This House would allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections

In many Western democracies, voter turnout has been falling while voter apathy appears to be rising. In the UK, voter turnout fell sharply between 1997-2000, and the last general election in 2010 saw only 65% of potential voters cast a vote[1]. In the USA, the federal election of 2010 saw only 37.8% of potential voters cast their vote[2]. Voter turnouts across Europe follow this trend[3]. When so few people participate in the key act of democracy – voting for the political leader of the country – it begins to raise worrying questions about the legitimacy of that democracy in the first place. If electronic or internet voting was introduced as an option alongside more traditional polling methods, it would expands the accessibility of the voting system in general. Internet or electronic voting would be a strategic practical measure. It would make voting convenient for busy modern citizens because it minimalises the amount of effort each individual has to contribute – namely, they do not have to travel to the polling stations[4]. As such, it removes physical restrictions on the voting process and becomes more universally accessible. This would prevent people from being unable to vote because they are ‘too busy’[5] – whether this is simply because their local polling station is too far away for them to commute to, or to fit in alongside their other daily responsibilities based at work or home[6][7].

[1] http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm, accessed 22/08/11

[2] http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html, accessed 22/08/11

[3] http://www.euractiv.com/en/elections/voter-turnout-european-election-lower/article-117868, accessed 22/08/11.

[4] https://files.nyu.edu/tsc223/public/ElectronicVoting.pdf, accessed 25/08/11

[5] http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/cenbr984.pdf, accessed 22/08/11

[6] In the USA: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/whynotvote.htm, accessed 22/08/11

[7] In the UK: http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/cenbr984.pdf, accessed 22/08/11

Voter apathy cannot be solely attributed to having to walk to your local polling station. It can also be attributed to general disillusionment with the campaigning political parties, and the idea that none of them will perform well in government[1]. Political parties which focus more strongly on national rather than constituency campaigning can also inspire voter apathy[2]. The problems behind voter apathy are far greater than can be solved by trying to change the practical aspect of voting; it is the fact that voters often feel neglected by their government which is a far greater concern[3].

[1] http://otago.ourarchive.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/1456/voter_turnout.pdf, accessed 24/08/11

[2] http://otago.ourarchive.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/1456/voter_turnout.pdf, accessed 24/08/11

[3] http://www.independentliaison.com.au/Independent_values.html, accessed 24/08/11

In modern, developed countries, many people spend both work and leisure time on the internet or using electronic devices[1][2][3][4]. Our traditional voting systems, with polling stations and paper slips, is out of line with how many of the population now live their lives. When we see an overwhelming number of people – especially young people[5] – voting for reality television programmes such as The X Factor[6], it demonstrates a valuable method of engagement which the political system is missing out on. This had led to sources such as the BBC darkly questioning ‘Is Big Brother really more popular than election?’[7], indicating that while the overall number of votes in the 2005 general election in the UK outweighed those cast for Big Brother and Fame Academy, the proportion of votes by young voters (18-34) could be understood to show more engagement with these television shows than with the general election[8]. In any case, it is clear that we should bring our voting systems up to date in order to engage young people and the wider population.

[1] In the UK: http://www.tnsglobal.com/news/news-6A7B1D614B284E20B26AA3A75601275B.aspx, accessed 24/08/11

[2] In Europe: http://www.netimperative.com/news/2010/march/europeans-2018spend-more-time-on-mobile-web-than, accessed 24/08/11

[3] In Asia: http://thenextweb.com/asia/2011/06/13/chinese-now-spend-41-of-their-time-online-on-social-networks-in-lieu-of-news-sites/, accessed 24/08/11

[4] In the USA: http://www.comscoredatamine.com/2011/01/average-time-spent-online-per-u-s-visitor-in-2010/, accessed 24/08/11

[5] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4586995.stm, accessed 24/08/11

[6] http://xfactor.tellymix.co.uk/news/23245-revealed-the-x-factor-2010-voting-percentages-and-detailed-results.html, accessed 24/08/11

[7] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4586995.stm, accessed 24/08/11

[8] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4586995.stm, accessed 24/08/11

Our political situation is not as dire as this point makes it seem; it is easy to manipulate statistics between voting and reality televisions by discounting the fact that many people who vote in television shows vote multiple times – often as many as ten[1]. Young people are not completely detached from the political or the non-electronic world. Many are passionate about politics and exercising their right to vote[2]. Low voter turnout is a general trend across the nation, and if young people are failing to vote then this too reflects disillusionment with government. For example, many young people who voted for the Liberal Democrats in the UK recently were shocked when he expressly went against his promise to prevent tuition fee rises[3]. Political disillusionment among young people is also a problem in the USA[4] and Europe[5]. It is the state of politics itself, rather than the literal process of voting, which deters people from full political participation.

