Once again, electronic voting guarantees exact results in Venezuela

Image: Reuters

Eleven years and thirteen elections after electronic voting was introduced in Venezuela, voters headed back to the polls to elect its parliament representatives. The elections, held on December 6 registered a participation rate of 75%, which is an impressive turnout considering that voting is not mandatory in Venezuela.  

Venezuela’s system automates all stages of the election, from biometric voter authentication, to voting, results transmission, tallying and results publication. The system has been deemed reliable by important observation organizations such as the Carter Center and the European Union.  

Weeks before the election, a report published by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance stated that "the strength of the Venezuelan electoral process lies in the automated voting and vote-counting system". Meanwhile, Leonel Fernandez, head of the observation mission from UNASUR said in his post-election balance that "The Venezuelan voting system is solid and safe." 

One of the most important attributes of the technology used in Venezuela is its high level of auditability. Before, during and after the election, technicians from participating political parties, independent auditors and electoral authorities review the system thoroughly. 

In addition, during the night of the election a public audit was performed to compare the printed vote receipts against the precinct counts issued by more than 50% of the voting machines. No significant issues were found.  

On Sunday night the official results of 96% of the seats in contention were published, and they were accepted by all political parties without exception.

1,799 candidates were competing for the 167 seats that constitute the parliament. This was a heavy contested election, where few votes made the difference to declare the winners. For example, in Aragua, a state in the central region, one parliament seat was decided by only 83 votes, a difference of only 0.06%.

Managing the complexity of the Venezuelan parliamentary elections

On December 6, Venezuela will hold parliamentary elections amidst a highly polarized political environment. Authorities are expecting 20 million voters who will elect 167 representatives from 1,800 candidates.

Amongst the upheaval and uncertainty, at least one factor has remained a constant in Venezuelan politics for over a decade: the continued advancement and improved deployment of e-voting technology.

Indeed, even though more than 14,000 polling stations will be open and millions of ballots will be cast on December 6, the official results will likely be available and reported within just a few hours of the polls closing. This is because of the 100% automated voting platform, from voter registration to the electronic capture of the ballot on a direct-recording e-voting machine, from the tabulation of results to the proclamation of the successful candidates. Electronic voting can bring about incredible benefits when it comes to complex elections of this type and the expedient and secure reporting of the results is just one of them.

After using electronic counting for six years, Venezuelan moved to electronic voting in 2004. From the 13 elections that took place between 2004 and 2013, a total of over 340 million votes were processed, over half a million voting machines were deployed, nearly 300,000 operators were trained, and some 5,600 candidates were elected through this end-to-end voting infrastructure and system.

Throughout this experience, e-voting has played an integral role in improving the efficiency, security and effectiveness of the democratic process. Venezuela has held the most automated elections in Latin America.

Looking ahead to the December parliamentary elections, Venezuelans can fully expect this strong history and pedigree of successful e-voting will continue with the integrity of audits, the user-friendly experience of the voting machines and the remarkably expedient reporting of results. 

What forms of E-voting are used today?

The term "electronic voting" or "e-voting" for short can actually refer to many different types of technologies. We have discussed many facets of e-voting over the course of the last three years, but we now feel the need to return and visit the term "electronic voting." This should be particularly insightful for those of you who are new to reading this blog.

"Electronic voting" can refer to technology that is used to cast the actual vote, as well as technology that is used to tabulate or count the votes. "E-voting" can also sometimes be used in the context of transmitting the information related to the ballots and votes from voting places to central offices.

The most common use of the term "e-voting" would refer to the concept of using a computerized voting machine with electronic ballots rather than using more traditional paper ballots that are marked with a pen or pencil and tabulated manually. The voting machines are usually referred to as DREs or direct-recording electronic machines. The term "Electronic Voting Machine" or "EVM" is also sometimes used.

There are multiple types of DREs that are currently being used around the world. Some DREs use a touchscreen where the voter casts his or her ballot by pressing the appropriate button on the display. Other DREs may involve buttons, wheels or keys next to a computer screen for voters to cast their ballots. Direct-recording electronic voting machines are typically used under the supervision of government representatives or independent electoral authorities.

