On 4 November 2004 NMK held an evening conference where an expert panel discussed and explored the issues surrounding electronic voting.

Stephen Coleman introduced the evening by posing three questions. Firstly, what problems would e-voting solve? (A disengaged electorate? An electorate that finds it inconvenient to vote by existing methods?) Secondly, what are the cultural and political implications of e-voting? Voting has been secret for more than a century – how would remote voting affect that? Do we have a culture that allows us to do away with secret voting? Thirdly, how do we measure the success of e-voting? How do we discover if it’s making a difference?

Jason Kitcat introduced the main concepts of e-voting (to which he is opposed). There are two types: polling station e-voting, and remote e-voting (via web, SMS etc). There are huge and very different technical difficulties involved in each. E-voting has been a big issue since George W Bush’s controversial success in Florida in the 2000 election.

E-voting needs to accurately record the intention of the voter. It has to be secure, private, verifiable, reliable and scalable. Arguments in favour of e-voting include saving money (which Jason argued doesn’t happen), boosting turnout (which has proven insignificant in pilot schemes), modernisation and speed of count (which is true, but there’s no obvious way of telling whether the results are accurate and honest). Arguments against include the possibility of fraud, lack of scrutiny, and the undermining of ballots being secret and free of coercion. There are also usability issues. He closed by inviting people to sign an online petition demanding voter verified e-voting.

Louise Ferguson began by discussing usability issues with paper ballots (using examples taken from cases in Michigan and London). Usability problems don’t automatically vanish with the introduction of e-voting. The technical requirements for e-voting are unique, but the design issues aren’t. Usability and accessibility are both essential. E-voting systems need to be simple and easy to use, in order to be as inclusive as possible.

There was a voting problems hotline in the recent US election. Although a minority of voters used e-voting, it was the source of the most problems. Scope research on accessibility in 2003 concluded that kiosks weren’t an improvement on other methods. With regard to web voting, Louise wondered how private it was. In a household or workplace, could voters be coerced by family members or employers?

Any e-voting system must be vigorously user-tested before deployment. While the US has a series of legal usability standards, the UK does not. Louise’s recommendation is that the UK should develop standards based on what’s been done elsewhere, in conjunction with thorough usability testing.

Nicole Smith of the Electoral Commission discussed electoral modernisation. Voter engagement and participation are the key issues. There are practical barriers to participation in the electoral process, but they don’t cause poor turnout. People don’t vote because they don’t care about politics. The European elections in the UK this year had a very high turnout, suggesting that when people feel strongly enough about something it will galvanise them into voting. New technologies should be exploited to make the voting process easier, but innovative methods must win the support of both public and politicians, and must be at least as secure as the current system.

The Electoral Commission is involved in pilot schemes to test new voting methods in a live environment, including e-voting trials. Remote e-voting channels are good for convenience, although pilot schemes showed no significant increase in turnout where they were available. A ‘road map’ is crucial – these pilot schemes were initiatives originating from local authorities. Electoral innovation needs a strategy led from the top.

Julia Glidden expressed her exasperation that the arguments against e-voting hadn’t changed for years. She claimed that vendors take criticisms and concerns on board because they care about the integrity of the democratic process. E-voting may not be perfect, but it is going to happen. It’s a process of re-engineering – we must look at the status quo and see how it can be responsibly improved. The government cannot do this alone; the public and private sectors must pool their resources.

Open-standard technology has to be developed by which any malpractice can be easily detected. Oasis is working to create a standardised system; the UK government has become a world-leader through its involvement in this process. E-voting is not a panacea, and should not be sold as such. It would be a mistake to assume that applying technology like SMS to elections will automatically increase turnout.

With regard to accessibility and usability issues, a gradual process of trial and error is the way forward, but it must be done collaboratively and sensibly. It’s important to be vigilant, but she stressed that simply repeating the same jaded anti arguments is not an effective approach.

The audience then chipped in with questions and comments. Issues raised included accessibility, and it was pointed out that traditional voting methods aren’t as secure as they are commonly held to be. Hope was expressed that e-voting might be able to prevent ballot papers being spoiled through functional innovation. Questions included how the government’s proposed identity card scheme might affect e-voting security, and why was there no paper trail in certain US e-voting systems.

