uring the most uncertain period in American history, the United States doubled-down on its reliance on the latest technologies and administrative capabilities to revolutionize the way its elections were carried out for all coming time. That period was, of course, the Civil War, and the election was that of 1864. The innovation that enabled a new kind of election—indeed a new kind of voter—was mail-in, absentee voting, made possible by the United States Postal Service. This system was pioneered to allow Union soldiers entrenched hundreds of miles from their homes to remain enfranchised during the horrors of war, and, in 1864, mail-in votes that came in from the front lines were decisive in re-electing America’s greatest president to his second term.
The world’s democracies stand at a similar moment of disruption and transformation, one that either has or soon will demand a rethinking of why such an essential component of freedom and modern life—voting—is still executed through tools and processes that have not been “modern” for centuries. Parents, politicians, and pundits alike are left shrugging their shoulders when forced to explain why, in 2020, our votes cannot yet be cast via the internet.
We do everything on our phones now, don’t we? Such questions, once rhetorical, shed a most urgent light on yet another set of public policies aching to transform into something better. To answer this question in a way that points toward a most productive way forward, it is essential to first understand the state of electronic voting today.
The truth most universally acknowledged about global electronic and internet voting is that, in this arena, one nation stands head-and-shoulders above the rest: Estonia. The tiny Baltic republic has made voting via the internet available to its population of roughly 1.3 million since 2005. While other (albeit larger) democracies have piloted such approaches for specific election cycles, and for specific blocks of voters with mixed results, Estonia has set the pace for the remainder of the free world by enabling safe, accessible, and trustworthy elections in which voters can participate from their own homes with the click of a button.
Cueing the necessary conversation on the risks associated with casting votes online—a space of policy criticism where opinions flow freely—it is important to rebut them with a few points even those skeptical of online voting must concede.
First, the very democracies that suggest such voting procedures are not yet secure enough to trust are often the same that pioneered their use for diplomats and militaries stationed abroad. It is hard to determine whether any system is secure because security is largely in the eye of the beholder. A better question than whether a system is completely secure at present is to ask whether it is more secure than its antiquated, public health-threatening alternatives, and weigh the balance. If a process is safe enough to introduce globally, and remotely, to a nation’s most at-risk citizenry, in the world’s most hostile territories, why wouldn’t it be safe to use at home? If Amazon’s cloud infrastructure is secure enough to support the work of a nation’s intelligence agencies, why wouldn’t it be able to safeguard data relating to an election?
Second, the digital world has enabled the expansion of management functionality beyond physical constraints. Security is and must remain paramount to those administering elections at every level of government, and the legitimate concerns of cybersecurity experts must be weighed in for any tangible changes to such a critical component of democracy. But the advantages to both governments and citizens to have elections administered via digital, secure, “one-stop-shops” that provide the added bonus of universal auditability, registration verification, and historical reference surely outweigh the issues surrounding the enhanced and ongoing maintenance and security of such platforms. In an era where risk exists on every surface in our homes, and in every molecule we breathe, the simple fact that digital transformation of election processes introduces certain new risks is not enough to justify forestalling its adoption.
Lastly, and in greater solidarity with those insisting on a thorough and careful approach to electoral digital transformation, moments like that which we’re living through do not come around often, and getting change wrong is perhaps even worse than not pursuing change at all.
The United States finds itself at a particularly critical crossroads on this front, with calls to replace outdated election technologies arising long before the destabilization of COVID-19 took effect. The options for electronic voting in use around the world are extensive, and basic literacy on this subject is the first step for citizens themselves to decide what systems and approaches they are most comfortable with, as well as what aligns most with their values and the democratic process. It is urgently important that the United States and other proud democracies seize the opportunity to reimagine their electoral processes in ways that enfranchise more voters, while maintaining security standards necessary to fend off bad actors with access to the latest malevolent tools and techniques.
The world’s democracies have long histories of holding elections during moments of great strife and difficulty. Wars, famines, depressions, periods of civil unrest, even deadly pandemics have (thus far) not been enough to disenfranchise free people of their right to govern themselves. Despite the myriad ways in which technology has already transformed governments, industries, and our daily lives, enhancing the administration of national and sub-national elections may prove the most consequential technology and cybersecurity policy achievement of this age.