Varying types of electronic voting machines may be more accessible to different populations. In the case of a touchscreen display, the words can be enlarged for voters who have trouble reading the smaller print on traditional paper ballots. This can also allow for ballots to be displayed in multiple languages for areas where voters may be more comfortable reading instructions in different languages.

Electronic voting may also include remote electronic voting. This would be the case where the voter can act independently without having to go physically to a specific voting place, as the ballot can be cast remotely. This includes voting over the Internet at a computer or using a mobile phone, either through the mobile web or by sending a text message. Less commonly, votes may also be cast via Internet-connected televisions using special channels and technology. Remote e-voting has also been called i-voting, largely because the votes are typically cast over some sort of Internet connection.

The use of electronic voting in the context of counting up all the ballots has a longer history than the use of DREs and other electronic forms of casting a vote. For example, some paper ballots may be punch cards. What this means is that when a voter casts his or her ballot, the punch card can be entered directly into the counting machine that can then automatically read the ballot and add the vote to the final tabulation. Similarly, optical scan machines can use an electronic reader to record the vote rather than having a human volunteer or official record each individual vote. This can be far more efficient and take far less time than the manual counting of votes. Since there is still a paper ballot, it is easier if there needs to be a re-count or an audit for a set of ballots.

E-voting continues to gain popularity all around the world. It is being used in varying levels of capacity in such countries as Venezuela, Canada, Australia, Belgium, Philippines, Brazil, India and the United States.

Auditable platform proves vital after tight results in Venezuela

Nicolas Maduro has just been declared Venezuela’s new president after a very tight match with Henrique Capriles in which the electronic voting system proved to be crucial in offering results that could be thoroughly audited. 

After the early demise of Hugo Chávez, Venezuela decreed that it would hold another presidential election on April 14th. With a deadline of only 34 days before this new electoral event, the country faced the unprecedented challenge of setting up a nationwide electoral event with extreme time constraints, and it did not fail. This was only possible thanks to the use of electoral technology.

The advantages of e-voting in terms of speed are many. Radio reports stated that after 11 elections, Venezuelans are already familiar with the electoral technology and voted in less than 2 minutes, so fast that people thought the voter turnout had been low because there were almost no lines at the polling places when actually 79% of the eligible voters showed up to exert their right to suffrage, a percentage that clearly shows the high trust in the electronic voting system. Its benefits, though, went beyond the polling station level and permeated the large-scale organization of the event.

The speed at which the election was set up did not compromise its integrity, as it was accompanied by a series of 15 audits and tests spread out throughout the stages of the electoral process, all of them executed in the presence of the political parties involved. Due to the fact that Maduro won by a very slim margin (234,935 votes according to the first official announcement of the Electoral Body), one more audit has been requested to check the vote receipts emitted by the voting machines and compare them against the results transmitted to the tallying centers. The fact that this is possible attests to the reliability of a fully auditable e-voting platform.

Venezuela organizes presidential election in record time

Caracas. Photo: Marcio Cabral de Moura

Venezuela is getting ready to carry out new presidential elections only six months after the reelection of Hugo Chavez. The country was forced to call its citizens to the polling stations once more after the early demise of the nation’s president last March 5th.

Having less than 40 days to organize the electoral event, Venezuela has opted to make use of the advantages that its automated voting system provides. In order to speed up the preparation processes facing this challenge, the National Electoral Council (CNE) decided to use the same electoral registry from the October 2012 election for the voting machines that will be used during this new event.

On April 14th, 39,282 voting machines will be deployed. These are equipped with a touchscreen for candidate selection, they print out a voting receipt showing the cast ballot (facilitating citizen auditing), an e-ballot and a biometric device for voter authentication, which guarantees the “one voter, one vote” premise.

The device matches each voter’s fingerprint along with their ID number and compares these data with those from its database. If they match, the voting session is activated. This system not only prevents the occurrence of deceased voters and identity theft, but it also guarantees that each voter casts his or her ballot only once. It is worth mentioning that the biometric information is stored separately from the voting information, which guarantees the right to vote secrecy.

