Exploring The Merits of Electronic Voting

Electronic voting is an issue that carries a large amount of controversy. Many voters are wary of introducing technology into elections because of its vulnerability to fraud as well as concerns regarding privacy. Though these concerns are valid, there are measures that can be put in place to secure this as a viable option for elections to come. Electronic voting is a more simplistic and natural way to vote for today’s generation. This form of polling will, in the long run, ensure that each vote is counted in a fair manner.

Electronic voting was introduced in America in 1964 when it was used in seven counties on a trial basis. The punch card tally machine counted the ballots by assigning numbers to each candidate and scanning each punched card and tallying the number of votes. In 1974, the Direct Recording Electronic Voting Machine was patented and used commercially in Illinois and voters recorded responses, which were then tallied by computer. In 1975, the Voting Standards Program was introduced to evaluate the legitimacy of electronic voting systems. In 1990, the Federal Election Commission set a standard for electronic voting in Performance and Test Standards for Punchcard, Marksense and Direct Recording Electronic Voting Systems. The punch card system was used until the 2000 general election where Al Gore won the popular vote over George Bush, but lost the election due to over votes. The Help America Vote Act was passed in 2002, banning punch card voting. In 2003, computer programmers successfully hacked into DREs central databases where votes were counted. This event sparked the interest of computer programmers across the country that looked into the security of these systems. Black Box Voting, Inc. is a third party that was set up to show voters that these systems are not secure. They were able to demonstrate that they could hack into machines in Florida and alter vote counts. In 2006, HAVA put in place rules regarding over votes. Voters were notified when voting if they submitted an over vote. This review process ensures that voters are aware of any mistake in the voting process. The 2008 Presidential election went smoothly, but in 2012 the e-voting system in place was corrupted. A voter in Pennsylvania was able to record video of the system changing a vote for Barrack Obama to one for Mitt Romney. This video went viral and sparked conversation about voting fraud (Holreith).

The issues facing electronic voting can be solved with some simple steps that ensure the security of each vote. One way to ensure that problems like the vote changes in Pennsylvania is the use of paper receipts. If each voting station was equipped with receipt printers, voters could review their ballot, sign, and turn it into polling station workers. This way the voter could see the full list of people for which their vote was cast and ensure that it was recorded properly. The machines would also need to allow for voters to resubmit ballots that were cast improperly, which could be coded by computer programmers easily. In addition to this, voters are concerned about the privacy of their ballot. In 2006, computer programmers traced votes in the Netherlands to names. This alarmed voters and their Prime Minister outlawed electronic voting (Alters). Creating a numbered identification system easily solves this issue. Each registered voter could be assigned a random digit number with which they could sign into electronic polls. There the numbers would be encrypted and votes could be cast anonymously.

Technology today is quite advanced, and we have a whole new generation of bright computer scientists with the skills to create a secure platform for electronic voting. We have seen over the past years that privacy within technology can be an illusion. With the leak of everything from private government documents to personal photos of celebrities, we are aware of the abilities of today’s hackers. The flip side to this is that hackers can become a part of the solution. With people who dedicate their lives to gaining access to classified information comes a lot of knowledge. Hacker group, Anonymous, as well as Edward Snowden generally work toward creating more transparency. A group like this would most likely step up to help create a solution to corruption within the voting system.

In further support of electronic voting, Vice President Jim Dickinson of the American Association of People with Disabilities testified before the U.S. Election Assistance Committee that touch screen voting is the only way to ensure the privacy of peoples with disabilities(Dickinson). Those with disabilities may not be able to perform the necessary actions to cast a traditional paper ballot. By using a touchscreen, it allows for more voters with disabilities to feel comfortable going to polling stations, thus increasing voter turnout.

In addition to accommodating people with disabilities, it also promotes voter turnout for those whose native language is not English. Electronic voting is an adaptive platform that is easily programmed to accommodate other languages. This allows for voting stations to have the ballot available in a variety of languages without wasting paper. In the 2012 election, voter turnout among Latinos was 48% (Lopez). This demographic is consistently under represented due to this low ratio of voter turnout. This is largely caused by disenfranchisement due to the language barrier. Electronic voting machines would allow voters to view the ballot in their native language creating more clarity in the voting process. In addition, voters’ language of choice would remain anonymous in comparison to asking polling station managers for an alternative ballot. Implementing these voting machines would increase Americans representation by encouraging voters that are underrepresented to vote.