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4586995.stm, accessed 24/08/11

[2] http://www.ukyouthparliament.org.uk/ge_website/pages/whyvote.html, accessed 24/08/11

[3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8127315/Student-tuition-fees-protests-Nick-Clegg-says-he-regrets-signing-pre-election-pledge-not-to-increase-fees.html, accessed 24/08/11

[4] http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-65182100.html, accessed 24/08/11

[5] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5045246.stm, accessed 24/08/11

Because it would not require manual counting and tallying, remote electronic voting would allow the results to be known much faster[1], and would also eliminate the potential for human error, which is a common problem with the current system[2]. For example, in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election of 2011, a clerk discovered around 14,000 unrecorded votes which had been missed by human error – and actually changed the outcome of the election[3]. The clerk is now being questioned regarding her party allegiances under suspicion that she was trying to turn the election into a victory for her favoured candidate[4] – yet another potential for abuse under the current system. Machines, of course, are impartial concerning party allegiances and so eliminate the potential for individual corruption.

[1] http://www.capc.umd.edu/rpts/Promise_and_Pitfalls_of_Electronic_Voting.pdf, accessed 24/08/11

[2] http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/votecounts.htm, accessed 24/08/11

[3] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0409/Vote-count-human-error-shadows-Wisconsin-Supreme-Court-election, accessed 24/08/11

[4] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0409/Vote-count-human-error-shadows-Wisconsin-Supreme-Court-election, accessed 24/08/11

Voting machines are far from reliable in this instance. Experts have expressed concern that ‘hackers, software bugs . . . or power outages could intentionally or accidentally erase or alter voting data’ recorded by the machines[1]. In this case, while the machines may be politically impartial, they are still subject to potential human corruption alongside the opportunity for technical faults and breakdowns. Electronic vote-counting machine errors led to almost 2 million ballots being disqualified in the 2000 USA election[2]. Electronic voting systems need a lot more work before we should even consider using them; they certainly do not solve any problems currently raised by manual counting.

[1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1101_041101_election_voting.html, accessed 24/08/11

[2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1101_041101_election_voting.html,, accessed 24/08/11

Electronic voting would also save a great deal of money which is currently spent on employing counters and renting venues to be used as polling stations. For example the UK general election in 2005 cost over £80 million to organise[1], Canada’s 2008 election cost around $300 million[2], and the USA presidential election of 2008 was estimated to cost up to $5.3 billion[3]. Electronic voting also brings the opportunity to increase access to those who currently find it difficult to register their votes; for example, electronic voting could be conducted in a minority language for those who find English difficult[4]. In the past, trials of this have been shown to improve voter turnout among minority groups[5]. Electronic voting could also benefit the elderly, as many find it difficult to use the lever-operated ballots currently in use.[6] Using electronic voting ensures that no groups are left out of an essentially democratic process.

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8497014.stm#list, accessed 24/08/11

[2] http://randsco.com/index.php/2008/10/24/p594, accessed 24/08/11

[3] http://randsco.com/index.php/2008/10/24/p594, accessed 24/08/11

[4] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000310, accessed 24/08/11

[5] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000310, accessed 24/08/11

[6] http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~mdr/teaching/modules04/security/students/SS8.pdf, accessed 24/08/11

The elderly far more frequently find electronic voting to be a hindrance rather than a help. Those who are partially sighted are unable to see the position on the text blocks on the screen; small controls such as buttons or touch screens create problems; and some cognitively impaired people may find it difficult to remember a PIN number which is used to authenticate the vote[1]. A simple paper ballot is a far more commonly-recognised and straightforward method. In terms of cost, the electronic voting machines or voting programmes would certainly cost a great deal to implement and run[2]. Ultimately, the great risk that electronic voting machines or systems will lose votes[3] outweighs the cost argument: you cannot put a price on a crucial process at the core of every democratic state.