Venezuela’s electoral system has been celebrated for its speed and reliability. According to Jimmy Carter, member of the American Commission for the Federal Electoral Reform and founder of the Carter Center, an NGO that carries out observation processes with democratic purposes, “Venezuela has the best electoral system in the world.”

Automation in Kenya: a hurried implementation is never a good idea

Image: EveryStockPhoto

Although it is true that automation solves many problems in the electoral field, this does not mean that just about any e-voting system will work. Taking the leap to automation requires a close examination of the potential providers, and one of the main aspects to keep in mind for choosing one is the provider’s experience. Kenya’s electoral blunder serves as an example why.

As mentioned on an earlier post, the bout of violence Kenya endured in 2007 prompted the country to hastily adopt an electronic voting system. The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) set up an election’s results transmission system based on SMS that was meant to speed up the final stages of the electoral process and enhance security. Biometric authentication was also incorporated into the modernization process. This year’s election was expected to be the most modern in Africa and beyond.

However, this new platform proved to be no better than the manual method from earlier years. Kenyans’ fears of a new round of chaos materialized when every single stage of the automated process failed. First of all, the conditions under which elections were generally held in the country were not taken into account. As a result, not even the most basic of requirements for automation, electricity, were available, as some of the classrooms used as polling stations were not equipped with power sockets.

Then the biometric authentication kits failed to recognize voters’ fingerprints, forcing officials to turn to paper records and manual registration to carry on with the election and slowing down the electoral process considerably. As if this were not enough, the server employed to transmit results to the central tallying center from 33,400 polling stations became overloaded and crashed, and the electoral body had to revert to manual counting. Safaricom, the communications supplier hired for this final stage, had advised IEBC to hold a large-scale drill before going live, but the electoral body disregarded the recommendation with dire consequences. In the end, the announcement of Uhuru Kenyatta’s victory took place over a week after the elections.

It is commendable that a country wants to resort to e-voting to stop fraud and make its elections more agile and transparent. However, automation is a very delicate procedure that is prone to failure when not carried out properly. There are many points where Kenya’s providers incurred in negligence and aggravated an already fragile democracy. The lack of previous infrastructure studies and the lack of drills and pilot tests in minor electoral events are amongst the most serious mistakes made by the e-voting providers. In short, Kenya’s botched election was an example of sheer improvisation.

Electronic elections in the Philippines, Brazil, and Venezuela have been successful because their providers have been conscious of the need to analyze a country’s infrastructure and idiosyncrasy before incorporating automation into its electoral system. The implementation process in these countries has been gradual and supported by numerous pilot tests and audits, thus being able to offer smooth elections that gain people’s trust in the new technology. The urge for automation cannot win over the urge for an electoral system that works.

Kenya’s electoral catastrophe is a lesson for other countries to learn: When it comes to modernizing a country’s electoral platform, there is no room for haste.

Why the US electoral system should adopt biometric technology

Image: Freedigitalphotos

It is a known fact that the American electoral system is far from seamless. Its many flaws become evident every time there is an election, but nothing is done to address these problems in spite of their recurrence. One of the most controversial issues is the one related to identification at the polling stations and its role in fraud prevention.

According to David Frum, commentator for CNN, “Americans worry more about voter fraud than do voters in other countries, because they are the only country without a reliable system of national identification. In no other country, including federal systems such as Germany, Canada and Australia, does the citizen’s opportunity to vote depend on the affluence and competence of his or her local government.” Frum calls the American electoral system a “disgrace.”

Currently, most of the states of the Union do not require photo identification in order to grant access to everyone to the polling stations. On paper this sounds like a good anti-discrimination policy, but in reality it poses a high risk of electoral fraud. 

Meanwhile, states that implemented have been criticized as championing a tool of disenfranchisement against the poor. As a result, only 55% of Americans are able to vote nowadays. At first glance, the situation looks like a double-edge sword, but in fact the solution is as simple as effective: biometric authentication.

Biometric authentication systems are not a thing of the future: they have already been implemented in countries like Venezuela, Ghana, and Brazil. Even Mexico, one of America’s closest neighbors, has been able to register 95% of its population (77 million people) with the use of biometric identity cards. 

