Should America allow voting by smartphone?

As ironic and as counterintuitive as it may sound, the “phone” part of a “smartphone” is likely one of the device's less important and least used actual function. People are using their smartphones as their primary digital cameras these days. The smartphone is also commonly used as a primary timepiece, rather than a traditional wristwatch. The standalone MP3 player has largely been replaced by the smartphone too and the same thing is happening with GPS navigation and mobile gaming. And then there is everything to do with Internet access, including web browsing, email, social media, news reading, blogging, vlogging and more.

With smartphone ownership and use at an all-time high, one technologist is positing a very compelling question: why can't we vote by smartphone too? The convenience factor is undeniable, because it means that voters can simply cast their ballot over the Internet is a truly digital and remote fashion. It doesn't matter if they are at home, at the office, on the commuter train or enjoying a cold beverage at the local cafe. As long as they can get online, access the voting portal and get verified, they can cast their ballot and they can do so weeks before the official voting day.

In many ways, this is an extension of the argument for more widespread Internet voting. There are inherently many advantages and disadvantages to online-based voting systems, like the importance of being able to properly authenticate the identity of voters and to ensure the secure and confidential transmission of the voting data over the network. These are all valid and they are just as applicable to smartphone voting as they would be to voting on an Internet-connected PC.

Interestingly enough, however, voting on a smartphone may arguably offer even more security features than a desktop computer. It has been observed that even among people who do not own a personal computer of their own, they may be more likely to own a smartphone. This allows for greater accessibility. What's more, a growing number of modern smartphones already integrate biometric verification technology. The Apple iPhone 6 and the Samsung Galaxy S6, for instance, both feature a fingerprint reader for user identification. Facial recognition technology is also available. But are these security features enough to guarantee the integrity of the authentication process?

The argument made by Alissa Walker does not call for biometric authentication specifically, but this is an area that is being explored in many areas across the United States. New Mexico is one example.

There are barriers to widespread adoption of smartphone voting, such as the fact that every state has different election rules. Assuming that all security and integrity guarantees are met, voting by smartphone could become a fit option to replace postal voting, offering people the opportunity not only to order their absentee ballot online and through a smartphone, but also the ability to submit that ballot through a smartphone. The goal here is to completely digitize the absentee ballot.

An initiative named Vote by Smartphone from the group Long Distance Voter is going to offer a prototype pilot test as part of the upcoming 2016 Presidential elections in the United States. The test will be limited to just two states, but it could serve as a real-world demonstration of how this could work. Voter identity could be verified using an e-signature, like the DocuSign electronic signature technology for authentication.

Further exploration and testing is needed, but Vote By Smartphone sounds like a compelling idea and could represent a part of the democratic future in America.

Hillary Clinton's voting reform calls for automated registration

Leading up to the 2016 Presidential elections in the United States, Americans have many questions that are yet to be answered. Who will be the Republican nominee? Who will be the nominee for the Democrats? What will the voter registration and the actual voting process be like in each of the individual jurisdictions across the country?

Some people are saying that Jeb Bush could gain the nomination to run under the Republican Party banner, while former First Lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will get the nod from the Democratic Party. None of this has been officially decided yet, but that hasn't stopped Clinton from leaping onto the political stage with a few bold statements.

In early June of this year, Hillary Clinton delivered a speech in Texas calling for voting law reform in the United States. While the potential presidential candidate touched on several different points in her talk, the one that is getting the most attention is the call for all Americans to be automatically registered to vote when they turn 18 years of age.

This would represent a major effort to encourage voter turnout among the American electorate. While it may be true that this represents just a political gambit on the part of Clinton in an effort to get votes, debating the notion of automatic and universal voter registration is a conversation that holds merit. Indeed, this could add as many as 50 million Americans to the voter rolls.

It is practically impossible for this voter reform to take place before the elections in November 2016, but the wheels could be put in motion for the mid-term elections of 2018 or possibly the next Presidential election in 2020.

The point of automatic and universal voter registration – ideally using an online or electronic voter registration system that is faster, more accurate and more efficient than manually completing and submitting a paper form – is inclusion, particularly improving access among the impoverished and the disenfranchised. By making it easier to vote and by addressing issues of voter registration, voter turnout in America would presumably improve too. And improved voter turnout makes for a better and more representative democracy.

Another reform that Hillary Clinton suggests is to extend the voting period to 20 days, providing easier access and better convenience for voters to exercise their right to franchise. This could help to reduce or even eliminate some of the remarkably long lines that have plagued previous election days, but it may or may not be effective in raising voter turnout.

Michael Waldman of Politico.com says that the current “ramshackle voter registration system” in the United States “disenfranchises more people by accident than even the harshest new laws do on purpose.” A new system of automatic and electronic voter registration would practically eliminate the “piles of paper records” that plague the current system, minimizing typos and keeping voter rolls more up to date.

If the nation moves to hold more conversations regarding automatic voter registration and how it can improve voter turnout, then the American democracy could be moving in the right direction.

