What the Estonian e-residency could mean for global e-voting

When seeking leadership and innovation in the area of e-voting and i-voting technology on a national scale, it's not in the United States, England or Germany where inspiration can be found. Instead, a decidedly smaller nation in the Baltic region of Northern Europe continues to act as a shining example of how a modern democracy can and should be run.

Estonia's widespread and enthusiastic adoption of secure, transparent, and robust Internet-based voting technologies is well documented and widely applauded. The country continues to move forward with new and better technologies, always looking to how its democracy can be better applied for its citizens. But what about the rest of the world?

Perhaps one of the more compelling developments to come out of Estonia in the last little while is the e-Residency project. From the official website, e-Residency “offers to every world citizen a government-issued digital identity and the opportunity to run a trusted company online, unleashing the world's entrepreneurial potential.”

The government startup effectively allows nearly anyone in the world to participate in Estonia without having to physically relocate to the European country. In effect, individuals can open Estonian bank accounts, launch Estonian businesses, and pay Estonian taxes, all via the Internet. The program is quickly growing and they anticipate that there will be 10 million e-Residents by the year 2020.

The identity of the prospective e-Resident is verified at one of the embassies located around the globe, meaning that he or she will still need to produce a passport and have his or her fingerprints recorded. The government will also conduct a background search to verified eligibility before issuing the e-Residency card.

Now, why does this matter?

The e-Residency project satisfies the requirements of Know Your Customer (KYC) regulations, allowing for improved cross-border investments and business operations while guarding against money laundering, terrorist financing, and other possible concerns. This provides lenders, crowdfunding providers and alternative finance platforms with the assurance of securely confirmed identity. What's more, while the digital signature is used extensively in Estonia, it will become legally equivalent to a traditional, handwritten signature in all of Europe's member states by July 1, 2016.

While the e-Residency program in Estonia is targeted within the contexts of online business and related operations, the fundamental guiding principles can be possibly extended to the area of electronic voting and Internet-based voting in government elections as well. If Estonia can issue an e-Residency card this way and if digital signatures can carry the weight that they will, these same technologies can be used to power elections in other countries when adapted to local conditions.

This allows for far easier access to the democratic process for citizens who may live in rural or remote areas. This provides for greater access for expatriates wishing to exercise their right to franchise from abroad. And it could significantly reduce the costs of running an election for a government while minimizing errors and maintaining the integrity of verified voters and ballots.

Challenges related to Internet voting systems are numerable, to be sure, but this e-Residency program could prove to be yet another example of how Estonia continues to solidify its place as an e-voting and i-voting global leader. 

Should governments fight low turnout with compulsory voting?

Following the mere 36% voter turnout in May's European Union elections, many experts have asked how they can increase the number of people who make it to the polls. This is not only for future elections in the European Union, but also for local, regional and national elections all around the world.

Daniel Lobo

It's a common problem in many democratic nations and it's one that governing bodies need to address. There are at least two prominent strategies being discussed and both of these strategies can be used in tandem for the greatest impact. The first of these is to implement compulsory voting. 

If eligible citizens who do not exercise their right to vote are penalized in some way -typically through the application of fines- then the effective voter turnout rate should be practically 100%. In Belgium, where voting is compulsory, voter turnout is typically over 90%. Elected Government officials can then justifiably say that they represent the will of the people. 

When there is low voter turnout, as was the case with the EU, it can be argued that the elected officials are only representing the will of a select minority: those who actually made it to the polls to cast a ballot. 

On the other hand, the very spirit of democracy is based on the notion of personal freedom. If a free citizen is forced to vote, then he or she is no longer free. Indeed, the very act of abstaining to vote can be a political statement by itself.

The second big strategy being discussed is the increased adoption of technology in the electoral process, including e-voting technology for casting ballots, as well as the possible adoption of Internet voting. This would be particularly effective in reducing voter apathy among young people, as that demographic largely embraces e-voting. Members of the so-called Generation Y (or “Millennials”), as well as much of Generation X, grew up with technology being an integral part of their lives. They use the Internet and mobile devices on a daily basis to conduct the rest of their business, so why not include technology as part of exercising their democratic right to vote as well?

Indeed, Max Benwell of The Independent argues that these two strategies should be combined. He supports compulsory online voting as a means to “revolutionise the way our political system works.” If voting is mandatory, it may as well be convenient. “It would be quick and easy,” he writes, “with no more trudging down to your local polling centre.”

The use of Internet voting could be accompanied by a mobile app that can provide voters with more information about the platforms of each of the candidates. This way, they can make a more educated decision more easily. It is a sad state of affairs when more people (at least in the United Kingdom) are likely to vote on a reality TV talent show than they are to vote on who should represent them in government. A big part of that has to do with access and convenience. The democratic process needs to be secure, of course, but it also shouldn't feel like so much of a chore and a burden. Even if people don't want to vote, they should feel committed to do so. And maybe compulsory voting, perhaps with an option to cast a ballot online or by a more efficient and accessible e-voting system, is the way to improve the situation.