ballots for that candidate are then redistributed based on the next-ranked choices. This continues until a candidate earns a majority of remaining active votes.

Why People Like It

Supporters say RCV more accurately reflects the will of the electorate. Under plurality systems, candidates can win with as little as 30–35% of the vote in crowded fields. RCV requires broader support, helping ensure that winners reflect a wider voter base.

Is It a "True Majority"?

A central debate around RCV is what constitutes a "majority." Because ballots that don’t list enough preferences can become “exhausted” and drop out before the final round, the winning candidate may achieve a majority of continuing ballots—but not a majority of all ballots cast. Whether this counts as a “true majority” depends on how one defines the electorate: by all participants or only those whose ballots remain active. Supporters emphasize that better ballot design and voter education can reduce exhaustion.

Complexity and Voter Understanding

RCV is more complex than single-choice voting and requires public education to ensure voters fill out their ballots correctly. Without proper outreach, voters may misunderstand the ranking process or leave ballots partially blank, leading to ballot exhaustion. However, in cities like San Francisco, Santa Fe, and Minneapolis, post-implementation studies have found high levels of voter understanding and confidence. A report by New America found that most voters in the US, even first-timers, say they understand how RCV works (New America report).

Impact on Campaigns

RCV may also influence how candidates campaign. Since being a second or third choice can help secure victory, candidates may be less likely to attack opponents and more likely to appeal to a broader coalition. While the actual impact varies across elections, many observers suggest that RCV can help foster more civil discourse.

Preventing Vote Splitting

RCV can help reduce vote-splitting, a common problem in plurality elections where similar candidates divide support and allow a less popular option to win. Under RCV, voters can support a preferred candidate without worrying about inadvertently helping their least preferred one. FairVote: RCV solves the "spoiler" problem.

Administrative Trade-Offs

Despite its benefits, RCV does bring administrative challenges. It can be more expensive to implement and slower to tabulate, especially in large races with many candidates. Multiple rounds of counting and the need for more sophisticated systems can raise concerns about transparency and trust. MIT Election Data + Science Lab report. 

• RCV in Global News New York City (2025 Democratic Mayoral Primary): Over a million voters used five-choice RCV. A SurveyUSA poll found 96% of voters said the ballot was easy to use.
• Australia (2025 Federal Election): Australia continues using RCV (instant-runoff) for House elections, reaffirming its status as a global model.
• Washington, D.C. (2024): Voters overwhelmingly approved RCV for local elections. Vox coverage.
• Portland, Oregon (2022): Voters approved RCV and a city government overhaul including a 12-member council. The Guardian.
• Alaska (2024): Voters rejected an RCV repeal, keeping their open primary + RCV system. Wikipedia summary.
• Ireland: Uses RCV for parliamentary elections.
• India: Uses RCV to elect the President and in some legislative council elections.
• Papua New Guinea: Uses Limited Preferential Voting (a form of RCV) since 2003 to promote stability and inclusion.

Is It the Holy Grail?

RCV offers meaningful improvements: it reduces vote-splitting, broadens voter expression, and may promote more civil campaigning. But it’s not a universal fix. It brings trade-offs in cost, complexity, and the definition of majority. As global examples from New York to Australia to India show, RCV can succeed with transparency, robust education, and thoughtful implementation.

No system is perfect. But for jurisdictions aiming to reflect the will of more voters in crowded fields, RCV remains a compelling option—worthy of continued study, testing, and refinement.

9 Strategies to Combat Voter Suppression

Voter suppression refers to practices intended to disenfranchise specific groups, thereby influencing electoral outcomes. Unlike legitimate political campaigning meant to persuade, voter suppression seeks to reduce turnout among targeted demographics, often marginalized communities, and includes tactics such as restrictive voter ID laws, limiting polling locations, and spreading misinformation.

This nefarious practice represents a real danger to democratic participation by undermining fair representation and the legitimacy of electoral processes. When certain groups are systematically discouraged or prevented from voting, it skews the will of the electorate and erodes public trust in governance. The impact is profound, potentially leading to the disenfranchisement of large segments of the population, particularly minorities, the poor, the young, and the elderly.

Examples of Voter Suppression

In Nigeria's 2023 general elections, voter suppression was evident in several regions. For instance, in Borno State, members of the Civilian Joint Task Force (CJTF) were reportedly used by some politicians to intimidate opponents and commit electoral violence. This led to a significant number of eligible voters being discouraged from participating in the electoral process, undermining the integrity of the elections.

