VVSG 2.0 Becomes a Reality: First Voting System Certified Under New Guidelines

On July 10, 2025, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) announced a milestone years in the making: the first voting system has now been certified under the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) 2.0. With this certification—awarded to a system submitted by Hart InterCivic—VVSG 2.0 officially transitions from an aspirational blueprint to an operational reality for U.S. election administrators.

This moment provides the perfect opportunity to highlight how VVSG 2.0 is driving a new era of voter-centered election technology in the United States, turning long-standing principles into concrete, certifiable reality. 

Central to this shift is VVSG’s long-standing principle that voters—not machines or procedures—are the most important actors on Election Day. Designing a system that ensures that every voter gets to cast their ballot and that their choice is accurately captured preoccupies election managers in any modern democracy. The Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) is an important framework that places voters at the center of election design.

More than a technical standard, VVSG embodies a philosophy that combines accessibility, security, and transparency to ensure elections serve the people. 

The VVSG initiative traces its roots to the early 2000s, in the aftermath of the controversial 2000 U.S. presidential election. Issues with ballot counting, inconsistent machine performance, and accessibility challenges highlighted the urgent need for national standards. In response, the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 created the Federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC), tasked with overseeing election reforms and developing voluntary standards for voting systems. The first VVSG, released in 2005, focused on reliability, basic accessibility, and security, laying the foundation for a more uniform and trustworthy election process.

While early VVSG versions emphasized technical compliance, later iterations recognized that voter experience is equally critical. VVSG 1.1 and subsequent drafts expanded requirements for usability, accessibility, and transparency. Features like multilingual support, screen reader compatibility, and alternative input methods ensure that voters can cast ballots independently and confidently. By prioritizing the needs of real voters, the guidelines aim to reduce errors, shorten lines, and build confidence in electoral outcomes.

VVSG 2.0, the current standard, builds on these principles while integrating lessons from cybersecurity, usability research, and election audits. It requires voter-verifiable paper records, enabling independent audits and providing tangible evidence of every vote cast. Systems must meet strict security protocols, including encryption, access control, and secure software updates. Interoperability standards ensure machines from different vendors work seamlessly together, while modular designs allow jurisdictions to adopt new technologies without sacrificing integrity.

A concept closely associated with voter-centered design is software independence. This principle ensures that even if a system's software is compromised, the election outcome cannot be altered undetectably. VVSG 2.0 raises the bar for election system security and transparency by instituting software independence as a mandate. This pragmatic approach balances rigorous security with practical feasibility, making VVSG applicable across jurisdictions of varying sizes and resources. 

The development of VVSG has always been collaborative. Election officials, technology vendors, accessibility experts, and security researchers contribute to shaping the standards, ensuring they address real-world needs. This inclusive approach reinforces a fundamental truth: elections gain legitimacy when the systems supporting them are transparent, secure, and inclusive. 

From its origins responding to ballot controversies in 2000 to its current standards promoting security, accessibility, and auditability, VVSG gives shape to the principle that election technology must combine human-centered design with layered security measures to build a system serves democracy, not dictate it.

Holy Grail of Elections: Does Ranked Choice Voting Produce True Majority Winners?

Source: fairvote.org

In the ongoing search for electoral systems that meet the demands of modern democracies, ranked choice voting (RCV) is gaining momentum. Advocates present it as a smarter alternative to plurality voting—one that strengthens majority rule, reduces negative campaigning, and offers voters more meaningful choices. By ranking candidates rather than selecting just one, voters can express preferences more fully and support their ideal candidate without fear of "wasting" their vote.

Proponents also argue that RCV encourages a more diverse field of candidates, giving independents and third-party contenders a better chance to compete. Critics, however, caution that RCV may simply exchange old problems for new ones. They point to the complexity of ballots, the need for extensive voter education, and the risk of confusion or ballot errors, particularly in lower-information elections.

How RCV Works

RCV allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, the one with the fewest is eliminated. Ballots for that candidate are then redistributed based on the next-ranked choices. This continues until a candidate earns a majority of remaining active votes.

Why People Like It

Supporters say RCV more accurately reflects the will of the electorate. Under plurality systems, candidates can win with as little as 30–35% of the vote in crowded fields. RCV requires broader support, helping ensure that winners reflect a wider voter base.