[1] http://www.tiresias.org/research/guidelines/e_voting.htm, accessed 24/08/11

[2] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000313, accessed 24/08/11

[3] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/diebold-audit-l/, accessed 24/08/11

Our online security is improving every day; people feel safe enough to trust their most important details, such as bank details, to the internet[1] – why not their vote? Secure software and encryption protocols have allowed online markets to flourish, with companies such as PayPal inspiring a sense of security among their customers[2]. Any software for remote electronic voting could be scrutinised well in advance. It also removes the potential for identity fraud, which is a problem with current postal voting systems[3]. Each voter could be given a unique password, if necessary alongside something like a special swipe card, ensuring that everybody who is entitled to vote gets a single vote. Given that in many jurisdictions, traditional polling stations do not require voters to provide ID[4], it would arguably be a security improvement on the current situation.

[1] http://www.natwest.com/personal/online-banking/awards.ashx, accessed 24/08/11

[2] https://www.paypal.co.uk/uk, accessed 24/08/11

[3] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article521468.ece, accessed 24/08/11

[4] http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/general_election_faq.aspx, accessed 24/08/11

The most ‘secure’ of websites have been recently hacked. For example, Paypal was hacked by Lulzsec in response to the Wikileaks scandal[1]. Lulzsec also hacked the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)[2], supposedly the source of all their national intelligence and top secret information. If anything, recent events have shown us that the internet is an unstable medium for people to conduct personal or professional affairs; we certainly should not allow our voting systems to become even more vulnerable to this kind of attack. A better way to prevent identity fraud would be the simple measure of now requiring polling stations to ask for ID, rather than going to the extreme of online voting.

[1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2011/06/17/pei-lulzsec-personal-internet-accounts-584.html, accessed 24/08/11

[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8578704/CIA-website-hacked-by-Lulz-Security.html, accessed 24/08/11

In many Western democracies, voter turnout has been falling while voter apathy appears to be rising. In the UK, voter turnout fell sharply between 1997-2000, and the last general election in 2010 saw only 65% of potential voters cast a vote[1]. In the USA, the federal election of 2010 saw only 37.8% of potential voters cast their vote[2]. Voter turnouts across Europe follow this trend[3]. When so few people participate in the key act of democracy – voting for the political leader of the country – it begins to raise worrying questions about the legitimacy of that democracy in the first place. If electronic or internet voting was introduced as an option alongside more traditional polling methods, it would expands the accessibility of the voting system in general. Internet or electronic voting would be a strategic practical measure. It would make voting convenient for busy modern citizens because it minimalises the amount of effort each individual has to contribute – namely, they do not have to travel to the polling stations[4]. As such, it removes physical restrictions on the voting process and becomes more universally accessible. This would prevent people from being unable to vote because they are ‘too busy’[5] – whether this is simply because their local polling station is too far away for them to commute to, or to fit in alongside their other daily responsibilities based at work or home[6][7].

[1] http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm, accessed 22/08/11

[2] http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html, accessed 22/08/11

[3] http://www.euractiv.com/en/elections/voter-turnout-european-election-lower/article-117868, accessed 22/08/11.

[4] https://files.nyu.edu/tsc223/public/ElectronicVoting.pdf, accessed 25/08/11

[5] http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/cenbr984.pdf, accessed 22/08/11

[6] In the USA: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/whynotvote.htm, accessed 22/08/11

[7] In the UK: http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/cenbr984.pdf, accessed 22/08/11

Voter apathy cannot be solely attributed to having to walk to your local polling station. It can also be attributed to general disillusionment with the campaigning political parties, and the idea that none of them will perform well in government[1]. Political parties which focus more strongly on national rather than constituency campaigning can also inspire voter apathy[2]. The problems behind voter apathy are far greater than can be solved by trying to change the practical aspect of voting; it is the fact that voters often feel neglected by their government which is a far greater concern[3].