During the Brazilian general elections in 2022, there were attempts to suppress votes by reducing public transportation services and increasing roadblocks in lower-income areas, making it more difficult for residents to reach polling stations. These tactics disproportionately targeted poorer communities, raising concerns about the fairness of the electoral process.

In the 2011 Canadian federal elections, voters received misleading robocalls falsely informing them of changes to their polling stations. Investigations revealed that such fraud had occurred and was likely perpetrated by individuals with access to the Conservative Party’s voter database. While the exact impact on election outcomes was undetermined, the incidents highlighted vulnerabilities in the electoral system.

What Strategies Can Help

1.     Voter Education and Assistance Platforms. Educational platforms play a crucial role in informing voters about their rights and the voting process. Organizations like Vote Riders in the United States provide comprehensive information on voter ID requirements across different states and offer assistance in obtaining necessary identification. Collaborations with tech companies such as Facebook and Snapchat help integrate voter ID information into widely used platforms, increasing reach and effectiveness.

2.     Election Monitoring and Reporting Tools. Mobile applications and online platforms enable voters to report irregularities or instances of suppression in real time. These tools allow election monitoring organizations to respond promptly to issues like malfunctioning voting machines, intimidation at polling stations, or the spread of false information, thereby safeguarding electoral integrity.

3.     Digital Voter Registration and Verification. Transitioning to digital voter registration systems simplifies the process, reduces errors, and increases accessibility. Online platforms allow citizens to register or update their information conveniently, minimizing bureaucratic hurdles. A growing number of countries like Estonia, Australia and Canada have implemented online voter registration systems, resulting in higher voter engagement and reduced administrative burdens.

4.     Mobile Voting Applications. Mobile technology can enhance voting accessibility, especially for individuals unable to visit polling stations due to distance, disability, or other constraints. Mobile voting applications enable secure, remote voting, significantly benefiting overseas citizens and military personnel. These apps can also provide real-time updates and notifications, keeping voters informed about the process and deadlines. They often integrate robust identity verification tools to ensure that only eligible voters participate, thereby maintaining electoral integrity. Moreover, continuous advancements in encryption and blockchain technologies further enhance the security and trustworthiness of mobile voting systems.

      Estonia serves as a prime example of how digital and mobile voting can be successfully implemented. Since 2005, Estonia has allowed citizens to cast ballots online using secure digital ID cards, demonstrating that mobile and internet voting can broaden accessibility while upholding rigorous security standards. This pioneering approach has contributed to higher voter engagement and has set a benchmark for other countries exploring similar systems.

5.     Combating Misinformation with Artificial Intelligence. Misinformation can deter or mislead voters, effectively suppressing turnout. Artificial intelligence can help identify and counteract false information by monitoring social media platforms and flagging misleading content. During election periods, platforms like X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook could employ AI algorithms to detect and label false information, helping users discern credible information from deceptive content.

6.     Transportation Assistance through Ride-Sharing Partnerships. Limited transportation access can prevent voters, particularly in rural or underserved areas, from reaching polling stations. Partnerships between voter advocacy groups and ride-sharing companies can help alleviate this barrier. For instance, VoteRiders has collaborated with companies such as Lyft and Uber to offer discounted or free rides to polling stations, ensuring that transportation issues do not impede voting.

7.     Accessible Voting Solutions for Individuals with Disabilities. Technological advancements have led to the development of assistive voting devices that accommodate individuals with disabilities. Tools such as ballot-marking devices and audio ballots ensure that voters with visual or other impairments can vote independently and privately, reducing barriers to participation.

8.     Secure Remote Voting Options. For voters who cannot physically attend polling stations, secure remote voting options—such as mail-in ballots or online voting platforms—offer alternative means of participation. Robust authentication and encryption measures ensure that these remote voting methods remain secure and trustworthy.

9.     Data Analytics for Resource Allocation. Data analytics can identify regions with historically low voter turnout or areas experiencing targeted suppression tactics. Election officials and advocacy groups can then allocate resources effectively, deploying additional polling stations, providing targeted voter education, or monitoring for potential suppression activities.