Recently, professor Robert A. Pastor wrote an article in the Los Angeles Times where he stated that implementing a biometric card not only could solve voter fraud but also it could help to tackle the delicate issue of illegal immigration. America faces a true challenge in its crusade to improve its voting process, and biometric authentication could be the first step to correct one of the many flaws that have hindered the Nation from becoming an example of efficiency in electoral administration.

Voter education: an opportunity for e-voting

Photo: Jan Lee

Voting is not a mechanical deed. It is the essential act that lays the foundations of Democracy, and therefore, it must be based on an educated choice. This means that all citizens have the right to know how an election works before casting their ballot. Voter education campaigns and efforts can help to engage and motivate the citizens and in doing so generate more participation.

Lack of information is one of the main reasons why people don’t attend the polling stations. This is true of any electoral platform. If people don’t know how to do it, they simply won’t. Since the authorities tend to believe that a centuries-old practice must be already deeply engrained in people’s psyche, there are no efforts to educate the electorate in the polling process. And what about new voters? Whose responsibility is it to introduce them to their role in their nation’s democracy? And above all, why assume that everyone should somehow know how to vote? 

The adoption of a new e-voting system in a country provides a unique chance to start over with a clean slate, that is, to do away with the conception that the election process is known by everyone. For this reason, it is vital to carry out all-pervasive education campaigns in order to bring the citizens to the polling stations and eliminate any doubts as to what to do when they get there. Venezuela achieved this with flying colors.

The implementation of e-voting in Venezuela was accompanied by drills, electoral fairs and media campaigns, which helped the electorate to become familiar with the new system. Every stage of the process was covered, and no region was left behind in the spread of knowledge of electronic suffrage. This caused the citizenry to feel included in the implementation process, and therefore the outcome was positive and voter turnout went on the rise. In fact, voters have taken only an average of one minute to vote with machines since their adoption in 2004, which attests to the success of the efforts to educate the citizens on their right to vote electronically.

It is natural for people to have doubts over the process of exerting their right to vote. The lack of electoral education is not a challenge, but an opportunity to engage people and to raise awareness on the importance of their participation in their country’s elections. Education on e-voting is education on democracy.

Voter biometric authentication - From Ghana to Venezuela

A Ghanian voter going through the
biometric verification process (Photo:UK in Ghana Flickr)

Although in this blog we promote the adoption of voting technologies as a mean to enhance efficiency and transparency, we understand the fact that having appropriate technology is not enough to guarantee success in election administration. A trouble-free implementation of the technology is paramount to achieve legitimate results. Also, the technology to be used on election day needs to be properly audited and tested, and mechanisms to solve unforeseen problems need to be developed. 

Two drastically different experiences serve to illustrate this point: the Venezuelan presidential elections held in October 7, and the December 7 elections in Ghana. 

In Venezuela, and for the first time in the history of elections, biometric devices were used to authenticate 100% of the voters. The elections ran smoothly, voting ended on time, and the results were published only two hours after polls closed. Opposition leaders conceded the defeat immediately. The very few problems encountered by voters on election day were solved according to a well designed contingency plan.

On the other hand, on December 7, Ghana headed back to the polls for the tenth election since democracy was reestablished in 1992. Although Ghana took an important step to increase electoral efficiency and transparency by automating this part of the electoral cycle, a poor implementation of the biometric system led to important setbacks that forced officials to extend voting for an extra day. According to the Coalition of Domestic Election Observers, 18% of polling stations across Ghana had some kind of problem with the biometric devices. In those regions were problems were reported, 33% of polling stations had difficulties. An inconvenience of this magnitude gave all the right to the opposition parties that lost the elections to complain, and served as basis to support their fraud claims. Political instability followed the elections, and post electoral violence erupted in certain cities. 

A few facts explain the different outcomes that biometric authentication had of in these two countries. In first place, the Venezuelan electoral commission was executing its eleventh automated election. The experienced gathered in eight years alongside Smartmatic, helped enormously. For Ghana, this was the first automation in their short democratic history.