[1] http://otago.ourarchive.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/1456/voter_turnout.pdf, accessed 24/08/11

[2] http://otago.ourarchive.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/1456/voter_turnout.pdf, accessed 24/08/11

[3] http://www.independentliaison.com.au/Independent_values.html, accessed 24/08/11

In modern, developed countries, many people spend both work and leisure time on the internet or using electronic devices[1][2][3][4]. Our traditional voting systems, with polling stations and paper slips, is out of line with how many of the population now live their lives. When we see an overwhelming number of people – especially young people[5] – voting for reality television programmes such as The X Factor[6], it demonstrates a valuable method of engagement which the political system is missing out on. This had led to sources such as the BBC darkly questioning ‘Is Big Brother really more popular than election?’[7], indicating that while the overall number of votes in the 2005 general election in the UK outweighed those cast for Big Brother and Fame Academy, the proportion of votes by young voters (18-34) could be understood to show more engagement with these television shows than with the general election[8]. In any case, it is clear that we should bring our voting systems up to date in order to engage young people and the wider population.

[1] In the UK: http://www.tnsglobal.com/news/news-6A7B1D614B284E20B26AA3A75601275B.aspx, accessed 24/08/11

[2] In Europe: http://www.netimperative.com/news/2010/march/europeans-2018spend-more-time-on-mobile-web-than, accessed 24/08/11

[3] In Asia: http://thenextweb.com/asia/2011/06/13/chinese-now-spend-41-of-their-time-online-on-social-networks-in-lieu-of-news-sites/, accessed 24/08/11

[4] In the USA: http://www.comscoredatamine.com/2011/01/average-time-spent-online-per-u-s-visitor-in-2010/, accessed 24/08/11

[5] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4586995.stm, accessed 24/08/11

[6] http://xfactor.tellymix.co.uk/news/23245-revealed-the-x-factor-2010-voting-percentages-and-detailed-results.html, accessed 24/08/11

[7] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4586995.stm, accessed 24/08/11

[8] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4586995.stm, accessed 24/08/11

Our political situation is not as dire as this point makes it seem; it is easy to manipulate statistics between voting and reality televisions by discounting the fact that many people who vote in television shows vote multiple times – often as many as ten[1]. Young people are not completely detached from the political or the non-electronic world. Many are passionate about politics and exercising their right to vote[2]. Low voter turnout is a general trend across the nation, and if young people are failing to vote then this too reflects disillusionment with government. For example, many young people who voted for the Liberal Democrats in the UK recently were shocked when he expressly went against his promise to prevent tuition fee rises[3]. Political disillusionment among young people is also a problem in the USA[4] and Europe[5]. It is the state of politics itself, rather than the literal process of voting, which deters people from full political participation.

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4586995.stm, accessed 24/08/11

[2] http://www.ukyouthparliament.org.uk/ge_website/pages/whyvote.html, accessed 24/08/11

[3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8127315/Student-tuition-fees-protests-Nick-Clegg-says-he-regrets-signing-pre-election-pledge-not-to-increase-fees.html, accessed 24/08/11

[4] http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-65182100.html, accessed 24/08/11

[5] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5045246.stm, accessed 24/08/11

Because it would not require manual counting and tallying, remote electronic voting would allow the results to be known much faster[1], and would also eliminate the potential for human error, which is a common problem with the current system[2]. For example, in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election of 2011, a clerk discovered around 14,000 unrecorded votes which had been missed by human error – and actually changed the outcome of the election[3]. The clerk is now being questioned regarding her party allegiances under suspicion that she was trying to turn the election into a victory for her favoured candidate[4] – yet another potential for abuse under the current system. Machines, of course, are impartial concerning party allegiances and so eliminate the potential for individual corruption.

[1] http://www.capc.umd.edu/rpts/Promise_and_Pitfalls_of_Electronic_Voting.pdf, accessed 24/08/11

[2] http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/votecounts.htm, accessed 24/08/11

[3] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0409/Vote-count-human-error-shadows-Wisconsin-Supreme-Court-election, accessed 24/08/11

[4] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0409/Vote-count-human-error-shadows-Wisconsin-Supreme-Court-election, accessed 24/08/11

Voting machines are far from reliable in this instance. Experts have expressed concern that ‘hackers, software bugs . . . or power outages could intentionally or accidentally erase or alter voting data’ recorded by the machines[1]. In this case, while the machines may be politically impartial, they are still subject to potential human corruption alongside the opportunity for technical faults and breakdowns. Electronic vote-counting machine errors led to almost 2 million ballots being disqualified in the 2000 USA election[2]. Electronic voting systems need a lot more work before we should even consider using them; they certainly do not solve any problems currently raised by manual counting.