Voter suppression remains a critical issue that threatens the foundations of democracy by disenfranchising specific groups and distorting electoral outcomes. Addressing this challenge requires a multifaceted approach: vigilant protection of voting rights, robust legal frameworks, public awareness campaigns, and the strategic application of technology.

By enhancing accessibility, providing accurate information, ensuring vote integrity, and facilitating participation, technological innovations can play a pivotal role in safeguarding democratic processes and ensuring that every eligible citizen can exercise their right to vote.

Anatomy of election fraud: How manual counting abetted poll-rigging in Belarus

 

Kommersant Photo / Polaris/Newscom

In a massive outpouring of indignation, hundreds of thousands of protesters have occupied the streets of Belarus demanding the resignation of President Alexander Lukashenko, who was recently elected for a sixth term in an election tainted by allegations of rigging.

Yet even as the high-stakes political drama plays out before the watchful eyes of the world, the nuts and bolts of how the alleged rigging was executed is likewise worthy of investigation.

The European Union has already rejected the results of the elections and is set to impose sanctions. Steffen Seibert, German Federal Government’s Press and Information Officer, declared that the minimum standards for democratic elections were not observed during the vote and believes the claims of the opposition about election fraud.

The Belarus election fraud debacle throws into sharp focus the inherent vulnerability of hand-counted elections to manipulation and the damage it brings to the integrity of the whole electoral process. Add this to the fact that manual elections are notorious for its lack of mechanisms to audit the results and you have a perfect storm for massive electoral fraud.

Ihar Barsuk, who served as a precinct election commission during the presidential election, revealed exactly how fraud was committed in his precinct. “According to my calculations, Lukashenka received about 10% of the vote. I do not remember the details but about 9-10% were stolen from opposition candidates. Just like that, in front of the entire commission and observers,” said Barsuk. Barsuk went on to say that commission members did not get to sign most of ballot papers, which raises serious questions on the chain of custody. But the major violations took place after the vote count where, according to Barsuk, his numbers “were very different to the results voiced by chairman of the commission.”

Outraged, Barsuk requested for a recount which the Commission granted. The recount revealed the discrepancy between Barsuk’s count and that of the chairman, which prompted correction of the official count. Barsuk made sure to document the attempted fraud by writing a note in the final protocol.

An election observer stationed in a Minsk precinct, Zmicier Sauka describes how the elections at his station were rigged. He claimed that 13 of the 15 observers were from the Belarusian Republican Youth Union and similar government organizations, precluding an independent observation of the proceedings.

Also, Sauka observed how he counted 710 people drop ballots in but was surprised to see the official tally at 1,046 voters, noting the difference of 336 “pseudovotes.” Worse, he noted that early voting votes for opposition candidate Karatkevich, which totaled 36, were not counted in the official tally which only reflected the in-person votes.

He believes that one person was enough to perpetuate election fraud in the precinct and laid the blame on the commission chair – the head teacher of secondary school 28 in Minsk.

The same fatal flaws of manual elections made evident in Belarus has provided the impetus for a growing number of countries to modernize their electoral processes and adopt automated election systems in one form or another. It remains to be seen how the Belarus will resolve the political upheaval. Either way, the international community is expected to put more and more pressure on the landlocked Eastern European country to fix its broken election system.

Electronic Voting in Iraq: Mission Unaccomplished

Fifteen years after US President George W. Bush gave his “Mission Accomplished” address, Iraq continues its struggle for democracy. Regrettably, key institutions like its Independent High Electoral Commission have proven inefficient in laying the foundations for a thriving democracy. What is worst, they are failing to learn from their own recent experiences. 

In May 2018, Iraq headed to the polls for its first election in the post-ISIS era. What initially appeared to be a relatively decent election gradually emerged to have involved massive potential fraud, forcing a manual recount of the results of a failed electronic voting system. These botched elections cast into serious doubt Iraq's ability to strengthen its own democratic institutions and conduct future election processes.

The tragic episode of the 2018 elections could have had a positive spin, had authorities learned the lesson. However, the fact that they are mulling over the idea of using the same unreliable technology, is a sad testament to the struggle facing Iraq’s fragile, corrupt and inefficient institutions.

Most of the complaints reported after the 2018 election in Iraq concerned the alleged compromise of the optical scanners provided by Miru Systems. The $135 million system purchased by Iraq’s elections commission was intended to help the critical vote-counting process. Yet, as reported by media outlets, tests of electronic voting machines produced varied results, giving credence to the fraud claims.