Another determining factor was the fact that the Venezuelan platform was thoroughly revised prior to Election Day. More than 22 audits, tests and pilots were carried out in order to guarantee that the system worked properly. Technicians from all parties involved participated. In Ghana, the biometric platform was not sufficiently revised and that is one of the main arguments used  by opposition parties to explain the fraud allegedly committed. 

Also, in Venezuela, automation covered the entire election, from end-to-end, whereas in Ghana only the authentication relies on technology. Opposition parties claiming fraud in Ghana had little or no records to sustain their allegations. Authorities must ensure to build trust in the platform by allowing everyone to audit and review the system. Ghana and Venezuela are two good examples of what to do, and what not to do when it comes to automation.

E-voting will attest its value again in 2013

Image: Everystockphoto

Guiding the world through the path of automation is no easy task. Some countries have yet to learn some hard lessons with the use of archaic manual methods. In order for the nations to finally modernize their electoral systems, they need proof that e-voting is really the way to go. Last year we saw some impressive models of the effectiveness of voting technology —and the ineptitude of manual voting—, which should be enough to convince anybody of the need for electoral automation. However, it doesn’t stop there. Here are some of the aspects where e-voting will confirm its worth once again in 2013.

Reliability

Elections like the ones we saw last year in Russia, Ghana and Zimbabwe exposed the frailty of manual voting methods. With paper ballots, voters cannot be sure that their preference will be reflected in the results of the polls. Zimbabwe has a second chance to carry out a transparent electoral event now that it will be holding presidential elections this year, but since these will be carried out with manual methods, we might as well be expecting the same dreaded results that came out from last year’s internal referendum, if not worse. The recurrence of crimes such as ballot stuffing and identity theft breaks people’s trust in their electoral institutions. E-voting eliminates these problems easily. 

Speed

Elections need their results to be released to the public immediately after the closure of polling stations. The longer the announcement of final outcomes is delayed, the more the voters are prone to suspect their fairness. The chaos that took over the elections in Honduras should serve as a cautionary tale for other countries, as the final numbers for their November 18 primary elections were not known yet by the end of that month. This failure to deliver results on time could be immediately linked with corruption, which is unacceptable. Electoral technology does not allow for these inexplicable lags, as final results can be made public a few hours after closing the election. 

Security

Bringing back the Russian example, it is incredibly easy to breach security in manual elections. The implementation of transparent ballot boxes and more than 180,000 security web cameras did nothing to prevent the blatant occurrence of carousel voting and ballot stuffing during the March 2012 presidential elections. It becomes obvious then that any effort to eradicate electoral corruption paired with the use of manual methods is destined to fail.

Auditability 

When it comes to set an example about how audits can guarantee transparency to an electoral process, no country comes better than Venezuela. During last year’s Presidential election more than 16 audits certified the correct performance of the system before and after the election: from the voting machines, electronic ballots, and the biometric voter authentication system, to the transmission and totalization of the results. 

Accuracy 

For a voting system, accuracy is essential during the phases of voting, counting and transmission of results, so that the intention of every voter is respected and taken into account. Last year, Mongolians had the chance to employ an e-voting system that promised to be fast and reliable. However, the use of the Precinct-Count Optical Scanners (PCOS) developed by Dominion registered major inconsistencies between the electronic results in some precincts and the audits carried throughout, casting doubts about the credibility of the results.

2013 brings a new set of chances for electronic voting to attest its superiority over the dated and even dangerous manual voting methods. We hope to see more nations choose to successfully automate their elections in order to preserve the reliability, speed, accuracy, auditability and security of their electoral events.

2012: An electoral year in retrospective

Image: Freedigitalphotos

2012 was an exciting year for electronic voting and for democracy in general. Many countries around the world gathered their citizens around the polling stations, some of them using the advantages of electoral technology. Let’s take a look at some of the electoral highlights of the year:

March: Putin gets reelected in Russia

Amid accusations of fraud, Vladimir Putin was reelected Prime Minister of the Russian Federation with 60% of the votes. The NGO Golos, defender of transparency during elections, denounced more than 3,500 irregularities committed during the electoral event. The ruling party’s initiative to install more than 200,000 webcams at polling stations to gain credibility backfired because these actually registered several acts of bribery, ballot stuffing, carousel fraud, and misuse of voting coupons.

