iVoted

With the election coming up, people are once again asking why we don't have online voting. Lots of people think making voting more convenient would finally stem the tide of decreasing voter turn-out.

Techie people seem to be of two minds when this subject comes up. Some will exhaustedly explain that, yes, we can do it without security problems. Others will shudder with fear at the mere mention of the possibility of online voting. I'm in that second group, so allow me to explain our case, and why people with the same knowledge can come to such different conclusions.

The problem is the difference between what can be done and what likely will be done. It's like at McDonald's: you might get a Big Mac that looks like the picture on the menu - there's no reason that it won't look like that. But in practice, it almost certainly won't.

And with software, it can be secure, but it probably won't be. One thing I've learned is that you can't assume software is safe. Because I'm all about analogies: let's say you're buying a car. If you're like me, you'd like a reasonably safe car. And yet, I probably wouldn't put much effort into ensuring the car I choose is safe. How does that make any sense? Because I know there's a lot of infrastructure making sure all cars are fairly safe. There are regulations, government testers, watchdog groups etc. Yes, I could do some research to make sure I get the safest car available, but I know that I can get away with not doing that research, because in our world even the least-safe car is still pretty safe.

But that's exactly the sort of assumption you can't make in software. There's little regulation and independent testing, so you can't assume anything. That's not to say that all software is insecure; but if you're getting custom software made and you want it to be secure, you'll have to specify that you want security, and pay extra for it.

And that's why I'm uneasy about online voting. That other group of techies is right: we can make a safe and secure online voting system. But it's unlikely that the bureaucrats and politicians that would have to oversee the project would know how much they'll have to push to get it made right. And in the world of government contracts, where it's either take-the-low-bid or take-the-lowest-bid-that-has-connections, it's pretty certain they won't be putting the needed money into the project. If you look to the U.S. and the low quality of their voting machines, I don't like our chances with online voting.

(Pause while I remove my computer geek hat and put on my amateur political pundit hat)

And I seriously doubt that online voting would even increase voter turn-out anyway. After all, voting is pretty convenient. Or at least, it’s as convenient as many of the other errands we run. The point is, if you care about politics, the act of voting is not asking a lot. There can’t be many people who truly care about the outcome of an election but can’t spare the fifteen minutes or so to take part. The fact is, the declining number of voters is due to people’s losing interest in, or knowledge of, politics. That’s what we have to fix; reducing the time to vote from fifteen minutes to one isn’t going to coax a vote out of someone with no concern for the political state of the country.

And that’s why I don’t want to see online voting anytime soon: It will be more dangerous than it has to be, and will not accomplish the results people want. Having said this, there are other premises for promoting it: After all, it would be a boon for people with physical challenges, or those in rural areas. On those grounds, perhaps we should weigh the costs and benefits. But if it’s just about enticing the elusive non-voter, then it’s not worth it.