Miru Systems is no stranger to this type of controversies. Currently, its leadership is having to answer questions before South Korea’s parliament about its dealings with election commissions in countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo, Argentina and El Salvador. Prosecutors allege that a corruption scheme allowed Miru to win contracts. The Association of World Election Bodies (A-WEB), which helped MIRU to win contracts around the world, is also under investigation in South Korea. 

Though it is yet to be proven if Miru Systems applied in Iraq similar questionable techniques to close deals, it is already evident that the end result is far from ideal. 

Miru’s voting technology was analyzed by academics from the United States and Argentina. According to election expert Joseph Hall, experts “were able to show how completely insecure the Miru system was, including: publicly posted cryptographic keys allowing total modification of the system or vote data; radio transmission of each ballot, which was easily intercepted; and using chips embedded in each paper ballot (RFID tags) to load many more than one vote per ballot.” Argentina stopped the procurement and legislative authorization process to obtain these machines shortly after the security researchers publicly presented these flaws to Argentinian legislators.

Iraq’s Independent High Electoral Commission must rebuild trust after the 2018 mayhem. The nation needs an election that leads to the kind of political stability that generates trust and creates the conditions for a thriving democracy. So far, transparent, efficient and modern elections continue to be a “Mission Unaccomplished”.

How badly were US elections hacked?

After the 2016 elections in the United States, a large number of headlines appeared regarding the supposed intervention of hackers to manipulate the voting system and to change the will of the citizens.

Thousands of web pages spread fake news through social networks and generated misinformation. Today we know that Russian nationals were indicted for conducting an illegal "information warfare" effort to disrupt the 2016 presidential election, possibly distorting the popularity of Donald Trump’s candidacy.

The real impact of such campaigns is hard to measure: recent research on the real effects found that most voters reading such fake news already supported their candidate. In other words, they somehow favored voting for President Trump; or they already were not too enthusiastic to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Besides this media campaign, there were the hacking events against the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Also, there were attempts to attack state election offices where intruders sought to hack voter registration databases in Illinois and Arizona.

However, there is no evidence to proof that even a single voting machine was hacked. As the article Voting machines in America are reassuringly hard to hack; Voter rolls are not from The Economist points out, “Rigorous software studies and vote counting revealed that there is no evidence of manipulation, change or votes eliminated during the 2016 elections”.

Also, this article from Politico: What we know about Russia’s election hacking states that “Officials from the Department of Homeland Security say they haven’t seen any evidence of digital tampering with election organizations, individuals or systems — though that doesn’t rule out some broader effort to undermine public faith in the U.S. political system or sow unrest”.

Although voting machines were not hacked and not a single vote was changed, Russia might be still trying. “It is 2018, and we continue to see Russian targeting of American society in ways that could affect our midterm elections” Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats stated. Therefore, the US should be seeking to adopt a more secure, accessible and reliable election system – one that can only be achieved through modernization.

One out of three US voters have concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the voting technology used at their polling place, and one out of five Americans who voted in the 2016 presidential contest do not fully trust that the national election results were tabulated accurately. However, they also propose a clear solution: eight out of 10 voters believe that upgrading the nation’s voting technology will strengthen and build trust in future elections –a fact the administration and its commissions should not ignore.

To achieve this, there is not only the matter of modernizing and upgrading the voting systems. All sectors involved (media, government, NGOs) and influencers should debunk the myths that are generated daily by false news that seek to warp democracy in the United States. By the way, here an Expert advise on how to fight fake news.

Controversy surrounds election automation in DRC

The controversy around the upcoming DRC elections has only increased after the South Korean Government distanced itself from Miru Systems, the Korean company that will be providing voting equipment to the Independent National Electoral Commission (CENI in French).

The decision of the Korean government to cut ties with Miru for this project comes as a surprise to many as the government, through its International Cooperation Agency (Koica), has funded and supported basically every international election project in which Miru has been involved.

The Korean Government seems to be lining up behind other world powers who have expressed their concern about the way automation is being imposed. In February, the US Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, stated: "an unfamiliar technology for the first time during a crucial election is an enormous risk." Several other countries also manifested their skepticism about the idea of introducing technology in an already highly-polarized political landscape.