The panellists then had a few minutes to respond. Jason said that ID cards could be key as voter authentication is a huge problem, although this is a politically very sensitive issue. Louise said that there should be a legal obligation for e-voting to be accessible, as it won’t happen unless vendors are forced into it. Julia agreed that the present system is flawed in terms of security. There was no paper trail in various parts of the US, she said, because of antiquated legacy systems in place in a number of states. Nicole also addressed the issue of ID cards – if they do come into being, it is imperative that the various government departments talk to each other in order to make sure that they will be compatible with e-voting systems.

Stephen closed by saying that technology should be put in place to make meaningful communication between politicians and electorate easier and livelier between elections, thereby re-engaging the people with the process of government and strengthening democracy.

About the speakers:

Stephen Coleman, Visiting Professor in e-Democracy, Oxford Internet Institute
Formerly Director of the Hansard e-democracy programme, which pioneered online consultations for the UK Parliament, and lecturer in Media and Communication at the London School of Economics and Political Science, Stephen has chaired the Independent Commission on Alternative Voting Methods. At the OII, Professor Coleman will be working on the adaptation of representative institutions in the digital age; the development of spaces for public democratic deliberation; and a global evaluation of a range of e-democracy exercises.

Jason Kitcat, University of Sussex
Jason Kitcat is a recognised e-government and e-democracy expert and consultant, regularly speaking at conferences and quoted in the media including Newsweek, The Times, The Independent, RTE Radio 1, Salon.com and The Register. He has nearly 10 years experience of working with the Internet having founded or co-founded 5 technology related companies. He holds a BSc (Hons) from the University of Warwick in Computer Science and Management Science, MSc Technology & Innovation Management from the University of Sussex and is currently researching online consultations for a doctorate at SPRU (Science & Technology Policy), University of Sussex. Jason runs the blog www.j-dom.org

Louise Ferguson, Digital Habitats
Louise Ferguson is Director of Digital Habitats, a user experience consultancy addressing the design and evaluation of new technologies. Her clients have included The Work Foundation, Sapient, the DTI, the DWP, Namahn, Ideas Bazaar and PwC. She has organised workshops and seminars on e-voting in the US and the UK, co-leads the Usability Professionals’ Association international Voting and Usability Project and has been invited to contribute her expertise on voting design to the Design Council’s Touching the State project, which researches the design of citizen-state interactions. Louise Ferguson was a research associate on iSociety, a think tank programme investigating the use of new technologies in daily life. She holds a master’s degree in human-computer interaction from the University of Sussex. Louise runs the blog CityofBits: www.louiseferguson.com/cityofbits.htm

Nicole Smith, Director of Policy, The Electoral Commission
Nicole is responsible for the Commission’s reviews of electoral law and practice, and identifying ways of encouraging more people to vote. She has written major reports for the Commission on the way that elections are run, and the future shape of elections (including the use of postal voting and electronic voting). Prior to joining the Commission, Nicole spent over 10 years in policy development and management within the Home Office, the voluntary sector and research organisations. From 1995-97, she was Senior Research Fellow and Assistant Director at the think tank, The Constitution Unit.

Julia Glidden, MD, Accenture e-Democracy Services, UK
Dr. Glidden completed her D.Phil. (Ph.D.) in international relations at Oxford University in 1995 and has extensive experience in enhancing voter participation in the election process. A recognised expert in the field of e-democracy, Dr. Glidden has been invited to participate in numerous global forums on the application of new technologies to the democratic process. Conferences and panels include: The European Commission’s IST Panel on e-Democracy, Nice, France, Conference on e-Government and Technology, Bielefeld, Germany, Democracy Online Forum on the Future of Technology and the Democratic Process, Washington, DC and Conference on e-Government and Democratic Rights, Oxford, England. Dr. Glidden has authored a case study of the use of Internet Voting in the Arizona Presidential Primary, as well as articles on the application election technology in developing democracies and the current deployment of electronic voting equipment in the United States. She participated in the National Democratic Institute’s election monitoring mission to Kyrgyzstan for the November 2000 presidential election. Before joining Accenture eDemocracy Services (formerly election.com), Julia Glidden served as a senior vice president at Fleishman-Hillard, an international communications consultancy.