Why Online Voting is a Good Idea

Much debate has been raised recently about the wisdom of online and electronic voting. Much of it has been confused by ignorance and fear of technology. As an “amateur expert” in computer technology and information security, I can say with confidence that electronic voting systems are inherently more secure, accurate, and less tolerant of tampering than any paper-based system could ever be.

Let’s examine some arguments against online voting, as the most commonly attacked version of electronic voting:

No paper trail:
Obviously, this is true by the definition of electronic voting. However just because there is no paper trail, does not mean that there is no electronic trail. In fact, digital trails are much longer lasting and much harder to erase then the physical version. For example, right now, I can retrieve information deleted and overwritten on my hard drive months ago. I can tell you exactly who has been to my website in the last year, what operating system, browser, and ISP they use, and which city they live in. With a warrant, the police could easily turn than into a name. Likewise, electronic and online voting systems can keep records than no one without physical access to the voting server, much more time than an election night, and very advanced expertise could alter. Yes, it is possible, but punching a few extra holes in ballots or simply “misplacing” a few thousand ballots from an opposition-party district is far easier.

E-voting systems can be hacked:
Any online computer system can be hacked -- in theory. But that hasn’t stopped banks from creating a nationwide electronic network. Even if you don’t use online banking, all your funds can be accessed remotely from any other bank or ATM machine in America. Yet despite trillions of dollars held in virtual savings accounts there has never been a case of a banking system being hacked. Yes, many people have impersonated identities to steal funds, but the 512-bit security keys the banking system uses is for all practical purposes impregnable. Compare that to picking a lock on a ballot box and punching a few extra holes in paper.

The identity of online voters can’t be confirmed:
Perhaps, but can the officials at your local election center confirm your identity? They can check your ID, but that can easily be faked. What if they’re the ones rigging the scam? Clearly, physical elections are no more secure to identity fraud than virtual ones. Compare the thick, outdated books currently used by election offices to state-wide databases that are automatically kept in sync for your latest information, and automatically scan for any anomalies or patterns better than a going through thick old books could do in a million years. Millions of digital-certificates that securely identity one’s identity to a third party are used by businesses today to conduction millions if not billions in transaction, and could surely be adapted for voting.

Lost data if the system crashes:
What is the a bank’s computer system crashes? Banks use a variety of means secure their data in case of a hardware or software failure. Transaction logging allows computer system to immediately recover lost data. “Hot” backup centers allow credit card processing centers to immediately recover from a failure without any lost data even if one of their facilities is completely vaporized. Certainly, something like this can be rigged for voting system.

Lost anonymity of voters:
Privacy is a real concern with distributed electronic systems, but one that can be effectively addressed. It is possible to “anonymize” votes immediately after they are received and the voters identity confirmed. As long as the system is designed with privacy and security in mind, this is not a major risk.

Besides the above arguments, consider that because electronic system store information digitally, in one and zeros, there can be no doubt as to which way a particular vote went. Voting results could be obtained immediately, and recounts and contested election dramas would be a thing of the past. More importantly, the largely non-voting technologically-savvy but politically apathetic generation would vote in much larger numbers. This in itself is not guaranteed to result in better politicians being elected, but more scrutiny of just who is getting elected will.