Another critical setback for the automation project is the refusal of A-Web, a Korean non-profit organization, to participate in the election providing support. “Until last year, A-Web, a Korean non-profit organization, provided technical support to CENI regarding the use of the voting machines. However, A-Web severed ties with the Congo, consistent with the position of the Korean government," the embassy statement read.

Three years ago, Miru had basically no international experience. However, things changed when it partnered with A-Web and Koica, the Korea International Cooperation Agency founded by the government to administer grant aid and technical cooperation programs.

With Korean funding from Koica and A-Web’s endorsement, Miru signed a series of election business deals, in many cases bypassing public bids.

Between 2014 and 2015, the troika formed by A-Web, Miru and Koica provided election technology and support to Kyrgyzstan. The funding provided by Koica allowed the country to purchases optical scanners from Miru. A-Web provided election support and observation.

A-Web, Miru, and Koica were also very much involved in the 2017 referendum held in Ecuador. South Korea donated 1,850 Miru scanners. And for the 2018 Legislative and Municipal elections held this year in El Salvador, Miru provided optical scanners to digitize tallying reports. Again, Koica provided funds, A-Web election support and election observers.

In spite of the success this troika has had, something different may be happening this time around. While declining to be part of the election, Seoul emphasized that it couldn’t force a private company -Miru in this case- to refuse participating, "The Korean government possesses no legal right to forcibly discourage a private Korean company from exporting its products."

With two of the members of the troika out, Miru is left alone combating the impression that automation will lead to a more transparent and trustworthy election process in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Only time will tell.

Video 1 from Noticiero Hechos Estelar. El Salvador.

                                       Video 2 from Noticiero Hechos Estelar. El Salvador.

El Salvador: An open path to election modernization

During the recent Legislative and Municipal elections held on March 4, El Salvador’s elections tribunal implemented a software solution to consolidate, aggregate and publish results, which allowed them to offer reliable and timely preliminary counts. 

Back in 2015, the Superior Electoral Court (TSE in Spanish) took three weeks to come up with an official tally. With this fresh memory in mind, and given the recent events in neighbouring Honduras (where they had to wait 21 days for results, amid protests and unrest that left 33 dead), the TSE decided to take no risks. In addition to the software solution used to announce winners only a few hours after voting ended, the TSE also utilized another technology solution to audit its own preliminary results. 

Mission accomplished. The preliminary count was published in real-time as the tallying reports were being processed. Although these results were not official, public opinion knew in less than 24 hours what the voting trends per party were, with 79% of the voting records processed. A hundred percent of the records were made available online 36 hours later. Quite a feat considering previous elections.

Although some politicians tried to belittle the work of the TSE and the companies that processed the data (especially after an incident was reported with the preferred votes in San Salvador and La Libertad), these results are auditable. And most importantly, the official results shown a month after the vote fully matched the preliminary count.

One additional benefit of the incorporation of technology to process preliminary count, was that once the unofficial results were made public, the TSE was able to begin their official count without much political pressure. Knowing what the voting trends were calmed the waters and allowed authorities to finish aggregating tallying reports.  

Unlike what transpired in 2015, authorities, political parties, the media and citizens were able to follow the preliminary count on a public website. It was precisely this level of transparency and auditability what allowed people to detect the inconsistencies found in the departments of San Salvador and La Libertad. Parties and citizens were able to compare the digitized voting records against the results being published.

Although the election observation missions from the European Union (EU) and the Organization of American States (OAS) acknowledged the complexity of El Salvador’s voting system, they praised the efforts made by TSE with the addition of technology. The modernization of all the processes to generate preliminary results, helped the country to overcome the issues of 2015.

These 2018 elections, held in the most densely populated country in the Americas, are a clear demonstration that implementing technology in the vote count -one of the most crucial phases of any election-, makes the overall process faster and more transparent. Results were available on Election Night and were audited in real time.

Expert advice on how to fight Fake News

The term ‘Fake News’ was named Word of the Year 2017 by the Collins Dictionary, after it saw an unprecedented usage increase 365% since 2016. Unfortunately, it was the 2016 US Presidential election that motivated this avalanche of fake news created to sway public opinion, favor some candidates and sow discord went viral.

A recent study conducted by the Politics Department at Princeton University revealed that one in four Americans read at least one false news story purposely fabricated to mislead. Understandably, the magnitude of this problem has election officials looking for ways to create appropriate conditions for future elections. Having correct information available for all voters is a crucial condition for all free, fair and transparent elections.