Is It a "True Majority"?

A central debate around RCV is what constitutes a "majority." Because ballots that don’t list enough preferences can become “exhausted” and drop out before the final round, the winning candidate may achieve a majority of continuing ballots—but not a majority of all ballots cast. Whether this counts as a “true majority” depends on how one defines the electorate: by all participants or only those whose ballots remain active. Supporters emphasize that better ballot design and voter education can reduce exhaustion.

Complexity and Voter Understanding

RCV is more complex than single-choice voting and requires public education to ensure voters fill out their ballots correctly. Without proper outreach, voters may misunderstand the ranking process or leave ballots partially blank, leading to ballot exhaustion. However, in cities like San Francisco, Santa Fe, and Minneapolis, post-implementation studies have found high levels of voter understanding and confidence. A report by New America found that most voters in the US, even first-timers, say they understand how RCV works (New America report).

Impact on Campaigns

RCV may also influence how candidates campaign. Since being a second or third choice can help secure victory, candidates may be less likely to attack opponents and more likely to appeal to a broader coalition. While the actual impact varies across elections, many observers suggest that RCV can help foster more civil discourse.

Preventing Vote Splitting

RCV can help reduce vote-splitting, a common problem in plurality elections where similar candidates divide support and allow a less popular option to win. Under RCV, voters can support a preferred candidate without worrying about inadvertently helping their least preferred one. FairVote: RCV solves the "spoiler" problem.

Administrative Trade-Offs

Despite its benefits, RCV does bring administrative challenges. It can be more expensive to implement and slower to tabulate, especially in large races with many candidates. Multiple rounds of counting and the need for more sophisticated systems can raise concerns about transparency and trust. MIT Election Data + Science Lab report. 

• RCV in Global News New York City (2025 Democratic Mayoral Primary): Over a million voters used five-choice RCV. A SurveyUSA poll found 96% of voters said the ballot was easy to use.
• Australia (2025 Federal Election): Australia continues using RCV (instant-runoff) for House elections, reaffirming its status as a global model.
• Washington, D.C. (2024): Voters overwhelmingly approved RCV for local elections. Vox coverage.
• Portland, Oregon (2022): Voters approved RCV and a city government overhaul including a 12-member council. The Guardian.
• Alaska (2024): Voters rejected an RCV repeal, keeping their open primary + RCV system. Wikipedia summary.
• Ireland: Uses RCV for parliamentary elections.
• India: Uses RCV to elect the President and in some legislative council elections.
• Papua New Guinea: Uses Limited Preferential Voting (a form of RCV) since 2003 to promote stability and inclusion.

Is It the Holy Grail?

RCV offers meaningful improvements: it reduces vote-splitting, broadens voter expression, and may promote more civil campaigning. But it’s not a universal fix. It brings trade-offs in cost, complexity, and the definition of majority. As global examples from New York to Australia to India show, RCV can succeed with transparency, robust education, and thoughtful implementation.

No system is perfect. But for jurisdictions aiming to reflect the will of more voters in crowded fields, RCV remains a compelling option—worthy of continued study, testing, and refinement.

People’s Veto in the Digital Age: How Online Referendums Can Extend Participation Beyond Elections

The idea that citizens should have direct power to hold government accountable at all times gave rise to referendums. They remain as one of the most powerful expressions of direct democracy. From constitutional reforms to independence votes, referendums allow citizens to weigh in on major national decisions between election cycles.

In many democracies, citizens are increasingly turning to them as a way to influence policy and hold elected officials accountable beyond elections. Taiwan, for example, has seen a growing number of recall elections in recent years, the latest of which is set in July 2025. Recall elections and referendums share a key characteristic: they enable the electorate to exercise direct power over government.

In the digital age, this “people’s veto” is undergoing a quiet transformation. Spurred by new technologies and shifting expectations of civic participation, online referendums and recall elections promise to give the electorate an even louder voice in governance.

The emergence of secure online voting opens the door for a more agile form of direct democracy. Already, countries like Estonia and Mexico have successfully implemented internet voting, proving it’s possible to preserve both access and integrity in a digital format. As these technologies improve, it’s not hard to imagine a future where referendums, recall elections, and other citizen-led initiatives are conducted more frequently and conveniently—without requiring voters to visit physical polling places.