[1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1101_041101_election_voting.html, accessed 24/08/11

[2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1101_041101_election_voting.html,, accessed 24/08/11

Electronic voting would also save a great deal of money which is currently spent on employing counters and renting venues to be used as polling stations. For example the UK general election in 2005 cost over £80 million to organise[1], Canada’s 2008 election cost around $300 million[2], and the USA presidential election of 2008 was estimated to cost up to $5.3 billion[3]. Electronic voting also brings the opportunity to increase access to those who currently find it difficult to register their votes; for example, electronic voting could be conducted in a minority language for those who find English difficult[4]. In the past, trials of this have been shown to improve voter turnout among minority groups[5]. Electronic voting could also benefit the elderly, as many find it difficult to use the lever-operated ballots currently in use.[6] Using electronic voting ensures that no groups are left out of an essentially democratic process.

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8497014.stm#list, accessed 24/08/11

[2] http://randsco.com/index.php/2008/10/24/p594, accessed 24/08/11

[3] http://randsco.com/index.php/2008/10/24/p594, accessed 24/08/11

[4] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000310, accessed 24/08/11

[5] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000310, accessed 24/08/11

[6] http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~mdr/teaching/modules04/security/students/SS8.pdf, accessed 24/08/11

The elderly far more frequently find electronic voting to be a hindrance rather than a help. Those who are partially sighted are unable to see the position on the text blocks on the screen; small controls such as buttons or touch screens create problems; and some cognitively impaired people may find it difficult to remember a PIN number which is used to authenticate the vote[1]. A simple paper ballot is a far more commonly-recognised and straightforward method. In terms of cost, the electronic voting machines or voting programmes would certainly cost a great deal to implement and run[2]. Ultimately, the great risk that electronic voting machines or systems will lose votes[3] outweighs the cost argument: you cannot put a price on a crucial process at the core of every democratic state.

[1] http://www.tiresias.org/research/guidelines/e_voting.htm, accessed 24/08/11

[2] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000313, accessed 24/08/11

[3] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/diebold-audit-l/, accessed 24/08/11

Our online security is improving every day; people feel safe enough to trust their most important details, such as bank details, to the internet[1] – why not their vote? Secure software and encryption protocols have allowed online markets to flourish, with companies such as PayPal inspiring a sense of security among their customers[2]. Any software for remote electronic voting could be scrutinised well in advance. It also removes the potential for identity fraud, which is a problem with current postal voting systems[3]. Each voter could be given a unique password, if necessary alongside something like a special swipe card, ensuring that everybody who is entitled to vote gets a single vote. Given that in many jurisdictions, traditional polling stations do not require voters to provide ID[4], it would arguably be a security improvement on the current situation.

[1] http://www.natwest.com/personal/online-banking/awards.ashx, accessed 24/08/11

[2] https://www.paypal.co.uk/uk, accessed 24/08/11

[3] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article521468.ece, accessed 24/08/11

[4] http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/general_election_faq.aspx, accessed 24/08/11

The most ‘secure’ of websites have been recently hacked. For example, Paypal was hacked by Lulzsec in response to the Wikileaks scandal[1]. Lulzsec also hacked the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)[2], supposedly the source of all their national intelligence and top secret information. If anything, recent events have shown us that the internet is an unstable medium for people to conduct personal or professional affairs; we certainly should not allow our voting systems to become even more vulnerable to this kind of attack. A better way to prevent identity fraud would be the simple measure of now requiring polling stations to ask for ID, rather than going to the extreme of online voting.

[1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2011/06/17/pei-lulzsec-personal-internet-accounts-584.html, accessed 24/08/11

[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8578704/CIA-website-hacked-by-Lulz-Security.html, accessed 24/08/11

No networked commuter system is immune to attack or subversion. By their very nature, electronic voting systems must be inter connected and in continuous communication with one another. As a consequence, the devices and methods used to gather votes can also serve as access points to the larger network of vote gathering and counting systems. The most ‘secure’ of websites have been recently hacked. For example, Paypal was hacked by Lulzsec in response to the Wikileaks scandal[1]. Lulzsec also hacked the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)[2], supposedly the source of all their national intelligence and top secret information. If anything, recent events have shown us that the internet is an unstable medium for people to conduct personal or professional affairs; we certainly should not allow our voting systems to become even more vulnerable to this kind of attack. A better way to prevent identity fraud would be the simple measure of now requiring polling stations to ask for ID, rather than going to the extreme of online voting.

