Reviewing the 2015 UK General Election

The general election in the United Kingdom wrapped up early last month with Prime Minister David Cameron being selected for another term and the Conservative Party earning a majority in the Commons with 331 total seats. This was a shock to many political pundits and analysts, but more relevant to the context of this blog, much can be said about the continuing development and implementation of electronic voting technology in the 2015 UK election.

Leading up to the general election, there was much discussion about the future of elections in the United Kingdom particularly in terms of the adoption of electronic voter registration, electronic voting and even Internet voting. This continues to spark an ongoing debate about modernizing the democracy and bringing it up to the 21^st century. It has been said that the more widespread use of technology in the democratic process would encourage greater citizen participation, particularly among the younger demographic. Recommendations have included the implementation of a two-step verification process for voter authentication and the creation of a central voting website.

But these are looking ahead to the future with an optimistic outlook of implementation in time for the 2020 General Election. What actually happened with the 2015 General Election? The United Kingdom has made significant strides, particularly when it came to an online system for voter registration. A last-minute rush saw nearly 470,000 people register online in just a 24 hour period, breaking the all-time record.

Despite progress in enabling the people of the United Kingdom to add their names to the official voter roll via the Internet, such progress was not witnessed to the same extent in other areas of modernizing the British election.

For Britons who are currently living abroad, the process for casting a ballot is frustrating and time-intensive. It takes so long, in fact, that many such individuals could not participate in the 2015 General Election because their postal ballots did not arrive in time. This is despite registering as much as two months in advance for individuals living as nearby as the Czech Republic or Spain. “Large number of citizens abroad,” said expat voting rights blogger Brian Cave, “have not received any ballot papers for the election.”

A secure online voting system with proper voter authentication could have overcome this major problem.

Even when voting in person, the UK electoral infrastructure faced significant challenges. Some polling stations had to turn away many voters who indeed had their polling cards but were not showing up in the electoral roll due to IT glitches. The voting systems need to have the proper audits and checks in place so that such errors simply do not occur. An electronic polling station connected to the central database could have rectified such issues.

Another fatal flaw of traditional paper ballot-based voting is the increased likelihood for spoilt ballots. This was precisely the case in the recent UK elections as an estimated 27,500 ballots were rejected, mostly because these voters ticked more than one candidate. Because of the secret ballot, the voters whose ballots were rejected were never informed that their vote would not count. This “voter confusion” could be avoided with a well-designed direct-recording electronic voting machine, as the software would be configured to accept only the correct number of inputs from the voter.

Looking ahead to the next General Election in a few years, the electoral officials in the United Kingdom still have a lot of work to do. Thankfully, they have some time to work out these problems and to start developing and implementing better, more modern solutions for casting a ballot. Internet voting, which 63% of those polled by YouGov stated would boost voter turnout, should be seriously considered. The UK would also benefit from better systems for the electoral roll, as well as the move toward offering direct-recording electronic voting machines in lieu of paper ballots. Democracy can only work when the infrastructure is working at its best.

The self-interest problem: Why some people want a return to flawed manual elections

Image: http://www.liberadio.com

Electronic voting is the future of democracy. An ever-increasing number of countries around the world like Belgium, the US, Venezuela, Mongolia and the Philippines have seen their democratic institutions grow even stronger after abandoning the flawed manual elections and started benefiting from voting’s fast, accurate, and transparent results.

Still, more countries are either already conducting pilot tests or preparing enabling laws for a shift to e-voting.

With all the clear advantages of automating the elections, it does boggle the mind why anyone would still want to return to slow and fraud-ridden manual elections. Yet perhaps the key to understanding the puzzle lies in the very success of e-voting.

Automated elections make such an almost perfect job of eliminating fraud that the people who have made great fortunes rigging elections have suddenly been left holding empty bags, and very much upset.

In the Philippines, poll operators had, for decades, been making a living off politicians  employing the infamous “dagdag-bawas” (add-subtract) scheme, where the highest bidder can be made to win by addition of votes to his total and where the hapless opponent can be made to lose by shaving votes off his or her total.

In 2010, however, these fraudsters have been shoved out from the money train when the Philippines started automating its elections. They were out of jobs overnight. And they are not taking this sitting down.

Yet the legally-instituted e-voting system is not only facing attacks from these disenfranchised poll operators but also from a group headed by a disgruntled ex-commissioner of the poll body. This ex-official, reliable sources confirm, has long been trying to sell his own version of an election system. Unfortunately for this ex-official, his system is part-automated and part-manual, a hybrid that is expressly forbidden in the Election Automation Law of the Philippines.

This does not, however, deter this ex-official in pushing for his selfish agenda, and takes every chance he gets to cast doubts on the reliability and credibility of e-voting.

Many Filipino voters are crying foul over these selfish agenda threatening to undo the gains brought about by election automation. After all, automation brought political stability to the country, a development which directly caused investor confidence to soar at all-time high, and had also led to a surge in foreign and local investments. 

It was also no coincidence that Fitch and Standard & Poor’s have found it fit to upgrade the Philippines to investment grade. It was still less of a coincidence that the country’s economy grew 7.8%, making it the fastest expanding economy in Southeast Asia, even outstripping China’s 7.7% growth.

The stabilizing effects of e-voting in any country cannot be dismissed. It is up to concerned voters to be vigilant so as to ensure that their democracy is not put at the mercy of self-interests.

Vote or be fined: Should voting be compulsory?