Another issue in the debate regarding electronic voting is that of bias toward the more technologically advanced. Many older people and those who do not use technology often may find the process intimidating. To ensure that this does not affect voter turnout, it is important to educate those unfamiliar with the interface. Voter education through on site demonstrations as well as assistance at the polls would allow voters to feel more at ease about the system. Furthermore, each polling station could supply alternatives to electronic voting such as paper ballots. As the baby boomer generation dies off, the generations to follow will more likely embrace the idea of electronic voting, as technology has become integral in daily life.

The controversy surrounding electronic voting is an issue of public trust of technology. With 40 years of history, voting systems have been successful in ensuring the accuracy and privacy of casted ballots. With today’s generation of creative and educated computer programmers, it is likely that this brain power can be put to use in ensuring measures are in place to secure voting machines. The electronic voting system enfranchises populations that are underrepresented in democracy. This system is more intuitive for those coming of age to vote, and would make the system more streamlined. It is essential to the ideals of democracy to ensure that each vote cast counts, and electronic voting ensures just that.

Works Cited

Alters, Maarten A., and Peter Kooreman. “More Evidence of the Effects of Voting Technology on Election Outcomes.” Public Choice 139.1 (2009): 159-70. JSTOR. Web. 3 Nov. 2014. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/40270752?seq=2&Search=yes&searchText=voting&searchText=electronic&list=hide&searchUri=/action/doBasicSearch?Query=electronic+voting&acc=on&wc=on&fc=off&prevSearch=&resultsServiceName=null>

Card, David, and Enrico Moretti. “Does Voting Technology Affect Election Outcomes? Touchscreen Voting and the 2004 Presidential Election.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 89.4 (2007): 660-73. JSTOR. Web. 3 Nov. 2014. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/40043092?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=electronic&searchText=voting&searchUri=/action/doBasicSearch?Query=electronic+voting&acc=on&wc=on&fc=off&gt;.

Dickinson, Jim, Dana DeBeauvoir, Ted Selker, PhD., and Michael Samos, PhD. “Top 10 Pros and Cons.” ProCon.org. ProCon. Web. 3 Nov. 2014. <http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000265&gt;.

Holreith PhD., Herman. “Historical Timeline- Voting Machines.” ProCon. Web. 3 Nov. 2014. <http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.timeline.php?timelineID=000021&gt;.

Hugo Lopez, Mark, and Ana Gonzalez-Barrera. “Inside the 2012 Latino Electorate.” Pew Research Center- Hispanic Trends Project. Pew Research Center, 3 June 2013. Web. 3 Nov. 2014. <http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/06/03/inside-the-2012-latino-electorate/&gt;.

Democratization in Egypt

Democracy is a multifaceted concept that has varying meanings in the context of different cultures. There are definitions that are structural, social, and some that lie in-between. For the purpose of this paper, Egypt will be analyzed with the definition given by scholar, Robert Dahl, which is one that is both structural and social. The most recent revolution occurred in 2011-2012 and is referred to as the Arab Spring[1]. This revolution has resulted in a more fair democratic system, but faces many issues in the future. The fate of democracy in Egypt is unclear, but it is likely that Egypt will not remain a democracy in the future because of the powerful forces working against the current system.

Political scientist, Robert Dahl, defines democracy in six parts. His definition is as follows:

Democracy provides opportunities for 1) effective participation, 2) equality in voting, 3) gaining enlightened understanding, 4) exercising final control [by the people–WR] over the agenda, and 5) inclusion of adults. The political institutions that are necessary to pursue these goals are 1) elected officials, 2) free, fair and frequent elections, 3) freedom of expression, 4) alternative sources of information, 5) associational autonomy, and 6) inclusive citizenship.[2]

When looking at the history of Egypt’s democratization, a definition that is both structural and social is essential. After the Revolution of 1952, headed by the Free Officers, the party created a civilian led government.[3] After months of this, all other political parties were banned, and any ground made toward democracy was lost. Due to this, as well as various military coups, it is essential to use a more inclusive definition of democracy. Though a country can hold elections in which each citizen has the right to vote, this does not constitute true democracy if there is no election oversight.

