We’ve previously looked at what is electronic voting. Then we looked at the ethics of allowing voting using an electronic method. Now we’ll discuss the ethics of preventing the use of electronic voting. Most, as we will see, are because of the chance of tampering. They showed this in the clever Sci-Fi TV show Eureka where they required paper ballots to reduce the chance of tampering. (BTW side note – it’s a great TV show if you like to see how science (fiction) can go wrong. – The entire series is a comedy of errors, which is funny, and sometimes heart warming. I’m a fan if you can’t tell.)
So let’s look at some of the potential ethical issues.
Can you trust the results of electronic voting machines?
If you’ve seen anything with the 2020 election results, you know how Trump and many of his allies have said you cannot trust the voting machines. If everything is recorded internally, how can you test and know that the results are correct? https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-technology-voting-donald-trump-campaigns-46c9cf208687636b8eaa1864c35ab300
For example, you might have a test which you run though 1,000 ballots with a favoring of candidate A. You check to see if candidate A comes out on top by the correct amount. Then you test again, but this time you swap it so candidate B comes out on top, and once again checking the results. You can repeat this process over and over to verify the correct results. But could we fake this?
So let’s consider a situation where the company wants a candidate, let’s say candidate C, to win. How could they do that? Well, they could check the date, and on the date, provide results that favor this third candidate. While it might be obviously incorrect if the polling showed a disparate race. However, if candidates are close in the race, only a few percentage points off (where most polling you will notice has a margin of error of 4 to 5%), then you can adjust the outcomes.
So then how can you ensure that the results are what people really voted for? A simple solution is a backup paper copy which the voter can view, and then turn in. If the digital records are questioned, then you can review the hard copies for accuracy. They should match, and if so, then you can trust the results. Many early electronic voting machines provided no paper copy, now, most do, and therefore are most likely hard to tamper with.
For the record, I’ve used both, and I was always nervous with the electronic only. I definitely prefer a paper copy.
Some might say this is more of a legal issue. Which in many ways it is. But if you cannot trust the results of an election, can you say you had an open and fair election?
But what if the polling data was hacked? And what if the results information was so easy to hack, as child could do it? I mean, that wouldn’t be bad. Would it? https://futurism.com/the-byte/us-election-system-children-hack
One could also have an issue with a “bug” or software error in the counting. This occurred in the Robin Williams movie, Man of the Year.
What about Internet Voting?
Remember, under the pros of electronic voting was internet voting would allow more privacy, and hopefully more engagement with voters. (Remember only 68% of eligible people voted in 2020, which was a contentious election so one would expect a large voter turn out.) https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/01/turnout-in-u-s-has-soared-in-recent-elections-but-by-some-measures-still-trails-that-of-many-other-countries/
However, skipping the potential for vote tampering via:
- hijacking
- blocking election websites/servers
- identity fraud
… as those are all well issues, but not ethical issues but more legal ones. So what ethical issue could internet voting provide?
What about those who don’t have access to high speed internet? As we saw during Covid, parts of the US (both those of lower income levels and/or rural areas) may not have internet access, and even if they have access, it may not be high speed. Even with updates since then, it is estimated that over 40 million people don’t have access to high speed internet. That’s over 10% of the population. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/personal-finance/millions-lack-broadband-access/
Another ethical issue is: Could this disenfranchise older individuals who may feel overwhelmed by computers and electronics? – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5649151/
The Anonymous Ballot
One of the questions is could an electronic system track the user? If so, is this good or not?
Shouldn’t people be willing to stand up and publicly support a candidate? If you give a person your information, could and should they tie the voter to the ballot? This would allow a ballot to be removed if it was determined to be invalid for some reason (double voting, voting while deceased, etc). This is especially concerning given that electronic internet voting could make it easier, much like the old style of cooping which was done in the 1800s. https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/election-fraud-in-the-1800s-involved-kidnapping-and-forced-drinking
However, the notion of an anonymous ballot is synonymous with the US voting system. What would changing that do for our voting process?
Solutions?
These are three big, ethical, problems with electronic voting – especially internet voting. Let alone the legal issues.
That doesn’t mean it isn’t possible, or with considering. As with any technology we’ve looked at, we must consider all the factors, and determine what is best, and how to solve the problems we run into.
An Ethical Argument for Banning Digital Voting was originally found on Access 2 Learn