April: Burma moves forward on the road to democracy

Burma held parliamentary elections for the first time after 50 years of military oppression. Aung San Suu Kyi, the opposition leader who headed the fight for democracy in the country, warned about the setbacks that would emerge during the electoral event, such as damaged ballot cards and names missing from the register. These obstacles are typical of elections held with manual voting methods.

June: Mongolia debut a new voting system for Parliamentary elections

Mongolians went to the polls to select seventy six parliament seats using a new voting system: 2,446 Precinct-Count Optical Scanners (PCOS) were used across 1,905 precincts. In spite the benefits brought forth by automation, problems with the deployment and implementation of the voting technology, raised controversies regarding the validity of the result.

July: Elections in Mexico carried out with questionable electoral technology

Mexico was ready to take the leap from manual to automated voting last year, but leaving the automation process to an incompetent company was a huge mistake that threatened to leave the Latin American country completely devoid of the opportunity to modernize its electoral platform.

October: Brazil and Venezuela demonstrate the power of e-voting

Media outlets all around the world commended Venezuela for its use of electoral technology during their last presidential elections. Meanwhile, Brazil took the challenge of leading more than 140 million voters to the polling places to assign more than 5,500 posts through e-voting, and the challenge was swiftly overcome. These two countries offered proof that vote automation is crucial to carry out multiple elections at the same time with fast and reliable results.

November: USA reelects Obama

Americans attended the polling stations to reelect their incumbent president. Amid the confusing use of different voting methods between constituencies (encompassing both manual and electronic voting), and an audit system that is not exempt from failure, people elected Barack Obama for a second term. 

December: Ghana elects its President amid technical snags

Ghana embraced the modernization of its elections by implementing biometric authentication at the polling centers, but technical glitches led to long delays in some areas. In a tight race, incumbent president John Dramani Mahama of the National Democratic Congress defeated its rival Nana Akufo-Addo.

In 2013 we will be watching as nations around the world walk into the modernization of their elections and the improvement of their democracies.

The importance of biometric authentication today

Biometric authentication strengthens the security of e-voting
(Photo Smartmatic)

“One voter, one vote” is a principle central to the preservation of democracy. Based on it, governments have strived to improve their electoral systems. With the advent of electoral technology, biometric authentication has become a solution that prevents identity theft and vote stuffing. This system has already been used in Venezuela with excellent results, and it could be employed as well in the US.

For the past decade, Venezuela has been at the cutting edge of electoral technology and has continued to gain the admiration of the world with the implementation of new tools to reinforce its advantages. The technology used by the Latin American country at the presidential election this year guaranteed that the ballots cast reflected the intent of each real citizen who attended the polling stations. With the Integrated Authentication System (SAI), each voter had to be identified through a fingerprint scan in order to activate the machine and exert his or her right to suffrage. The procedure was always explained to each and every voter by a delegate from the polling station, and there were extensive drills before the elections to get citizens accustomed to the use of the machine.

Biometric authentication is not a terribly complex procedure, and yet it strengthens the security of e-voting and safeguards its transparency. As we’ve stated in previous posts, the simplest benefit of biometric identification is that it helps prevent dead people from voting, which is the oldest form of identity theft. For this reason, other countries have also begun to think about implementing this form of technology. In the US, the debate is on.

In spite of the recurring cases of fraud in US elections, some political sectors are convinced that requiring an ID at the polling station is equivalent to disenfranchising the minorities, who represent a significant portion of the voting population. As discussed here, it all boils down to a problem of balance between access and integrity. Are governments meant to grant access to suffrage to as many people as possible, even if many of these people will not be alive or even real when they are not required to confirm their identity in order to vote? If so, how can countries guarantee their citizens that their intent is being reflected in the results of their elections? How could the unrestricted access to vote—and fraud—aid in the construction and preservation of democracy?

Biometric authentication is not meant to be a weapon to disenfranchise citizens. On the contrary, it is a tool to give citizens the certainty and relief that it is their real voice that is being heard when election results are revealed. Now that Venezuelan elections using biometric authentication have been carried out with positive results, the US might want to look up how simple yet effective voter identity authentication has been.