The factors that led to the Arab Spring include social, economic, and military issues. During the years leading up to 2011, many leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood were imprisoned and tortured by police. Police militarization has a long history in Egypt, and in 1952, police killed 20 protestors of the British state in Cairo. Leading up to the Arab Spring, police reacted poorly to protests, using more force than necessary. An example of the government overstepping their power comes from a conflict with Coptic Christian pig farmers. In May of 2009, the police ordered farmers to give up their pigs to be slaughtered during the swine flu epidemic. Farmers fought back, demanding that their property be returned. The issue came to a boiling point outside of a church in Cairo where police shot Christian protestors. The government was also failing the people in their foreign policy when in January of 2011, international smuggling in Ghaza became an issue of concern for citizens. The Arab Spring was caused by the government’s failure to listen to the people.

The Arab Spring began with President Hosni Mubarak being pressured to step down in January of 2011. Protestors had gathered in Tahrir Square in Cairo in thousands, protesting government corruption and the economy. On January 25^th, “Police used tear gas, water cannons and batons to disperse protesters in Cairo. Witnesses say that live ammunition was also fired into the air.”[4] This marked the turn from peaceful protest to a standoff between police forces and citizens. Three days later, Egyptians reported massive issues with Internet and cellular service. The government has attempted to stop the people from accessing media in an attempt to subdue protests. Troops were sent into major cities in Egypt to try to pressure protestors to leave, but protestors stood their ground and held off the advance of troops. Protesters began to camp out in tents in newly named Liberation Square. On February 11^th, 2011 after 29 years in power, Hosni Mubarak resigned as President and handed over power to the Egyptian Army.

This transition of power marked the beginning of a new era in Egyptian politics. Spirits in Liberation Square were high with hopes of democracy and freedom. Prime Minister Kamal al-Ganzouri was given power during this time of transition while the Egyptian Supreme Court set up the Supreme Presidential Election Committee. In March of 2011, Egyptians approved constitutional reforms that outline how elections would occur. During this time, five months of protesting occurred in Tahrir Square because of slow political process and military force was used to break up protests in August.

The Supreme Presidential Elections Commission was set up to govern the election. The Commission is headed by the head of the Supreme Constitutional Court and is made up of the head of the Cairo Appeals Court, the longest-serving deputies of the following courts: the Supreme Constitutional Court, the Appeals Court, and the State Council[5]. The guidelines put in place that satisfy Dahl’s definition of democracy are the following; If candidacy is rejected the candidate may appeal, all campaigning must follow certain guidelines such as not interfering with candidates’ personal lives, the candidate must not hurt state unity and must have religious indifference, and a campaign finance limit of EGP20 Million is put in place for campaigns[6]. Abeya Mohktar, PhD and Professor of Economics at The University of Cairo, wrote in an email correspondence about her experience voting in the election;

The voting process was both made available through election stations spread in neighborhoods. It was also available for Egyptians around the country to vote at the embassies. Inside the country, there were judges in each election station and there were also political and human rights representatives from the international committee observing the process.[7]

The implementation of judges and representatives serve as safe guards of the democratic process. This important step ensures the equality of the voting process, fair and free elections, and associational autonomy, which satisfy Dahl’s definition of democracy.

Mohamed Morsi won the first presidential election by a narrow margin, sparking questions of corruption. A court case was opened looking into the elections and was sent all the way to the Egyptian Supreme Court.[8] The new President set up a new form of government that veered from the democratic ideals of the revolution. Morsi made a crucial mistake in giving himself full legislative power without checks and balances. It was not long until the people saw the corruption in his administration and pushed for political change. In July of 2012, Morsi finally accepted the Supreme Court ruling that stated that the November 2011 elections were unfair.

So far, Egypt’s transition to democracy has been challenging. There are harsh guidelines in place for candidates that were made to exclude members of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Supreme Presidential Electoral Commission (SPEC) rejected ten candidates from the 2012 presidential election without reason. The guidelines also excluded those who are not formally educated, which excludes people who are not educated from having descriptive representation. During the 2012 election, there were allegations of rigging. The SPEC did not formally investigate ballot rigging, which violated Dahl’s definition of democracy because it may not have been a fair election.

Aside from structural issues, the issue of executive power needs to be addressed. On July 3^rd, 2013, democratically elected President Mohamed Morsi was overthrown and removed from power. General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi commanded power. Judge Adly Mansour then became acting president and governed until May 28th of 2014 when another presidential election commenced and Abdel Fattah el-Sisi was returned to power.