[1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2011/06/17/pei-lulzsec-personal-internet-accounts-584.html, accessed 24/08/11

[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8578704/CIA-website-hacked-by-Lulz-Security.html, accessed 24/08/11

Our understanding of online security is improving every day; people feel safe enough to trust their most important details, such as bank details, to the internet[1] – why not their vote? Secure software and encryption protocols have allowed online markets to flourish, with companies such as PayPal inspiring a sense of security among their customers[2]. Any software for remote electronic voting could be scrutinised well in advance. It also removes the potential for identity fraud, which is a problem with current postal voting systems[3]. Each voter could be given a unique password, if necessary alongside something like a special swipe card, ensuring that everybody who is entitled to vote gets a single vote. Given that in many jurisdictions, traditional polling stations do not require voters to provide ID[4], it would arguably be a security improvement on the current situation.

[1] http://www.natwest.com/personal/online-banking/awards.ashx, accessed 24/08/11

[2] https://www.paypal.co.uk/uk, accessed 24/08/11

[3] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article521468.ece, accessed 24/08/11

[4] http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/general_election_faq.aspx, accessed 24/08/11

The numerous faults experienced in trials and small-scale use of electronic voting[1][2] shows that this system is not yet ready for wide use in elections, and gives no indication that it ever will be. The argument that they can provide a faster vote-count is negated by the fact that in many cases they aren’t counting all the votes, but instead missing some out[3]. If the results cannot be trusted, there is no merit in implementing an electronic vote. Furthermore, this motion neglects those who do not have access to electronic systems or the internet; they may end up being disenfranchised if voting went online. This is particularly pertinent for senior citizens who lack the skills to ‘find, retrieve and evaluate’ information found electronically[4]. It is also a disadvantage for those who with a limited income and education, who are ‘most likely to not use the internet or even understand how to use a computer’[5]. 37% of low-income households do not regularly use the internet[6]; this motion would create a two-tier system where already under-represented groups are allowed to fall behind the rest of society. Even public libraries and state-provided resources are suffering cuts under the economic depression[7], which further reduces access for those from poorer backgrounds. This allows real issues of discrimination and alienation to rise.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/04/electronic-voting-machine_n_141119.html, accessed 24/08/11

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html, accessed 24/08/11

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html, accessed 24/08/11

[4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1550650/, accessed 24/08/11

[5] http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/disconnected-disenfranchised-and-poor-addressing-digital-inequality-in-america/, accessed 24/08/11

[6] http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/disconnected-disenfranchised-and-poor-addressing-digital-inequality-in-america/, accessed 24/08/11

[7] http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/disconnected-disenfranchised-and-poor-addressing-digital-inequality-in-america/, accessed 24/08/11

Computer literacy is constantly on the rise[1][2]. In state-run secondary schools, children are provided with information and technology classes which helps to bridge any existing divide[3], and there are discussions about extending these lessons to primary schools. Easily-accessible community classes are also available to seniors[4][5]. Moreover, given the opportunity to save money through electronic voting rather than having to pay for polling station venues, manual vote counters and so on, this money could easily be redirected to provide computer lessons for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, or to funnel into state libraries and public computer resources. This mechanism is a much more efficient way of making sure that everybody is able to participate.

[1] Children in the UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/5223192.stm, accessed 24/08/11

[2] In the USA: http://computerliteracyusa.web.officelive.com/default.aspx

[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7770469.stm, accessed 24/08/11

[4] Across the USA: http://pittsburgh.about.com/od/computer_classes/Computer_Training_Classes_User_Groups.htm, accessed 24/08/11

[5] In the UK: http://www.ageuk.org.uk/work-and-learning/, accessed 24/08/11

The need to travel to a polling station might be a minor consideration, but growing disillusionment with the political system in general is a far bigger cause of voter apathy. Young people in particular believe that their vote will not make a difference[1], or are confused over politician’s aims[2] and intentions. Others do not believe that a change in government necessarily means a change in real life situations[3], or state that they do not feel as if they know enough about politics to make a decision[4]. Some have even stated that they are embarrassed and patronised by politicians’ eagerness over using the internet to ‘harness’ the votes of young people[5]. Using the internet to portray party policies does not necessarily tackle the problems with the policies themselves. It is politics more generally, rather than the practical system of voting, which is seen as inaccessible.