Luckily, non-governmental organizations, academics, journalists and communications experts are now joining election officials in trying to educate the population on how to detect and combat fake news.

Here are three tips recommended to stop the spread of false information:

-          Identify the source and follow your instinct: In this digital era, thousands of web pages and social media accounts are created each day. Therefore, when you read an article, you must check the reliability and trajectory of the journalist, “influencer” or media outlet.

In case you do not recognize who is behind the piece, it is always good to google the headline or part of the story to see if it has been replicated in other reliable outlets.

-          Follow the Three S rule: Before sharing a piece of news, first STOP to think if the title of the article is relevant. It may be pure clickbait material. Then, do your SEARCH on the author of the article to verify its veracity. And last but not least, SUBSCRIBE to newsletters or bulletins of reliable media to receive truthful and accurate information.

-          Use tools for fact check: Given how fake news have proliferated, and the impact they have had, many fact-checking organizations or media outlets have emerged. Factcheck.org, Politifact and Snopes can come handy for those who want to know if something is real or the product of a Fake News laboratory.

In addition to these tips, it is important to keep in mind that, during a campaign period, you should always keep an eye on social networks, making a lists of verified accounts of political parties, media and candidates to follow.

And one last recommendation. Do not get carried away by what others share. Develop your own database. By doing so, not only will you stay safe and informed, but you will educate others by sharing truthful and reliable news.

Estonia: More young people studying e-governance every day

Estonia is today a world reference when talking about digital democracy. The government offers a vast array of online services, which its citizens access through a digital ID card. It is also worth noting that the online voting technology they have developed has been used in several processes in different countries.   

To keep developing these platforms that have improved the quality of life of millions, several of the country’s public and private universities are offering top-of-the-line courses to young people interested in innovation and e-governance.  

One of these institutions is the Tallinn University of Technology  (TUT), which offers a MSc in technology and e-governance services to native and foreign students. This degree, driven by the public and private sectors, is a priority for the country, and the subject is openly promoted by president Toomas Hendrik Ilves, a confessed lover of innovative technology. 

At TUT, students with ideas for first-level startups want to be ambassadors for Estonia’s electoral technology and make it known worldwide. One of them is Crystal LaGrone from Oklahoma, USA, who is halfway through the masters program and wants to bring e-voting technology back home.   

LaGrone came to Estonia as a visitor and quickly became interested in innovation. “I’ve discovered great advances in IT, particularly Internet voting”. 

This student, who had no previous IT experience, thinks that Internet voting could strengthen democracy and increase turnout in the United States. In her opinion, the masters program offers extensive knowledge on how to found a modern state – the transition to e-government, its development and management. 

Her objective is clear: returning to the United States to improve e-voting systems, a tool designed to strengthen democracy by preventing paper-based fraud.  “If we managed to take a man to the moon and bring him back, Internet voting couldn’t possibly be as hard”. 

Reviewing the results of Bulgaria's e-voting referendum

One of the purist and most direct ways to gauge the popular opinion on an important issue is to hold a referendum. In this way, you are granting voters the same access to expressing their viewpoint as they have during a regular election that would see the selection of new heads of state and legislative representatives. When the referendum ties into the electoral process itself, the cycle is completed.

This is a big reason why the recent referendum held in the country of Bulgaria is so important. The results of the referendum could set a precedent not only in Bulgaria itself, but also in other democracies around the world. It could also expedite, maintain, or diminish any progress made in other countries seeking similar movements and advances in its electoral processes.

The referendum was first proposed last year and consisted of three different questions. After some debate among government officials, the national referendum was eventually narrowed down to a single question. It asked the people of Bulgaria whether or not they would support the use of technology to allow for remote voting through electronic means.

The support for e-voting was largely being gauged in the context of distance voting. More specifically, the referendum question was worded as thus:

“Do you support that remote electronic voting is enabled when elections and referendums are held?”

Despite what some of the opponents may have to say about the adoption of e-voting and i-voting technology in modern elections, the result of the Bulgarian referendum is one of overwhelming support for the use of remote electronic voting.

The exact figures from different sources vary somewhere between 69.5 percent and 72.5 percent, but the Bulgarians who did participate in the referendum have clearly indicated that they support and favor remote electronic voting in future elections and referendums. Compare this to the mere 26 percent who voted against the introduction of electronic distance voting. Even in the district with the least support for the adoption of e-voting, Shoumen, a 57.8 percent majority still marked their ballots with a “yes.” The capital city of Sofia saw the largest support for e-voting at 76.5 percent of the vote.