President el-Sisi has allegedly imprisoned 16,000 activists and journalists, which is in direct conflict with Dahl’s definition of democracy in that the people must have access to alternative sources of information.[9] He has also banned protests in Tahrir Square, which prevents people from having freedom of expression. Under el-Sisi’s rule, 683 members of the Muslim Brotherhood have been sentenced to death. In addition, during the el-Sisi administration, poverty and unemployment rates have been higher than they were prior to the revolution.[10] At a press conference following the 2014 election, three international observers were removed for voicing a concern over election rigging. This goes against the definition of democracy because the people do not have access to this varying media. It also shows that SPEC may not be overseeing the voting process sufficiently.

Ways to overcome these issues involve changes that would structure the election system and ensure executive powers. On Election Day, there should be more oversight and human rights advocates cannot be the only oversight preventing against election rigging. One way to circumvent this issue could be automated voting systems. For these to be effective there would need to be a paper trail to accompany the electronic vote. Electronic voting would help to ensure that each vote counts by eliminating under votes and over votes. Furthermore, the SPEC should institute laws regarding election rigging, and investigate any allegations.

Egypt’s potential for democracy hinges on four main factors; the first of which is the relationship between the government and society. This relationship includes civilian trust in their leaders, ability to participate, and governmental oversight. Egypt is “a country where the government has chronically neglected basic duties, in many cases leaving citizens to fend for themselves and find ways around laws and bureaucracy that hinder more than help.”[11] The second factor is the economy in relation to democracy. The revolution has not brought about economic success. For democracy to be possible, the current and future presidents of Egypt need to work with economists to institute a viable solution. The third factor is the social needs of civilians. Currently, the government is unable to follow through with social programs due to lack of funding. To deal with unemployment and a statewide energy crisis el-Sisi states that he will give citizens free trucks to deliver food and energy efficient light bulbs. When asked about the implementation of these initiatives el-Sisi responds with non-answers.[12] This may be improved contingent upon the improvement of the economy. The fourth factor is the effect of the army and militarization of democracy. Currently, the president is of military background and has strong ties so it seems as though it is unlikely for military coups to occur. In the future, it is important that checks and balances be put in place to ensure that the House of Representatives oversee military power.

Egypt has four years until the next election and if the SPEC enforces candidacy regulations that allow for competition, it is possible for democracy to continue. If many reforms are created to ensure that the election process is fair, democracy may come about. As Egypt stands today it does not fit Dahl’s definition of democracy; however the passion for change shown by the people in 2011 clearly shows that there is a strong desire for democracy and it is essential to overcome Egypt’s history of military oppression of democracy. The democratically elected leaders must maintain a commitment to democratic ideals and spread power throughout the branches of government. Some scholars believe that Egypt will become a functioning democracy, but this idea overestimates the will of the people within a highly militarized state. Due to the strong forces working against it, it is likely that Egypt will return to a dictatorship.

[1] Irshad, Ghazala. “Timeline: Egypt’s Political Transition.” Timeline: Egypt’s Political Transition. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Sept. 2014.

[2] Dahl, Robert A. On Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. 38 & 85.

[3] Botman, Selma.

[4] “Timeline: Egypt’s Revolution.” Al-Jazeera, October 19, 2014. Accessed October 30, 2014. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/01/201112515334871490.html.

[5] Brown, Nathan J. The Rule of Law in the Arab World: Courts in Egypt and the Gulf. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997. Print.

[6] Irshad, Ghazala.

[7] “Egypt’s Democracy Questions.” Message to Abeya Mohktar PhD. 27 Sept. 2014. E-mail.

[8] “Egypt Profile.” BBC, October 19, 2014. Accessed October 30, 2014. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-13315719.

[9] Kingsley, Patrick. “Abdel Fatah Al-Sisi Won 96.1% of Vote in Egypt Presidential Election, Say Officials.” The Guardian, June 3, 2014. Accessed October 30, 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/03/abdel-fatah-al-sisi-presidential-election-vote-egypt.

[10] Kingsley, Patrick.

[11] “Egyptian President Must Convince Public to Trust Government.” The Jordan Times, July 22, 2014, Business sec. Accessed October 26, 2014. http://jordantimes.com/egyptian-president-must-convince-public-to-trust-government.

[12] Kirkpatrick, David D. “Egypt’s New Strongman, Sisi Knows Best.” The New York Times, May 4, 2014. Accessed October 27, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/25/world/middleeast/egypts-new-autocrat-sisi-knows-best.html.