The Union soldiers who cast America’s first absentee ballots during the Civil War fought and died for the men beside them, and for precious, perilous moments of their lives they wished to preserve. But because they fought for freedom, and for the future of democratically elected governments everywhere, it can be said they fought and died for this moment too. This generation, and generations of voters to come, will demand a new kind of voting experience, but their demand to stand up and be counted is a desire as old as democracy itself.
a global affairs media network
Modernizing Election Administration Is the Most Consequential Tech and Cyber Issue of Our Time
October 29, 2020
D
uring the most uncertain period in American history, the United States doubled-down on its reliance on the latest technologies and administrative capabilities to revolutionize the way its elections were carried out for all coming time. That period was, of course, the Civil War, and the election was that of 1864. The innovation that enabled a new kind of election—indeed a new kind of voter—was mail-in, absentee voting, made possible by the United States Postal Service. This system was pioneered to allow Union soldiers entrenched hundreds of miles from their homes to remain enfranchised during the horrors of war, and, in 1864, mail-in votes that came in from the front lines were decisive in re-electing America’s greatest president to his second term.
The world’s democracies stand at a similar moment of disruption and transformation, one that either has or soon will demand a rethinking of why such an essential component of freedom and modern life—voting—is still executed through tools and processes that have not been “modern” for centuries. Parents, politicians, and pundits alike are left shrugging their shoulders when forced to explain why, in 2020, our votes cannot yet be cast via the internet.
We do everything on our phones now, don’t we? Such questions, once rhetorical, shed a most urgent light on yet another set of public policies aching to transform into something better. To answer this question in a way that points toward a most productive way forward, it is essential to first understand the state of electronic voting today.
The truth most universally acknowledged about global electronic and internet voting is that, in this arena, one nation stands head-and-shoulders above the rest: Estonia. The tiny Baltic republic has made voting via the internet available to its population of roughly 1.3 million since 2005. While other (albeit larger) democracies have piloted such approaches for specific election cycles, and for specific blocks of voters with mixed results, Estonia has set the pace for the remainder of the free world by enabling safe, accessible, and trustworthy elections in which voters can participate from their own homes with the click of a button.
Cueing the necessary conversation on the risks associated with casting votes online—a space of policy criticism where opinions flow freely—it is important to rebut them with a few points even those skeptical of online voting must concede.
First, the very democracies that suggest such voting procedures are not yet secure enough to trust are often the same that pioneered their use for diplomats and militaries stationed abroad. It is hard to determine whether any system is secure because security is largely in the eye of the beholder. A better question than whether a system is completely secure at present is to ask whether it is more secure than its antiquated, public health-threatening alternatives, and weigh the balance. If a process is safe enough to introduce globally, and remotely, to a nation’s most at-risk citizenry, in the world’s most hostile territories, why wouldn’t it be safe to use at home? If Amazon’s cloud infrastructure is secure enough to support the work of a nation’s intelligence agencies, why wouldn’t it be able to safeguard data relating to an election?
Second, the digital world has enabled the expansion of management functionality beyond physical constraints. Security is and must remain paramount to those administering elections at every level of government, and the legitimate concerns of cybersecurity experts must be weighed in for any tangible changes to such a critical component of democracy. But the advantages to both governments and citizens to have elections administered via digital, secure, “one-stop-shops” that provide the added bonus of universal auditability, registration verification, and historical reference surely outweigh the issues surrounding the enhanced and ongoing maintenance and security of such platforms. In an era where risk exists on every surface in our homes, and in every molecule we breathe, the simple fact that digital transformation of election processes introduces certain new risks is not enough to justify forestalling its adoption.
Lastly, and in greater solidarity with those insisting on a thorough and careful approach to electoral digital transformation, moments like that which we’re living through do not come around often, and getting change wrong is perhaps even worse than not pursuing change at all.
The United States finds itself at a particularly critical crossroads on this front, with calls to replace outdated election technologies arising long before the destabilization of COVID-19 took effect. The options for electronic voting in use around the world are extensive, and basic literacy on this subject is the first step for citizens themselves to decide what systems and approaches they are most comfortable with, as well as what aligns most with their values and the democratic process. It is urgently important that the United States and other proud democracies seize the opportunity to reimagine their electoral processes in ways that enfranchise more voters, while maintaining security standards necessary to fend off bad actors with access to the latest malevolent tools and techniques.
The world’s democracies have long histories of holding elections during moments of great strife and difficulty. Wars, famines, depressions, periods of civil unrest, even deadly pandemics have (thus far) not been enough to disenfranchise free people of their right to govern themselves. Despite the myriad ways in which technology has already transformed governments, industries, and our daily lives, enhancing the administration of national and sub-national elections may prove the most consequential technology and cybersecurity policy achievement of this age.
The Union soldiers who cast America’s first absentee ballots during the Civil War fought and died for the men beside them, and for precious, perilous moments of their lives they wished to preserve. But because they fought for freedom, and for the future of democratically elected governments everywhere, it can be said they fought and died for this moment too. This generation, and generations of voters to come, will demand a new kind of voting experience, but their demand to stand up and be counted is a desire as old as democracy itself.