Audits guaranteed transparency in Venezuelan elections

Diplomatic body accredited in Venezuela audited voting machines
(Photo AVN)

We’ve emphasized many times how important it is for elections processes carried out with e-voting to be audited in order to offer maximum reliability to both governmental institutions and citizens. Venezuela is a great example to follow in this matter, as this year it celebrated its presidential elections for the 2013-2019 period, and the voting platform used was subjected to multiple audits both before and after the electoral exercise.

According to the National Electoral Council (CNE), the highest electoral authority in the country, audits were performed on the following aspects of the election: voting machine manufacturing, e-voting software, machine pre-delivery check, infrastructure, biometric authentication system (SIA), production of the biometric authentication system, data transmission network, vote tallying, election closure, voting minutes, post-election phase, printed registries, and indelible ink. These inspections guaranteed the transparency of the election where incumbent President Hugo Chávez was reelected with 54% of the votes.

Pre-election audits were conducted from August 13th to October 6th, one day before the big event. The audits were performed by CNE representatives and delegates from the political parties. Some sectors were concerned about whether the voting machines would guarantee vote secrecy, but electoral technology is one step ahead, and audits proved that there was nothing to fear. The random reallocation of votes is the mechanism the machines use to maintain this crucial part of suffrage, and the auditors put it to the test exhaustively. Another noteworthy ingredient to add to the advantages of e-voting regarding its auditability is the fact that the voting machines print vote receipts on paper, which are used to confirm the results obtained electronically. Vote receipts also served as tools for citizens to become auditors as well. Post-election audits were carried out on October 8th, 15th and 16th.

Jimmy Carter, former US president and founder of the Carter Center, remarked that there is no electoral system in the world with as many audits as Venezuela. According to Carter, Venezuela’s electoral system is the world’s safest and most transparent, as its high-security mechanisms block any outside attempts of manipulation and citizens can verify through the vote receipts that their selection was stored in the machine.

The multiple guarantees regarding auditability that e-voting offers are, among other benefits, the reasons why it should be the cardinal method to carry out an election. The South American nation is a role model of democracy adopting technology.

Worldwide acclaim of Venezuelan e-voting

Flag, by Guillermo Esteves

All eyes were set on Venezuela last October 7th as its citizens elected their president for the next 6 years through electronic means. With 55% of the votes, Hugo Chávez was declared winner against Henrique Capriles. The event received the biggest citizen participation in history: 80% of Venezuelans voted at this election. After this massive date with democracy, media outlets all around the world gave their approval to electoral technology, as Venezuela proved that nationwide automated elections are possible.

“Venezuela and its society are leading the Latin American electoral processes and technology,” were the first words from Prensa Latina, a Cuban press agency, after the elections. Meanwhile, the Dominican newspaper Hoy announced that e-voting was “the key to peaceful elections in Venezuela.” The Jamaica Gleaner pointed out the difference between the Latin American secure e-voting system and that used by the US, which has proved controversial over time: “Venezuela's electronic voting system is secure, transparent, and auditable - with multiple audits, involving all political parties, being carried out at each stage in the process. Unlike the controversial 'Diebold' machines used in recent US national elections, each vote yields a tangible paper receipt for verification or recount, and there is no 'electronic back door' to permit manipulation of the tallies.”

US media outlets also had their say about Venezuela’s electoral technology. CounterPunch, an American political newsletter, declared: “Free and fair elections are only one feature of a democracy, but in Venezuela, elections have become something more—a national project which knows no party and constitutes a major investment.” The media outlet added that “CNE’s anti-hacking and multiple transparent audit and identity authentication systems have put to rest past opposition claims of fraud.”

The news traveled all the way to Asia, where voices of approbation were immediately heard. In the Philippines, The Manila Standard Today expressed admiration for the positive way the elections turned out in Venezuela.

To see that a Latin American country is teaching the world how to hold a successful automated election is truly remarkable. Venezuela certainly has given a lesson on democracy and become an example to follow. We hope it will be only a matter of time until other nations understand it and apply it as well.