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/06/general-election-2010-young-voices, accessed 24/08/11

[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/06/general-election-2010-young-voices, accessed 24/08/11

[3] http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/06/general-election-2010-young-voices, accessed 24/08/11

[4] http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/06/general-election-2010-young-voices, accessed 24/08/11

[5] http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/06/general-election-2010-young-voices, accessed 24/08/11

It is impossible to tackle potential problems in party politics without an input from the electorate. Young people may have the opinion that politics itself is inaccessible, but this will never change if they refuse or fail to vote. A democratic government can only ever be truly representative when everybody casts their vote. At least this mechanism is an attempt to reach those young people – and in cases where they say they do not know enough about politics, to try a different medium of teaching. Ultimately, those who have no intention of voting will continue to refuse. However, this is at least a step towards educating and enabling those who do wish to vote, but perhaps do not currently feel well-equipped enough to do so.

If it worked, online voting could allow more use of direct democracy methods. However, direct democracy is not in itself a better system, and still contains many dangers. Snap online polls could easily express an opinion which has not been properly thought through; the current voting system is more likely to result in considered voting as citizens have to make the effort to get to the polling stations in the first place. Furthermore, a low turnout or insecure systems could allow motivated minorities to use frequent online ballots in order to impose their will on the majority. The very ease of online voting could actually result in worse policy than under the status quo.

At what stage do we deem that an individual has considered their vote enough to cast it? Would we stop less-educated people from voting at all in case they hadn’t fully considered it? This argument goes completely against any democratic principle which values everybody’s vote as equal, and denounces the idea that one person’s vote is worth more than another’s. Even if a low turnout means that a minority can impact more on society, this is still legitimate – as long as everybody has the opportunity to vote. If the majority choose not to voice their concerns in online elections, then they lose the right to complain about the outcome. Many general or presidential elections have had a low turnout[1][2], but we still see them as legitimate. If we did not, nobody would ever be elected and progress could never occur.

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/may/06/general-election-2010-turnout-since-1945, accessed 24/08/11

[2] http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html, accessed 24/08/11

If voting were conducted electronically, we would have no guarantee that an individual’s vote was privately and freely made. Instead, voting becomes open to manipulation where the head of the household, or another figure, may cast votes for others to try and ensure their preferred outcome. Indeed, under the status quo there are still instances of organised corruption where votes are sold or bullied out of people[1][2], despite the fact that this was the exact reason that the secret ballot was originally introduced[3]. Electronic voting would just take corruption further out of our hands by hiding it from public view; this would be detrimental to democratic process.

[1] http://www.usip.org/files/MC1/MC1-Part2Section15.pdf, accessed 24/08/11

[2] www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03667.pdf , accessed 24/08/11

[3] http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8ujf3YM9AfwC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=secret+ballot+prevent+corruption&source=bl&ots=6Z5cAyLtLe&sig=-yPKNj6ikiTouVLKSthPmYbBtEA&hl=en&ei=mj9VTufACMeKhQehwJWkBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=secret%20ballot%20prevent%20corruption&f=false, accessed 24/08/11

At what stage do we deem that an individual has considered their vote enough to cast it? Would we stop less-educated people from voting at all in case they hadn’t fully considered it? This argument goes completely against any democratic principle which values everybody’s vote as equal, and denounces the idea that one person’s vote is worth more than another’s. Even if a low turnout means that a minority can impact more on society, this is still legitimate – as long as everybody has the opportunity to vote. If the majority choose not to voice their concerns in online elections, then they lose the right to complain about the outcome. Many general or presidential elections have had a low turnout[1][2], but we still see them as legitimate. If we did not, nobody would ever be elected and progress could never occur.

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/may/06/general-election-2010-turnout-since-1945, accessed 24/08/11

[2] http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html, accessed 24/08/11