Electronic petitions: Improving democracies and citizen engagement with technology

Discussions on updating voting technology for the 21^st century typically revolve around elections at different levels of government: municipal, provincial/state/regional, and national. There are talks about how e-voting technology can be best implemented in these major acts of democracy where the people elect the government officials who will be responsible for their cities, provinces and countries. However, it is just as important to look into how technology can improve the democratic process in other areas too.

We recently took a look at e-voting in the context of listed companies in Taiwan, for example, bringing electronic voting technologies into the realm of corporate business decision-making. And the will of the people can be exercised not only in electing government officials and making choices in a professional context, but also in voicing their concerns and viewpoints on specific issues.

Individuals can write to their members of parliament, senators and other elected officials on a one-to-one basis, but it can be difficult to enact change on a single voice. This is why we see peaceful protests and other demonstrations on the street where many people get together to express their passionate beliefs on particular issues. Petitions are another avenue that can be explored.

The trouble is that traditional petitions are paper-based (not unlike paper ballots in a traditional election). What this means is that the supporters of the petition need to actively go out to collect signatures in person. This can be incredibly difficult, as even the people who support the cause may not know about the opportunity to sign such a petition. Geographical limitations may also mean that people who live in rural areas or even the suburbs of major cities may not come across someone who is collecting those signatures.

And this is why in the city of Burnaby in British Columbia, Canada, politician Jane Shin is so persistent in her quest to introduce electronic petitions to the legislature in the province of British Columbia. A member of the New Democratic Party, Jane Shin has now proposed the introduction of electronic petitions three times. The proposed bill did not pass in the two previous efforts, but she is determined and steadfast in her effort.

The bill, which may now have a better chance at passing because a proposal for electronic petitions gained unanimous approval at the federal level in Canada, would allow for the submission of e-petitions in addition to paper petitions. Oddly, the traditional paper petitions are accepted in the BC legislature currently with no requirement for a minimum number of signatures, while e-petitions aren't accepted at all. 

Moving toward the option of electronic signature collection is a more eco-friendly option, as well as being one that allows for greater access by people regardless of geography. It's also more engaging and cost-effective than traditional paper-based petitions. And it's also far more relevant for the younger demographic who grew up around technology; for them, paper petitions can feel like an archaic relic from the past rather than a means of moving society forward.

In the United States, the White House has set up a website called We The People that is specifically for the purpose of starting, viewing, signing and submitted electronic petitions. The website gives “all Americans a way to engage their government on the issues that matter to them.” And if NDP MLA Jane Shin gets her way, then the people of British Columbia will soon have the same opportunity to voice their concerns.

On the Road to Democracy, Manual Voting Becomes an Obstacle

After almost 50 years of military oppression, the people of Burma were finally able to choose the representatives who would fill 45 parliamentary seats. The country’s by-elections were held at the beginning of this month.

Aung San Suu Kyi, the opposition leader who won the Nobel Peace Price in 1991 for leading the fight for democracy in the country, and who had been under house arrest for 15 years, was finally able to see the progress of her struggle as a free person, even though she was not able to vote for logistic reasons. People all over the country celebrated this step towards reconciliation.

However, by March the irregularities were already palpable. Suu Kyi warned that these elections would not be free and fair. Voters complained of damaged voting papers and names missing from the register. International observers were invited by the government to oversee the elections, but they were not allowed inside the polling stations. Of course, most of these problems could have been avoided with the implementation of e-voting in the country. Why?

Reliability is one of the many benefits electronic voting offers, since a good and auditable system offers multiple technological resources to recognize fraudulent situations (intent to alter the results), eliminating the possibility of null votes. An auditable electoral system also offers accuracy, so there is no room for misinterpretation of votes or human error in processes like tallying and consolidation. Also, it’s auditable, meaning that your vote is stored in several instances, thus creating protections that guarantee the possibility of multiple audits.

But the road is long, and Burma still has time to learn the best ways to regain the trust that was lost during the years of the military regime.

All and all, this event shows that the hope for democracy to finally reach Burma is stronger and stronger within the hearts of people. Let’s hope that the desire for freedom is stronger than corruption, and that it can finally take over the shadows of the past.

Emerging democracies and technology

Francesca Varda is a political scientist from Cornell University with a Master in Latin American studies from NYU. In the last six years, she has worked on issues related to international justice. We decided to interview her to get a sense on how the adoption of electronic voting in emerging democracies could impact the process of conflict resolution.