Optical scan vs. electronic touchscreen voting machines

The democratic process in any given city, county, state or country should be reasonably independent and impartial such that it is not directly influenced by outside forces. The results of such elections should represent the will of the people in an accurate and transparent manner. This being said, government agencies from around the globe can benefit greatly by collaborating and sharing their knowledge, experience and expertise in regards to voting technologies being used.

Last October, the EVOTE 2014 International Conference was held in Austria, gathering together some of the most influential figures in the vertical of voting paradigms, administration and technology. This has since been followed by the 9th Annual International Electoral Affairs Symposium in December 2014, hosted in South Africa. One of the presenters at the event was Bruce Clark, the Kankakee County Clerk from the United States, and he spoke about the experience of the 2014 midterm elections in Illinois.

In addition to discussing poll worker training, outreach efforts, and ballot preparation, a key subject addressed was the deployment and use of optical scan machines for the election. One of the major trends observed by Clark was the shift in the type of voting equipment used in United States elections over the last 10 to 15 years.

The types of voting equipment in 2000 were incredibly varied and fragmented across the different counties in the United States. There was no systematic approach, resulting in counties using punch cards, DataVote, levers, paper, optical scan, electronic and mixed systems in a rather scattered fashion. By contrast, the vast majority of counties and townships in 2012 used either optical scan (62.8% of counties) or electronic voting machines (32.8%), resulting in less than 5% of counties using different equipment.

Given this, the Kankakee County Clerk took a closer look to compare optical scan (OS) machines with touch screen (TS) electronic voting machines. In the case of an optical scan machine, people still cast their vote on a paper ballot, but it is then inserted into the optical scan machine for tabulation. The advantages here include the fact that people like to see their vote and, in case of a discovery, there is a physical ballot to examine. However, ballot costs can be significant and there are physical limitations to the size of the ballot box.

By comparison, there are many positives associated with the use of a touchscreen direct-recording electronic voting machine (TS DRE). The accuracy level is incredibly high and the touchscreen machines facilitate far better accessibility for voters with disabilities, as they are able to cast a ballot completely unassisted. An audit trail can be produced, just like the optical scan machine, providing great accountability and transparency to further bolster the legitimacy and integrity of election results.

Naturally, considerations need to be made before implementing touchscreen voting machines. There may be issues related to calibration and, in addition to the upfont cost to purchase each machine, counties and election officials must consider the costs of equipment repair or replacement. Even so, the pros clearly far outweigh the cons and this is why touchscreen machines are understandably growing in popularity.

By working with other governments around the world and increasing competition among the vendors of electronic voting machines with touchscreen capabilities, election administrators can encourage further development in the industry, continuing to improve reliability, security and affordability.

The 2012 US general elections, a historic view

This marked the 57th quadrennial presidential election for the United States
Doug Mills/The New York Times

Yesterday, November 6^th, 2012 Barack Obama became the 15^th US President to be reelected for two consecutive presidential terms. Only Franklin Delano Roosevelt has had more than two terms (1932-1945). 

CNN’s preliminary data shows a turnout of approximately 56% of the voting-age population. Although, this reflects a decrease in relation to the 2008 general elections, the overall trend showing a steady increase prevailed. Two demographic groups that seem to have played an important role in Obama’s favor are young voters and Hispanics. According to the most recent information available, young voters (ages 18-29) and Hispanics increased their participation in 1% as compared to 2008. Obama managed to capture 60% of young voters and 71% of Hispanics this time around. 

Joe Biden was again Obama’s Vice President candidate. From all Presidents US has had since George Washington’s first presidency from 1789 to 1797, 37 were chosen in elections. John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Chester A. Arthur, Andrew Johnson, Calvin Coolidge, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson and Gerald R. Ford, succeeded incumbent Presidents following their abandonment of office due to illness, death, or in the unique case of Ford, Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal.

According to USA Today, President Obama won by a margin of 97 electoral votes (303 to 206). In 1936, Franklin Roosevelt defeated Alf Landon by the biggest difference ever recorded in a US election, 515 electoral votes. The smallest difference in electoral votes occurred during the 1824 presidential elections in which Andrew Jackson had only 15 electoral votes over his closest contender. The decision was taken into the House of Representatives which decided to appoint John Quincy Adams as President.

In terms of popular votes, President Obama obtained an approximate 2% margin over Mitt Romney. Only 5 presidents have received a greater number of popular votes but lost in electoral colleges. The last one being Al Gore during the 2000 elections. In 1876, Rutherford Hayes defeated Samuel Tilden with a difference in popular vote of 1 vote.

Obama is the 21st Democrat President. Republicans have managed to win the presidency with 22 candidates. Only 4 presidents in the history of the US have lead this nation coming from parties other than the Democratic or Republican parties. It is important to mention that two independent candidates, Angus King and Bernie Sanders, managed to obtain seats in the Senate.

In spite the difficulties presented by Hurricane Sandy in the Northeast Cost, the US managed to pull out another successful election. Mitt Romney, the losing candidate from the Republican Party conceded defeat around 1:30 am on November 7, 2012.