The referendum question itself was also posed to Bulgarians who are living or working abroad through a number of overseas polling stations. This only makes sense, as this is the demographic that would be affected the most by the implementation of remote e-voting possibilities in the Bulgarian democracy.

Interest in electronic voting technology and interest in participating in nationally-held elections are also growing in Bulgaria. When the country last held a referendum in 2013, voter turnout was a mere 20.22%. With this most recent referendum, that figure nearly doubled to 39.67%. There is still much room to grow and to learn, but the positive trend demonstrates promise.

While this level of voter turnout in the e-voting referendum in Bulgaria is not enough to be legally binding at the governmental level, which requires a turnout of at least 48.7 percent, it is above the 20 percent threshold needed in order to require the National Assembly in Bulgaria to further debate the issue and to keep the conversation moving forward.

Where the Bulgarian democracy goes from here remains to be seen, but given the steadfast determination of President Rosen Plevneliev in pursuing the e-voting agenda, the issue will clearly remain top of mind and a continued topic of hot debate. 

Technological challenges lie ahead of Nigeria's 2019 election

In order for a country to move forward with progressive change that is beneficial for all its citizens, it must first establish a democratic process that is fair, secure and respected. This is particularly challenging for countries in transition, especially where a fair and open democracy is still a relatively novel concept in the shadow of previously unjust regimes.

A prime example of these circumstances is happening right now in the African country of Nigeria. Even though the federal elections were held just earlier this year, electing Muhammadu Buhari as the new President, the electoral commission and other governmental organizations are already looking ahead to the next election scheduled to take place in 2019.

Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Acting Chairperson Mrs. Amina Zakari has indicated that the commission “is ready to implement what is contemplated in the law.” More specifically, she says that Nigeria is technologically ready to move forward with e-voting as soon as the impediment of the law has been alleviated. The next major step required is to pass laws in Nigeria that allow for the widespread adoption of electronic voting technology for the 2019 elections.

To this end, INEC has partnered with the National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA) in an effort to deploy high technology in what should be a very robust election in four years’ time. The announcement of this collaboration comes ahead of an annual e-governance conference in mid-November, called eNigeria, where discussions will be held in regards to applying technological solutions in the 2019 general election, as well as to how to improve the electoral system in the nation as a whole.

It would not be prudent for Nigeria to hurl itself into full deployment of e-voting throughout its democratic process without first performing some due diligence. Indeed, while Nigeria did make use of biometric technology in its general election earlier this year, the fingerprint identification system was marred with problematic challenges. Once again, this further illustrates the incredible importance of two key issues.

First, the electoral commission of Nigeria must be careful in selecting the right providers for its e-voting equipment and infrastructure. This includes not only the hardware for voter authentication and digital ballots, possibly with the inclusion of a voter-verifiable paper trail, but also for the systems in place to manage these machines. A reputable vendor will have a proven track record in running elections of at least this size and magnitude.

Second, and this point is intimately intertwined with the first, the full election process must be open to scrutiny and testing through a robust series of audits. The audits must be in place through an impartial third party throughout the election, as well as both before and after the ballots are cast. The e-voting machines must be audited thoroughly. This way, any challenges or shortcomings will be suitably addressed before they become more widespread.

The integrity of the election results, and thus the public perception and acceptance of the election results, depends heavily on the reliability and security of the infrastructure used. Nigeria needs free, fair and open elections and the use of technology could pave the road. Nigeria is ready to adopt e-voting for its 2019 national elections and the pace is quickening with each passing day. Even before laws are passed to allow for e-voting on a national scale, INEC is prepared to move forward with agencies to develop the legal framework needed and to update its own internal processes. 

The future of Internet voting in the US

Even though the actual election itself is still over a year away, all eyes both home and abroad have turned their attention on the United States. As Barack Obama has already served two terms and is not eligible for re-election, it means that this upcoming federal election will necessarily name a new President of the United States. It could be Florida Governor Jeb Bush. It could be former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It could be self-described democratic socialist Bernie Sanders. It might even be real estate mogul Donald Trump.