Image: www.bitetheballot.co.uk

If you’re like most people, you’d likely laugh off the idea of compulsory voting as completely strange if not downright preposterous. But you would be surprised to find out that many countries around the world are already penalizing citizens for not exercising their right to vote. Australia, in fact, has had compulsory voting for 101 years!

In an effort to curb voter apathy and increase turnout, the Australian Election Commission under has resorted to slapping election boycotters with fines. Although the 20AUD penalty probably won’t bankrupt anyone, it does goes against the common belief that exercising or not one’s right of suffrage is a choice which the voter makes all by himself. 

But why did high voter turnout become such a Holy Grail that Election Commissions are bending over backwards to achieve it? Why is it terribly important that a large numbers of voters cast their ballots? 

Low turnout equals a smaller mandate for the elected officials. With no overwhelming majority of the electorate casting their ballots, doubts could be raised about the elections not reflecting the actual will of the people. Needless to say, this is a situation that any Election Commission would rather not find itself in.

Aside from achieving high turnout, proponents of compulsory voting argue that is a civic duty very much like paying taxes, jury duty, or military conscription. Moreover, they aver that compulsory voting guarantees that the entire electorate is involved in policy formulation. Another important consideration is the way compulsory voting frees the candidates to focus on issues rather than encouraging voter participation.

Proponents also claim that since voting is by secret ballot, the voter isn't actually forced to vote for anyone and that no liberties are violated.

Opponents, on the other hand, argue that compulsory voting is undemocratic as it impinges on one’s liberty to decide on his own whether or not to exercise the right to suffrage. More insidiously, forcing everyone to vote means the ill-informed and those with terribly low interest in governance are also forced to participate which could lead to increased number of “donkey votes” and informal votes. Ironically, this could also result in an election that does not truly reflect the will of the electorate.

Promoting inclusion and participation with e-voting

Image: FreeDigitalPhotos

One of the numerous advantages of a properly implemented e-voting system is that it promotes inclusion and broadens the range of citizens that can partake in Democracy, since its technical characteristics make it easier for the electorate to exert their right to suffrage. Paired with educational campaigns, e-voting can help to increase voter turnout. E-voting’s achievement in encouraging inclusion and participation can be reflected in three important stages: implementation, registration, and the act of voting itself.

Successful implementation of a new electoral platform relies heavily on properly stimulating participation and overcoming resistance to change. Some people might find a new technology confusing and therefore not vote, but such an effect should disappear as soon as they become familiar with the new system. This is why it is vital to set up campaigns to familiarize the electorate with the voting technology and cast away myths or any apprehensions. The Philippines are a good example of a successful implementation campaign. In 2010, the country embarked on a voter education journey to familiarize the electorate with tits newly implemented electronic voting platform. The nationwide campaign permeated all media, both traditional (press, radio, TV) and new (social networks, cartoons), and it pointed at traditional Filipino cultural values to make citizens feel identified and included. This stimulated people to vote, as they felt identified with the new technology and did not perceive it as something incomprehensible and alien to them.

At the voter registration level, biometric authentication solves the problem of registration deadlines, which pose a significant barrier to voting. 87 percent of Americans live in states that shut down registration two or more weeks before Election Day. Some voters are completely unaware of these deadlines and believe they still have time to register and vote even as the polling stations close. With biometric authentication, voters just need their thumbprint to be scanned by the biometric device in order to enable their voting session. The use of biometric authentication also solves another critical problem at polling stations: the requirement for an ID for voters, which is considered a form of disenfranchisement for minorities.

Finally, when it comes to the act of casting ballots, no method equals e-voting in inclusion and equality. Some models of electoral technology nowadays are equipped with functionalities that enable suffrage for voters with sensory and motor disabilities. This guarantees that no voter is left behind for any reason.

A properly implemented e-voting system not only eliminates the risk of fraud, but it also ensures that Democracy is perpetuated. With e-voting, all citizens feel included and are thus compelled to participate more. This way, no matter the outcome, the whole country wins.

Election administration in the US and the challenges ahead

Image: PEW Website

Today it is no secret to anyone that the US election administrators have a daunting challenge ahead of them. Since the butterfly ballot scandal caught worldwide attention and surfaced the obsolescence of its voting systems, elections in the US have been surrounded by controversy.

Fortunately, the demand for better electoral processes is finding interesting responses from both, Government related organisms (Electoral Assistance Commission) and the non-government sector. The body of knowledge being developed by these organizations will certainly disseminate better practices and improve how elections are run across all states.

The PEW Charitable Trust is one of these organizations promoting clean, transparent and efficient elections. A recent research project by this ONG, labeled The First Comprehensive Assessment of Election Administration Across the Nation, pinpoints the obstacles in the road to better run elections.

One of the most interesting ideas emanating from that initiative is the Elections Performance Index (EPI). The EPI was developed with the intent to provide election officials and policymakers with a tool to help them benchmark their performance, as well as assess which policies are working effectively.

Using 17 criteria the EPI analyzed the 2008 and 2010 elections across 50 states. Factors such as wait time, lost votes, availability of online voting information, voter turnout, accuracy of technology, among others, allowed the to assess the state of the US electoral system, and indicate a path to improve election administration.

The results obtained in the study, and the obvious next steps emanating from this initiative, come at very important moment. With the next election two years away, and the re-elected president willing to endorse the necessary changes, the US is in an important position to face and conquer the challenges ahead.