Author Archives: JD

Egyptian government to introduce e-voting system, ensure future allegations of fraud

I’ve previously praised Estonia’s internet voting system, not so much for the concept (unnecessary) , but their execution.  Internet voting is fraught with challenges and Estonia has done an admirable job of creating a system that addresses them.   But it’s not easy to administer an e-voting system; Estonia had to rewrite laws and spend considerable effort to make theirs work.  So I got a little scared today when I read that Egypt was planning on introducing an electronic voting system for their upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections.

Electronic voting can mean both internet voting, or simply automated machines; it’s not clear what they are referring to here.  The mention of Egyptians overseas voting leads me to believe they are talking about internet voting, which would be a disaster.  This could, of course, simply mean automated voting, which would be slightly less of a disaster.   Indonesia, the Philippines and India are all examples of non-Western democracies that have implemented automated voting; the success of such programs is subjective, but generally acknowledged.   All of those processes, however, took considerable time to develop (not five months!).  While I have heard that India was advising Egypt on election administration, I find it hard to believe they would recommend moving to this system so quickly.

This leads me to believe they may actually be thinking about internet voting.   This actually might be better than an automated system, as it would not require buying thousands of machines (and training people how to use them).  Internet voting, however, is far from secure.  I would also think a high profile election like Egypt’s would attract top hacker talent  – some political, some bored teenagers – from around the world.  So don’t’ be surprised if internet votes make Ruby the next president of Egypt.

False-residency election fraud

In which I sound like a Neocon

Elections in E-stonia

Election Observations

Internet Voting in Estonia

I have a new post over at ElectionGuide.org detailing the upcoming election in Estonia.  It’s a basic rundown of the election that discusses, among other things, Estonia’s innovative Internet voting system.  I think  it’s a fair question to ask if anybody really needs internet voting, and if the potential costs are really worth anything gained.  Regardless of the answer to that, I believe Estonia has done an impressive job of making their system as secure and safe as can be.  Take, for example, their solution to the problem of vote buying.   The privacy of a voting booth, if executed correctly, can destroy much of the potential for vote buying.  This is because it makes it difficult for a vote-buyer to verify how a ballot was actually cast. (Yes there are ways around this, that’s why I said “if executed correctly”).  This protection would be lost with the ability to vote from anywhere at anytime.   Estonia, however, has found a solution to this.

To address this problem, Estonian officials came up with an innovative solution:  an elector can cast as many internet votes as they like in the allotted timeframe, but only the last vote will count.  In addition, an elector may still cast a paper ballot on election day, which will void all previous votes cast through the internet. This setup destroys the incentive for a vote buyer to purchase a vote, as they have no guarantee that the voter cannot simply change it at a later time

I would also add that this goes above and beyond the state of Washington, which votes entirely by mail, and is theoretically subject to the same level of vote buying.

How not to talk about the impact of social media

I’m an agnostic on the role of social media.  I think that while such technology doesn’t overthrow governments by itself, it does change basic interaction between humans, which is worth studying.  I respect arguments for or against the causal impact of such tools, as long as they are not made based on anecdotal evidence.  Here is an example of a phenomenon I see a lot in this debate, I call it the faux-realist tactic.  It involves trying to be the edgy, cynical one, without actually developing an argument, or badly misinterpreting what other people are saying.  From Gideon Rachman at the Financial Times.

The commentary about the role of social media in Egypt has become so breathless that it is easy to forget that the French managed to storm the Bastille without the help of Twitter – and the Bolsheviks took the Winter Palace without pausing to post photos of each other on Facebook.

Got it?  Revolutions have happened before social media, therefore we can assume social media played no role in this uprising.  Also, I think we can safely say that tanks, the atomic bomb, aircraft carriers, and airplanes played no role in winning World War II.  After all, people had been winning wars for thousands of years without such tools!

No one could have predicted this

Internal Alliances Collapsing

Not Business as Usual in Egypt