And while the magnitude of who will eventually emerge as the winner cannot be understated, there is another very important story related to this upcoming election that should not be ignored. The technology and infrastructure involved in running the election are in dire need of improvement and upgrading.

A recent report published by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law indicates that 43 states will be using electronic voting machines that are at least 10 years old for the 2016 elections and as many as 14 states will be using machines that are more than 15 years old. This is well past their expected lifespan, especially when you consider that many of these machines are no longer manufactured and replacement parts are increasingly difficult to find. This problem is particularly notable in a number of swing states, like North Carolina and Virginia.

While some of the wealthier counties have been able to afford the purchase and configuration of new equipment, poorer and more rural counties have been left with older, more dated machines that are more prone to issues and inconsistencies. A lot has changed in the last decade and the electoral process in the United States needs to reflect this.

Consider that the United States is only now adopting the “chip” technology for credit cards, a technology that has long since been used in a number of other developed countries. Moving ahead with the democratic process requires a similar update to the machinery and infrastructure used.

Some progress has been made in expanding the availability of electronic voter registration in the United States ahead of the 2016 election. The next major step would be to not only update the electronic voting machines that some constituents may use in person, but also to update the process to include the possibility of voting online.

To this end, the US Vote Foundation has put together a comprehensive report describing the future of Internet voting in the country. More specifically, it calls for end-to-end verifiable Internet voting, or E2E-VIV for short. This system would need to provide the proper balance of security and transparency that the democratic process requires, protecting the privacy of the vote while providing voters with the ability to check the system. Voters can see if their online ballot was recorded correctly and whether the vote was properly included in the final tally.

All current systems, according to this report, are currently inadequate in guaranteeing “voter privacy or the correct election outcomes.” The proposed Internet voting system must be usable and secure, with protections in place against “large-scale coordinated attacks, both on its own infrastructure and on individual voters' computers.”

The reality of the situation is that the United States will not be ready for widespread Internet voting in time for next year's elections. However, by following the guidelines outlined by the US Vote Foundation report, the first steps can be made to move in this direction in time for the next election. There are several fundamental challenges that need to be overcome before Internet voting can become a reality on a mass scale in the country. In the meantime, America can look to positive examples elsewhere in the world where e-voting and i-voting have been successfully deployed.

Electoral officials just have to recognize the immense importance of end-to-end verifiability of any online-based voting system they consider. 

Voter rights and the barriers to voter registration in USA

It is undeniable that while the United States is not the largest democracy in the world, it is one of the most influential. What happens in America has a profound impact all across the globe. And this is why next year's presidential election is so important.

With Barack Obama currently serving his second term as the President of the United States, he is no longer eligible for re-election. Even so, as a Democrat and as an American citizen, he has a vested interest in how the election turns out. More to the point, the President recently published a guest article on Medium discussing the current voter ID laws in the country and how they are hindering the expression of the true American will.

“The right to vote is one of the most fundamental rights of any democracy,” he states before reminding readers that this year marks the 50^th anniversary of the singing of the Voting Rights Act - the act that broke down legal barriers and made it easier for African Americans and other minorities to cast a ballot.

However, while all American citizens do have the legal right to vote in the United States, not all have had equal access it. The President points out that there are “still too many barriers to the vote” even today, particularly among minorities.

As President Obama decries, the current “provisions specifically designed to make it harder for some people to vote,” like the restrictive photo ID requirements. His Republican opponents say that these voter ID laws help to reduce or eliminate voter fraud, but the President view these laws as unnecessary barriers that prevent the proper expression of a true democracy.

Because the current requirements can vary so widely from state to state, progress will be difficult and the move toward nationalized standards may be a better option. The first step toward greater voter turnout, which would result in a more representative government, is to get as many eligible voters registered in the first place. This could be aided by the expansion of electronic voter registration, a proposal that is gaining more support each day. An additional option is to link the electronic voter registration to driver's licences for a simpler and more automatic solution.

Looking ahead to the 2016 election, Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has also spoken out against the restrictive voter ID laws in many states and she continues to be a champion for equal voting rights for all eligible voters. By removing these restrictive barriers and erecting more accessible electronic voter registration systems, more citizens who are current disenfranchised can exercise their democratic right more freely.

For the minorities and other groups who feel like they're being left behind, politics can feel like an “us against them” scenario where they are powerless to elicit change. That cannot and should not be the case. All eligible voters can and should have a voice in how their country is run. And it starts with voter registration.