Such a future could lead to more responsive governance. Citizens could vote on key issues from their homes, participate in digital deliberations, and trigger recall votes when a critical mass of dissatisfaction is reached. When designed with robust safeguards—identity verification, cybersecurity, audit trails—online tools could make it easier for citizens to directly shape the direction of their communities and countries.

But this vision also comes with a caveat. The ease of digital engagement must not come at the expense of thoughtful debate. Populist waves, viral misinformation, or visceral decision-making could distort outcomes if checks and balances are not built in. Moreover, fair thresholds for initiating referendums and recalls must be determined and upheld to prevent their misuse or overuse.

Ultimately, the evolution of referendums reflects a more fundamental shift: citizens want more say, more often, and more conveniently. By harnessing the right digital tools and learning from real-world examples, democracies can move toward a future where direct participation becomes not just more feasible, but more meaningful. When used thoughtfully, such digital “people’s veto” serve as important safety valves in a democracy.

As the world reimagines democracy in the digital age, referendums may no longer be the exception—they could become the norm.

Bulgaria’s “Paper Coalition” and the Politics of Distrust in Voting Machines

 

In a new article published in the Swiss Political Science Review, political scientist Petar Bankov dissects one of Bulgaria’s most heated political debates of recent years: the fight over electronic voting machines. His analysis makes a striking claim—resistance to voting technology in Bulgaria was less about technical flaws and more about politics, identity, and power.

Bulgaria first introduced electronic voting machines to reduce the country’s chronic problems of spoiled ballots, vote-buying, and administrative chaos. Observers, including the OSCE, noted clear benefits: far fewer invalid votes, faster and more accurate preferential vote counting, and stronger safeguards against the kind of clientelism that had long plagued Bulgarian elections. For reform-minded parties—especially We Continue the Change (PP) and Democratic Bulgaria (DB)—machine voting, as they call the process of using electronic voting machines, was a symbol of modernization and part of a broader digitalization agenda that included efforts to build an Estonian-style e-government.

But these benefits came with political costs for some of the country’s older, more established parties. Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria (GERB), the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP), and the Movement for Rights and Freedoms (DPS)—long dominant players with deep offline networks—saw their ability to mobilize voters and exercise influence shrink.

Their base was less digitally savvy, and their campaign methods relied heavily on offline structures, local patronage, and in some cases practices that electronic voting made harder to sustain.

In late 2022, GERB, BSP, and DPS came together to reintroduce paper ballots alongside machines, forming what their opponents quickly branded the “paper coalition.” Reformist members of parliament mocked the alliance as clinging to paper like a lifeline, while commentators noted how the phrase instantly resonated with the public. The label highlighted what was really at stake: not the technical merits of voting machines, but the survival strategies of parties tied to the old political order.

Political scientist Bankov shows how the “paper coalition” justified its position with stories about distrust and disenfranchisement. BSP argued that machine voting discouraged elderly voters from participating. GERB and DPS suggested that the technology was vulnerable and unsafe, despite the lack of evidence. These claims—often misleading, sometimes outright disinformation—were repeated in parliament, in press conferences, and across sympathetic media.

The irony, as Bankov notes, is that these arguments ignored the evidence. Surveys showed most Bulgarians supported machine voting. Statistics confirmed that invalid ballots had plummeted when machines were used exclusively. Even BSP’s claims about alienated older voters rang hollow, since many were already adept with ATMs and messaging apps. Yet the paper coalition succeeded. By December 2022, the Bulgarian parliament had passed reforms that drastically reduced the role of electronic voting, limiting the machines to producing paper slips that then had to be counted manually, eliminating their key advantages for accuracy and security.

What does this episode tell us? According to Bankov, the fight over voting machines in Bulgaria was never a purely technical debate about electoral efficiency. It was a battle over political identity and survival. Parties with little digital presence and offline mobilization strategies resisted a reform that undercut their traditional advantages. To do so, they deployed narratives—anchored in distrust, conspiracy, and nostalgia—that overshadowed empirical evidence of the machines’ benefits.

In short, Bulgaria’s “paper coalition” shows how electoral modernization can be trumped not by technology’s limits, but by political calculation. When digital reforms threaten entrenched interests, disinformation and fear can be powerful tools to roll them back—even at the expense of a fairer and more reliable vote.